# Being Watchful against False Teachings: A Survey



## cmartin

I am sitting in on a class geared toward the preparation of men for office in the church. We are going through Strauch's excellent book "Biblical Eldership" and meeting weekly to discuss what we are learning in our readings. This week, while progressing through the accompanying workbook, we came upon a discussion question prompting each man to propose as short list of contemporary 'false teachings' to which the local flock might be particularly susceptible. 

In that vein, I wanted to conduct an informal survey among you all in order to gain a more comprehensive perspective regarding contemporary false teachings. I would also be interested in any distinction of or degrees in susceptibility that you might assess with respects to more broadly evangelical churches versus confessional, reformed churches--and both in an American and/or Western context.

What say ye?

Thanks in advance for your responses!


----------



## SolaScriptura

Incidentally, while not addressing or labeling specific contemporary false teachings, on my blog I just completed a 3 part series in which I discuss the dangers of as well as approaches and methods false teachers commonly employ in their quest to outwit and deceive...


----------



## Miss Marple

Two kingdoms theology. (just within the church. Not within unbelievers I've tried to witness to).

Pantheism, or, all religions are alike. All roads lead to heaven.

If you are good enough, you will go to heaven (works salvation).

Higher criticism (the Bible is not to be taken seriously, but can be re-worded to fit the readers' preferences).

The Bible is not the word of God, but of men.

...These are the things I run into, mostly.


----------



## irresistible_grace

I would *NOT* include Two Kingdoms Theology as false teaching. 

There is nothing new under the sun...
Most of the contemporary "false teachings" are old heresies with new names.


----------



## SolaScriptura

I think we need to be more careful about what is properly referred to as a "false teaching."


----------



## irresistible_grace

AntiTrinitarianism (Jesus Only movement)
Antinomianism (Once saved always saved - live like a devil)
Semipelagianism (Free will rather than a freed will)
Christian Zionism (Dispensationalism)
Modernism & Liberalism
Anabaptist Separatism


----------



## Miss Marple

I apologize if I mislabeled "Two Kingdoms."

I don't know enough about it to label it properly.

I understand it to teach that God's law is for the church only, and does not inform civil society in any way.

If I am incorrect I'd appreciate being set straight.


----------



## earl40

Miss Marple said:


> I apologize if I mislabeled "Two Kingdoms."
> 
> I don't know enough about it to label it properly.
> 
> I understand it to teach that God's law is for the church only, and does not inform civil society in any way.
> 
> If I am incorrect I'd appreciate being set straight.



Though I am not conversant with "Two Kingdom" thought, or what exactly it is, I think God and His law is not for the church alone. His law, when applied correctly, to those outside the church does restrain evil.


----------



## Zach

I think before anyone can answer this effectively one has to be able to distinguish between teaching that is fale and false teaching. Regardless of where one stands on 2K theology, we shouldn't be lumping it in with pantheism.


----------



## cmartin

SolaScriptura said:


> Incidentally, while not addressing or labeling specific contemporary false teachings, on my blog I just completed a 3 part series in which I discuss the dangers of as well as approaches and methods false teachers commonly employ in their quest to outwit and deceive...



Sounds like these blog posts would be very applicable to the current subject. Is this a public blog? Do you care to share the address?


----------



## cmartin

irresistible_grace said:


> AntiTrinitarianism (Jesus Only movement)
> Antinomianism (Once saved always saved - live like a devil)
> Semipelagianism (Free will rather than a freed will)
> Christian Zionism (Dispensationalism)
> Modernism & Liberalism
> Anabaptist Separatism



You make a great point; many contemporary false teachings are likely to be old heresies adapted to new circumstances. I like how you have suggested some of these connections in your response. Thanks!


----------



## cmartin

Zach said:


> I think before anyone can answer this effectively one has to be able to distinguish between teaching that is fale and false teaching.



Interesting point. What would you propose is the substantive difference between teaching what is false and false teaching? Intent?


----------



## cmartin

Miss Marple said:


> Two kingdoms theology. (just within the church. Not within unbelievers I've tried to witness to).





irresistible_grace said:


> I would *NOT* include Two Kingdoms Theology as false teaching.





> I think we need to be more careful about what is properly referred to as a "false teaching."





> Regardless of where one stands on 2K theology, we shouldn't be lumping it in with pantheism.



I was curious as to whether 2K theology would come up or not... A meaningful discussion of the topic is undoubtedly one for another thread. Nonetheless, the broader issue that 2K theology or its alternatives address is quite an urgent one for Christians with a genuine love for their neighbor. 

Each of these alternatives seeks to develop a doctrinal scheme with valid scriptural warrant that correctly balances the scope of and proper relationship between two aspects of our obedience in Christ: to love, worship and serve the living God (on the one hand) and to love our neighbor as Christians in our varied cultural callings, being in the world, yet not of it (on the other). Connected to the idea of vocation, 2K theology also makes important distinctions regarding the nature and mission of the church; in addition, it makes connections between our vocations and eschatology, seeking to put the former in its proper context relative to the latter.

