# Frame review of Horton's "Christless Christianity"



## mvdm

A detailed critical review:

Review of Michael Horton, Christless Christianity: The Alternative Gospel of the American Church


----------



## Archlute

Knowing that this is coming from Frame, who left Westminster West for warmer and less confessional waters, I would view this as more of an attempted poke in the eye than a credible review. His footnotes on Mike Horton and other WSC faculty in his last work on ethics were so ridiculous as to make me skeptical that he will ever have anything evenhanded and worthwhile to say in the future about the institution or the men who teach there.

Did you notice Frame attacking Horton for not being confessional in one of the final paragraphs? How ironic is that coming John Frame? This is the man whose theology is the fuel behind the fire in the Pacific NW presbytery of ditching any meaningful view of the confessions altogether; a man who has less use in his works for the confessions than an Oregonian has for sun screen?

Remember, Frame also recently endorsed Norm Shepherd's latest work against the protestant doctrine of justification, and has in his latest volume on ethics completely garbled the relationship between the law and justification. For an example of his confused thinking check out his statement in footnote 20 of the review where he