I've not quite come down on one side or the other on the whole two kingdoms issue. But from what I have read the 30,000-ft view is something like this:
1) Christ is Lord over the sum total of all His creation (as the 2d person of the Trinity)
2) However His rule over that creation falls into two interacting but distinct jurisdictions.
i) Christ relates to 'Common Kingdom' as Creator; reigns over all men through Creation and Providence; exemplified in the Noahic covenant
ii) Christ relates to the 'Redemptive Kingdom' as Redeemer; reigns over the elect by his Word and Spirit; outworking of the Covenant of Grace
3) Our cultural activities (vocations) may be good, God-honoring and provide real, temporal blessings to our neighbors, yet they are not ultimate and are not to be conflated with the redemptive work of "the Kingdom". 

So far as applying "the Law" to contemporary civil jurisprudence is concerned, I think that the 2K folks are in line with the Westminster standards:

WCF, XIX, IV: To them also, as a body politic, He gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the State of that people; not obliging under any now, further than the general equity thereof may require.

I read 'general equity' here as meaning laws which enact the general principle contained in those various OT laws insofar as they were required in obedience to the moral law or as they were otherwise needful or helpful to one's neighbor.

As a final note, I have read Dr. VanDrunen's book, "Living in God's Two Kingdoms," and I highly recommend it for anyone hoping to get an idea of what 2K theology is about. In fact, the chapter on the Lord's Day is alone worth the price of the book. If you don't like what I've written above, please don't discount the book on my account, as I'm giving my own take on what I remember (and I have an awful memory; just ask my wife).


----------



## Zach

cmartin said:


> Zach said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think before anyone can answer this effectively one has to be able to distinguish between teaching that is fale and false teaching.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting point. What would you propose is the substantive difference between teaching what is false and false teaching? Intent?
Click to expand...


No, I don't think the difference is intent. There are well intentioned false teachers. I think it's degree from the truth of the gospel. As paedobaptists, we affirm that the Bible teachings that infants of believing parents should receive the external sign of the covenant. We believe our Baptist brothers are teaching that which is false. They are *not* false teachers because they affirm the truth of the gospel.


----------



## jwithnell

To the OP, reformed churches are facing false teaching regarding sanctification, as seen in federal vision, and questions surrounding the historicity of Adam. Whether or not a particular congregation is susceptible to these or other teachings would require a personal knowledge of the membership. Interesting question, though. If you are assessing such a vulnerability, it's less likely to occur, especially if additional teaching can be used to intervene.


----------



## Pergamum

The cultural captivity of missions (hyper-contextualization - especially among missions to muslims) is a huge theological error nowadays.


----------



## Zach

Great last two posts. I do think the greatest errors facing the church lie in the controversies around FV and the "Insider Movement" in Missions. Both of these are examples where the gospel is being distorted and lost.


----------



## KSon

I am dealing with a man that is caught up in the Hebrew Roots Movement heresy. It is basically a "Oneness" theology (Modalism), that gives preeminence to Hebrew translation of the NT; and in many place transliteration is substituted for translation. Like much cultic false-teaching, relies on "new discoveries", such as supposedly recent Ezekiel scroll finds which "teach us" that we have been mispronouncing the name of God, and therefore misunderstanding the essence of His nature, which, according to this heresy, is oneness and the manifestation of the essence is modal. This false teaching will completely deny that the NT was written originally in Greek. With this particular fellow, after much proclamation of the truth to him last night, it's not hard to see that the demon is in deep.


----------



## Rich Koster

The New Apostolic Reformation should be warned about. They champion the cultural missionary stuff Pergamum mentioned, YWAM, along with defective prayer techniques and false prophesies. There are a host of other problems, but these are the ones that have polluted mainstream evangelical congregations recently.


----------



## chuckd

Keswick and the Higher Life movement. I think this is deeply rooted in evangelicalism and elders should be watchful of those coming from that background.

The largest church in the U.S. teaches the prosperity gospel and it is largely being exported to Africa.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

cmartin said:


> I was curious as to whether 2K theology would come up or not... A meaningful discussion of the topic is undoubtedly one for another thread. Nonetheless, the broader issue that 2K theology or its alternatives address is quite an urgent one for Christians with a genuine love for their neighbor.



I would classify Modern Reformed (not Reformed) Two Kingdom Theology and Natural Law as antinomian. So we could classify it as false teaching and dangerous if you ask me. The other end of the spectrum would be Neo-nomism and the Federal Vision. All of these have to do with some distortion of Christology and Covenant.


----------



## Zach

PuritanCovenanter said:


> cmartin said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was curious as to whether 2K theology would come up or not... A meaningful discussion of the topic is undoubtedly one for another thread. Nonetheless, the broader issue that 2K theology or its alternatives address is quite an urgent one for Christians with a genuine love for their neighbor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I would classify Modern Reformed (not Reformed) Two Kingdom Theology and Natural Law as antinomian. * So we could classify it as false teaching and dangerous if you ask me. The other end of the spectrum would be Neo-nomism and the Federal Vision. All of these have to do with some distortion of Christology and Covenant.
Click to expand...


If I may, that's a little bit uncharitable, Randy. If I understand it correctly (and I very well might not!) 2K Theology says that it is not the duty of the State to uphold God's law. I haven't heard them say that God's law does not apply to the Christian.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Zach said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cmartin said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was curious as to whether 2K theology would come up or not... A meaningful discussion of the topic is undoubtedly one for another thread. Nonetheless, the broader issue that 2K theology or its alternatives address is quite an urgent one for Christians with a genuine love for their neighbor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would classify Modern Reformed (not Reformed) Two Kingdom Theology and Natural Law as antinomian. So we could classify it as false teaching and dangerous if you ask me. The other end of the spectrum would be Neo-nomism and the Federal Vision. All of these have to do with some distortion of Christology and Covenant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If I may, that's a little bit uncharitable, Randy. If I understand it correctly (and I very well might not!) 2K Theology says that it is not the duty of the State to uphold God's law. I haven't heard them say that God's law does not apply to the Christian.
Click to expand...




And you are telling me that that is not antinomian? I am not trying to be uncharitable at all. Just clarifying. What you have stated is certainly not biblical nor confessional. And it is against the Law of God. Both the state and the Church are to uphold the Law of God. It demeans the importance of it in Society and suppresses it. Your conclusion is just what is dangerous for society and the Church. Antinomianism is uncharitable because it hides God's Law and His Kingship over his creation.


----------



## Miss Marple

Antinominanism also really assaults the most vulnerable in our society. Death and suffering ensue. God's law is a protection for the believer and the unbeliever. When withheld, agony follows.

The opposite of loving our neighbor as ourselves. False teaching? I am leaning towards, "yes."


----------



## Zach

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Zach said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cmartin said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was curious as to whether 2K theology would come up or not... A meaningful discussion of the topic is undoubtedly one for another thread. Nonetheless, the broader issue that 2K theology or its alternatives address is quite an urgent one for Christians with a genuine love for their neighbor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would classify Modern Reformed (not Reformed) Two Kingdom Theology and Natural Law as antinomian. So we could classify it as false teaching and dangerous if you ask me. The other end of the spectrum would be Neo-nomism and the Federal Vision. All of these have to do with some distortion of Christology and Covenant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If I may, that's a little bit uncharitable, Randy. If I understand it correctly (and I very well might not!) 2K Theology says that it is not the duty of the State to uphold God's law. I haven't heard them say that God's law does not apply to the Christian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you are telling me that that is not antinomian? I am not trying to be uncharitable at all. Just clarifying. What you have stated is certainly not biblical nor confessional. And it is against the Law of God. Both the state and the Church are to uphold the Law of God. It demeans the importance of it in Society and suppresses it. Your conclusion is just what is dangerous for society and the Church. Antinomianism is uncharitable because it hides God's Law and His Kingship over his creation.
Click to expand...


Our brothers who profess Two Kingdoms theology affirm the third use of the law for Christians. They do not believe the law has no use under the New Covenant which is what antinomianism is. Rather, they believe that it is not the duty of the State to enforce the moral law. There is a big difference between the two.


----------



## irresistible_grace

Two Kingdoms (WSC flavor) believe it is not the duty of the state to enforce THE FIRST TABLE OF THE LAW. That is not lawlessness/antinomianism.

[Might I add]

Two Kingdoms (Modern Reformation)
... is quick to emphasize the means of grace (preaching, sacraments, church discipline)
... helps avoid the dangers of Federal Vision, theonomy & utopian idealism
... emphasizes that the Christians that make up the invisible church can do and should do amazing things in the "Kingdom of man" but the church as visible church should be preoccupied with getting the gospel right so that the invisible church is properly equipped to be world changers for Christ! 
... helps avoid turning the visible church into a Thomas Road Baptist Church that its more concerned about the Moral Majority than it is about the Triune God of Scripture & His Redemptive History (which goes back to the first emphasis about the means of grace & third emphasis about getting the gospel right)
... does an amazing job of taking seriously the already and not-yet of the kingdom
(These are just a few of the reasons why I would consider Two Kingdoms neither a false teaching nor antinomian)


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Are you 100% positive. Just because the name Westminster is on the door doesn't mean they are Westminsterian. We can discuss that if you would like.


----------



## irresistible_grace

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Are you 100% positive. Just because the name Westminster is on the door doesn't mean they are Westminsterian. We can discuss that if you would like.



I am not 100% positive about anything other than the fact that I am a wretched sinner who deserves eternal damnation but by the grace of God and the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit I was given faith to believe in Christ alone for my salvation and His righteousness has been imputed to me apart from which I would not be justified and would get what I deserve (that is death & hell forever).


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

irresistible_grace said:


> Two Kingdoms (WSC flavor) believe it is not the duty of the state to enforce THE FIRST TABLE OF THE LAW. That is not lawlessness/antinomianism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Might I add]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Kingdoms (Modern Reformation)
> ... is quick to emphasize the means of grace (preaching, sacraments, church discipline)
> ... helps avoid the dangers of Federal Vision, theonomy & utopian idealism
> ... emphasizes that the Christians that make up the invisible church can do and should do amazing things in the "Kingdom of man" but the church as visible church should be preoccupied with getting the gospel right so that the invisible church is properly equipped to be world changers for Christ!
> ... helps avoid turning the visible church into a Thomas Road Baptist Church that its more concerned about the Moral Majority than it is about the Triune God of Scripture & His Redemptive History (which goes back to the first emphasis about the means of grace & third emphasis about getting the gospel right)
> ... does an amazing job of taking seriously the already and not-yet of the kingdom
> (These are just a few of the reasons why I would consider Two Kingdoms neither a false teaching nor antinomian)












irresistible_grace said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you 100% positive. Just because the name Westminster is on the door doesn't mean they are Westminsterian. We can discuss that if you would like.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not 100% positive about anything other than the fact that I am a wretched sinner who deserves eternal damnation but by the grace of God and the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit I was given faith to believe in Christ alone for my salvation and His righteousness has been imputed to me apart from which I would not be justified and would get what I deserve (that is death & hell forever).
Click to expand...

I am glad you have the assurance you have based upon the scriptures. That is most wonderful. But I am going to touch on some celebrities here so please don't be offended. It isn't about them as much as it is about what they are teaching. And I am not 100% sure either but I do have more conviction about being correct on these matters in the last few years of my life. 


First off, I agree with what you state when you write Two Kingdom *Modern Reformation. It is Modern.
*
1. One must first have a decent definition of grace in order to understand what it does and what happens by its means. I have questioned a lot of Modern Grace Theology. It lacks much. 


2. I have seen some Modern Reformed Thought's views concerning the Mosaic Covenant lead people to search for a better understanding. I would say that Klineanism or MRT has lead some to question and find other alternatives as a pendulum swings. That is a shame. Seeing problems with the theology they went to the wrong place to find solutions and ended up with Theonomy and other things like Monocovenantalism. Their dichotomizing law and grace so poorly and not just showing the biblical distinctions has led many to flee from one end of the spectrum to the other. In fact that is kind of what Dr. Richard Phillips stated when he noted how corrections swing from extreme to extreme. Which kind of leads to the next point....


3. They aren't getting the gospel right in my estimation. (What is the Gospel?) Depraved Christianity might be Antinomian Christianity pt. 3 « RPCNA Covenanter




> Horton notes…
> 
> 
> The term “gospel” is a very precise term, a particular kind of word, or kind of speech in the Bible. It refers to God’s promise of salvation in Christ. The gospel is a victory announcement. It never tells us something to do. That is the business of the law. Rather, the gospel tells us something that has been done.
> 
> 
> Consequently, those who speak of living the gospel or doing the gospel commit a category mistake. More importantly, they make the most basic theological mistake a person could make, namely, confuse the law and the gospel. And if we confuse the law and the gospel, then we will make ourselves partly your own saviors, adding to the work of Christ.
> Is Horton Correct? …. As a Pastor aquaintance has noted….
> 
> 
> The most serious problem is that Horton’s indictment is based upon a shaky foundation. Horton’s critique is predicated upon his narrow and strict definition of the term “gospel.” But is that the only way the Bible uses or defines the term “gospel”? The answer is no! Romans 2:16 connects the future judgment with the gospel and 2 Thess. 1:8 and 1 Pet. 4:17 both speak of obeying the gospel. The gospel is to be obeyed. But how do you obey a victory announcement? How do you obey what God has done? So either the Bible itself confuses law and gospel or it uses the word “gospel” differently (at times) than Horton. Since the latter must be true, then Horton shouldn’t make the strict definition of the gospel, the one and only definition of the gospel. And he most certainly shouldn’t make any charges of legalism towards those who use a broader yet biblical definition of the gospel.
> 
> 
> Fyi, the note on 2 Thess. 1:8 in the Reformation Study Bible is as follows:
> 
> 
> § 1:8 obey the gospel. The gospel must be accepted, believed, and obeyed (1 Pet. 4:17). Its divine command is for absolute surrender to God through the peace made by Jesus Christ.


4. Is just a strawman argument. Sure people get off balance but the point that a non Confessional unbalanced Anabaptist Church got all messed up is no surprise. It was just a Church seeing a problem and probably finding carnal remedies to the problem. I don't know enough about it. Do you know much about what happened at Liberty Baptist Church and if they ever became something that was truly a bad thing? I have been around a while. I am seeing more Damage by subtle denial of God's authority than I was from Liberty Baptist. 


5. I am not sure that they do that great of a job realizing the Kingdom of God as a now and not yet. In fact the now thing is removing his authority from where it belongs in the civil realm. They seek to have a law without a foundation in the civil realm. The second table of the decalogue makes no sense without the first. They are divorcing God from Society and are making a big mistake.


----------



## cmartin

Thanks everyone for some really interesting and insightful inputs so far. You have brought some issues to my attention of which I was previously unaware. Thanks again!


----------



## Jackie Kaulitz

Thank you to Randy for your detailed analysis of Modern Grace Theology and 2 Kingdoms Theology. I have highlighted what you wrote and saved it to reference back to often as I seek to understand these two teachings and determine if they are true or in error. I REALLY appreciate you stepping out and trying to show what you see to be error because it is very easy to hear these two teachings and believe them to be truth at first glace because they sound really good/true. As one considering attending Westminster CA and as a reader/listener of Horton, much of what he says sounds so appealing to my antinomian-ish ears but critiques like yours help me keep watch for error. Perhaps Horton isn't teaching antinomianism as much as I'm reading antinomianism into his teachings?

The thing that scares me is that as much as I've like and learned from Dr. Horton, if these two teachings are indeed false, then almost everything I read/listen to is misleading me. 

Ahhh! What's the truth? I hope someone way smarter than me can shed some light on this.


----------



## Rangerus

The prosperity gospel is by far In my humble opinion one of the worst false teachings in today's world. 



[video=youtube;jLRue4nwJaA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLRue4nwJaA&feature=youtu.be[/video]


----------



## cmartin

> The thing that scares me is that as much as I've like and learned from Dr. Horton, if these two teachings are indeed false, then almost everything I read/listen to is misleading me.




I have enjoyed Dr. Horton's teachings for several years now and have benefited greatly in my walk with Christ on account of it. But I'm not totally convinced by some of the critiques offered above...

It seems to me that some of these comments regarding Dr. Horton and his colleagues both at WSC and WHI/MR have been too prejudicial. The term "antinomianism" teaches that Christians are in no way obliged to obedience to the moral law. Such charges have been slung around far too carelessly since the time of the Reformation and historically by those outside of the Reformed tradition who almost seem to be taking great care to misunderstand the Reformed formula for relating the doctrines of justification by faith alone and the subsequent work of sanctification--in both acts of God's grace the Spirit uses the Law according to several important functions. Also, as an expression of God's impeccable moral character and the rule governing the obedience of all men, the moral Law has the function of curbing and restraining evil in the world when enacted and enforced in civil law (according the general equity thereof as determined from the moral law, WCF 19.4,5) and also serves to expose human sinfulness. Do these men repudiate these things? Can someone please produce some evidence that these men actually deny the Law its proper place in the faith and practice of the Christian life?

It is my assessment that the charge of "antinomianism" against these men is not warranted. What I sense from some of these posts, is that some of you seem to be concerned that these men are distorting the gospel and further that you are annoyed with their method of relating "the Law of God" to the civil realm. The first concern, I simply just don't see. If what these men taught was truly a distortion of the gospel, then one ought to correct their teaching, speaking the truth in love. With respect to the second concern, I'd say there's much room for a charitable debate, but again it goes too far, in my judgment, to label these men "Antinomian". Incidently, a recent issue of Modern Reformation takes up the topic of Antinomianism: Modern Reformation - Issue

Furthermore, from what I have read or listened to, WHI/MR does not seem to be at variance with the confessions of the Reformed churches or in substantial disagreement with the historical witness of the reformers. Last night, I revisited some of the following highlights from Calvin's Institutes. I was intrigued by his method of framing these issues and wondered if we would be so quick to brand him as an Antinomian for suggesting that 'different laws' might regulate our activities in the civil and spiritual kingdoms:

Book III, Ch. 19, Section 15: Therefore, lest this prove a stumbling-block to any, let us observe that in man government is twofold: the one spiritual, by which the conscience is trained to piety and divine worship; the other civil, by which the individual is instructed in those duties which, as men and citizens, we are bold to perform. To these two forms are commonly given the not inappropriate names of spiritual and temporal jurisdiction, intimating that the former species has reference to the life of the soul, while the latter relates to matters of the present life, not only to food and clothing, but to the enacting of laws which require a man to live among his fellows purely honorably, and modestly. The former has its seat within the soul, the latter only regulates the external conduct. We may call the one the spiritual, the other the civil kingdom. Now, these two, as we have divided them, are always to be viewed apart from each other. When the one is considered, we should call off our minds, and not allow them to think of the other. For there exists in man a kind of two worlds, over which different kings and different laws can preside. 

Book IV, Ch. 20, Section 16; All laws should be just. Civil law of Moses; how far in force, and how far abrogated. What I have said will become plain if we attend, as we ought, to two things connected with all laws, viz., the enactment of the law, and the equity on which the enactment is founded and rests. Equity, as it is natural, cannot but be the same in all, and therefore ought to be proposed by all laws, according to the nature of the thing enacted. As constitutions have some circumstances on which they partly depend, there is nothing to prevent their diversity, provided they all alike aim at equity as their end. Now, as it is evident that the law of God which we call moral, is nothing else than the testimony of natural law, and of that conscience which God has engraven on the minds of men, the whole of this equity of which we now speak is prescribed in it. Hence it alone ought to be the aim, the rule, and the end of all laws. Wherever laws are formed after this rule, directed to this aim, and restricted to this end, there is no reason why they should be disapproved by us, however much they may differ from the Jewish law, or from each other, (August. de Civil. Dei, Lib. 19 c. 17). 

In terms of the fist table of the Law, Calvin admittedly does also enjoin upon the civil magistrate the duty protect and guard the Church, and I think that the moral principles therein contained can be enacted in a equitable way in our present American context while still respecting the fact that the civil activity of the state is distinct from the redemptive activity of the Church. This is where the 2K framework offers an alternative approach to cultural engagement. In 2K theology, Christ is still Lord of both, but He simply relates to each kingdom in distinct ways. How could it be any other way? Christ is the head of the church, the bridegroom, the firstborn son of a new creation, etc. Should not he stand in a different relationship to the body, his bride and the new creation, than he does to nations, the spiritually adulterous and the present evil age which is passing away? 

Christian obedience in light of both the law and the gospel is the stage for our sanctification, and we are each called to obedience in all things to Christ, our Savior, this includes submitting to authorities over us as far as the Law of God permits and, where it does not permit, resisting evil. Our participation in the civil realm is motivate by love for neighbor, in obedience to Christ's command, not being on a mission to 'redeem' the culture or to 'Christianize' it in some way

In oder to give Dr. Horton a fair hearing, I have included the following links for the forum's consideration. 

The Fear of Antinomianism --M. Horton
The Fear of Antinomianism - White Horse Inn Blog

Holiness Wars: The Antinomian Debate --M. Horton
Modern Reformation - Articles

The Antinomianism Debate --M. Horton
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJp5m2cEMO0

Antinomianism and Christian Liberty --M.l Horton
Dr. Michael Horton - Antinomianism & Christian Liberty - YouTube

What is the Gospel? --M. Horton
What is the Gospel - Dr. Michael Horton - YouTube


----------



## irresistible_grace

cmartin said:


> The thing that scares me is that as much as I've like and learned from Dr. Horton, if these two teachings are indeed false, then almost everything I read/listen to is misleading me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I have enjoyed Dr. Horton's teachings for several years now and have benefited greatly in my walk with Christ on account of it*. But I'm not totally convinced by some of the critiques offered above...
> 
> It seems to me that *some of these comments regarding Dr. Horton and his colleagues both at WSC and WHI/MR have been too prejudicial*. The term "antinomianism" teaches that Christians are in no way obliged to obedience to the moral law. Such charges have been slung around far too carelessly since the time of the Reformation and historically by those outside of the Reformed tradition who almost seem to be taking great care to misunderstand the Reformed formula for relating the doctrines of justification by faith alone and the subsequent work of sanctification--in both acts of God's grace the Spirit uses the Law according to several important functions. Also, as an expression of God's impeccable moral character and the rule governing the obedience of all men, the moral Law has the function of curbing and restraining evil in the world when enacted and enforced in civil law (according the general equity thereof as determined from the moral law, WCF 19.4,5) and also serves to expose human sinfulness. Do these men repudiate these things? *Can someone please produce some evidence that these men actually deny the Law its proper place in the faith and practice of the Christian life?*
> 
> *It is my assessment that the charge of "antinomianism" against these men is not warranted.* What I sense from some of these posts, is that *some of you seem to be concerned that these men are distorting the gospel and further that you are annoyed with their method of relating "the Law of God" to the civil realm.* The first concern, I simply just don't see. If what these men taught was truly a distortion of the gospel, then one ought to oppose them vigorously. With respect to the second concern, I'd say there's much room for a charitable debate, but again it goes too far, in my judgment, to label these men "Antinomian". Incidently, a recent issue of Modern Reformation takes up the topic of Antinomianism: Modern Reformation - Issue
> 
> Furthermore,* from what I have read or listened to, WHI/MR does not seem to be at variance with the confessions of the Reformed churches or in substantial disagreement with the historical witness of the reformers.* Last night, I revisited some of the following highlights from Calvin's Institutes. I was intrigued by his method of framing these issues and wondered if we would be so quick to brand him as an Antinomian for suggesting that 'different laws' might regulate our activities in the civil and spiritual kingdoms:
> 
> Book III, Ch. 19, Section 15: Therefore, lest this prove a stumbling-block to any, let us observe that in man government is twofold: the one spiritual, by which the conscience is trained to piety and divine worship; the other civil, by which the individual is instructed in those duties which, as men and citizens, we are bold to perform. To these two forms are commonly given the not inappropriate names of spiritual and temporal jurisdiction, intimating that the former species has reference to the life of the soul, while the latter relates to matters of the present life, not only to food and clothing, but to the enacting of laws which require a man to live among his fellows purely honorably, and modestly. The former has its seat within the soul, the latter only regulates the external conduct. We may call the one the spiritual, the other the civil kingdom. Now, these two, as we have divided them, are always to be viewed apart from each other. When the one is considered, we should call off our minds, and not allow them to think of the other. For there exists in man a kind of two worlds, over which different kings and different laws can preside.
> 
> Book IV, Ch. 20, Section 16; All laws should be just. Civil law of Moses; how far in force, and how far abrogated. What I have said will become plain if we attend, as we ought, to two things connected with all laws, viz., the enactment of the law, and the equity on which the enactment is founded and rests. Equity, as it is natural, cannot but be the same in all, and therefore ought to be proposed by all laws, according to the nature of the thing enacted. As constitutions have some circumstances on which they partly depend, there is nothing to prevent their diversity, provided they all alike aim at equity as their end. Now, as it is evident that the law of God which we call moral, is nothing else than the testimony of natural law, and of that conscience which God has engraven on the minds of men, the whole of this equity of which we now speak is prescribed in it. Hence it alone ought to be the aim, the rule, and the end of all laws. Wherever laws are formed after this rule, directed to this aim, and restricted to this end, there is no reason why they should be disapproved by us, however much they may differ from the Jewish law, or from each other, (August. de Civil. Dei, Lib. 19 c. 17).
> 
> In terms of the fist table of the Law, Calvin admittedly does also enjoin upon the civil magistrate the duty protect and guard the Church, and I think that the moral principles therein contained can be enacted in a equitable way in our present American context while still respecting the fact that the civil activity of the state is distinct from the redemptive activity of the Church. This is where the 2K framework offers an alternative approach to cultural engagement. In 2K theology, *Christ is still Lord of both*, but He simply relates to each kingdom in distinct ways. How could it be any other way? Christ is the head of the church, the bridegroom, the firstborn son of a new creation, etc. Should not he stand in a different relationship to the body, his bride and the new creation, than he does to nations, the spiritually adulterous and the present evil age which is passing away?
> 
> Obedience in gospel is the stage for our sanctification, and we are each called to obedience in all things to Christ, our Savior, this includes submitting to authorities over us as far as the Law of God permits and, where it does not permit, resisting evil. Our participation in the civil realm is motivate by love for neighbor, in obedience to Christ's command, not being on a mission to 'redeem' the culture or to 'Christianize' it in some way
> 
> In oder to give Dr. Horton a fair hearing, I have included the following links for the forum's consideration.
> 
> The Fear of Antinomianism --M. Horton
> The Fear of Antinomianism - White Horse Inn Blog
> 
> Holiness Wars: The Antinomian Debate --M. Horton
> Modern Reformation - Articles
> 
> The Antinomianism Debate --M. Horton
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJp5m2cEMO0
> 
> Antinomianism and Christian Liberty --M.l Horton
> Dr. Michael Horton - Antinomianism & Christian Liberty - YouTube
> 
> What is the Gospel? --M. Horton
> What is the Gospel - Dr. Michael Horton - YouTube
Click to expand...


----------



## irresistible_grace

If Two Kingdom's Theology, Modern Reformation, WSCal etc. is "antinomianism" and therefore a "false teaching" like that of Federal Vision, why haven't the Reformed Synod's and General Assemblies in America Presbyterianism been as fast to labeled the teaching of Horton to be heresy like they they did with Douglas Wilson & Federal Vision? White Horse Inn has been around a lot longer than the Auburn Avenue Lectures and there is a lot more material work with.


----------



## Zach

irresistible_grace said:


> If Two Kingdom's Theology, Modern Reformation, WSCal etc. is "antinomianism" and therefore a "false teaching" like that of Federal Vision, why haven't the Reformed Synod's and General Assemblies in America Presbyterianism been as fast to labeled the teaching of Horton to be heresy like they they did with Douglas Wilson & Federal Vision? White Horse Inn has been around a lot longer than the Auburn Avenue Lectures and there is a lot more material work with.



Your analysis is spot on, Sister. It is held to by godly men in the URC, PCA, and OPC and I have not seen it condemned by any denomination or individual as being on par with the Federal Vision. Nor have I heard it said anywhere, except for recently on PuritanBoard, that it is antinomian. Though we may disagree with 2K Theology (at the moment, my understanding of Scripture leads me to disagree with 2K Theology) I don't think we should refer to those who hold to it as antinomians and false teachers.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Take the 2 kingdoms etc. matters to other threads; under this subject line it gets in the way of simply dealing with the questions of substance. And on such other threads, to ensure successful discussion, discuss subjects and views without making this about the people and groups, and who needs to be drawn and quartered or who not.


----------



## cmartin

NaphtaliPress said:


> Take the 2 kingdoms etc. matters to other threads; under this subject line it gets in the way of simply dealing with the questions of substance. And on such other threads, to ensure successful discussion, discuss subjects and views without making this about the people and groups, and who needs to be drawn and quartered or who not.



Great point. I am primarily interested the survey aspect of the thread and was hoping to give a summary of my findings to the leadership class that I'm sitting in on. I'm still exploring the whole 2K issue, but from what I understand so far I don't think that it's antinomian. Anyway, sorry for getting the thread off topic with my excessive commentary.  I'll attempt to be more disciplined in the future.


----------



## tommyb

cmartin said:


> You make a great point; many contemporary false teachings are likely to be old heresies adapted to new circumstances. I like how you have suggested some of these connections in your response. Thanks!




I not only agree with this but would take it a step farther and say that every heresy that ever came down the pike was some form of one of the following three heresies: 

1. Did God really say.......?
2. You will not surely die....
3. You too can be like God...


----------



## irresistible_grace

NaphtaliPress said:


> Take the 2 kingdoms etc. matters to other threads; under this subject line it gets in the way of simply dealing with the questions of substance. And on such other threads, to ensure successful discussion, discuss subjects and views without making this about the people and groups, and who needs to be drawn and quartered or who not.



 

And, I would *NOT* include Two Kingdoms as a false teaching in the summary of your findings!


----------



## Sebastian Kim

Rangerus said:


> The prosperity gospel is by far In my humble opinion one of the worst false teachings in today's world.
> 
> 
> 
> [video=youtube;jLRue4nwJaA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLRue4nwJaA&feature=youtu.be[/video]



As a person who lived in Brazil for most of his life, I agree with you (The Richest Pastors In Brazil - Forbes)
There is another one, more for an Asian context. The syncretism between asian paganism + hyper nationalism + zionism and Christianity. Yes. This mixture exists.


----------



## Scott1

Any movement, teaching or tendency away from,
a biblical gospel, 
and 
_sola scriptura_.

(And has been stated, there really is nothing "new under the sun" in this regard).


----------



## Hamalas

Jackie Kaulitz said:


> Thank you to Randy for your detailed analysis of Modern Grace Theology and 2 Kingdoms Theology. I have highlighted what you wrote and saved it to reference back to often as I seek to understand these two teachings and determine if they are true or in error. I REALLY appreciate you stepping out and trying to show what you see to be error because it is very easy to hear these two teachings and believe them to be truth at first glace because they sound really good/true. As one considering attending Westminster CA and as a reader/listener of Horton, much of what he says sounds so appealing to my antinomian-ish ears but critiques like yours help me keep watch for error. Perhaps Horton isn't teaching antinomianism as much as I'm reading antinomianism into his teachings?
> 
> The thing that scares me is that as much as I've like and learned from Dr. Horton, if these two teachings are indeed false, then almost everything I read/listen to is misleading me.
> 
> Ahhh! What's the truth? I hope someone way smarter than me can shed some light on this.



As one who has been wrestling through this very issue for the past few years let me encourage you to take it slow! Don't be too hasty to jump into one camp or the other and certainly don't throw out the baby with the bath water.  Wherever you come down on this (and in the interest of full disclosure I am not a R2k guy) Drs. Horton and Van Drunen still have many helpful things to say. Here's a really helpful article I came across that helped to refine my thinking on the topic that recognizes the good while also challenging some of the weaknesses of the R2K guys. I hope it is helpful: 2K or Not 2K? That is the Question: A Review of David VanDrunen's Living in God's Two Kingdoms by Keith Mathison | Ligonier Ministries Blog


----------



## JohnGill

cmartin said:


> NaphtaliPress said:
> 
> 
> 
> Take the 2 kingdoms etc. matters to other threads; under this subject line it gets in the way of simply dealing with the questions of substance. And on such other threads, to ensure successful discussion, discuss subjects and views without making this about the people and groups, and who needs to be drawn and quartered or who not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great point. I am primarily interested the survey aspect of the thread and was hoping to give a summary of my findings to the leadership class that I'm sitting in on. I'm still exploring the whole 2K issue, but from what I understand so far I don't think that it's antinomian. Anyway, sorry for getting the thread off topic with my excessive commentary.  I'll attempt to be more disciplined in the future.
Click to expand...


Perhaps you could take the answers already provided and put them together in a poll either on this thread or a new one. That might help get an idea of what the top problems are.


----------

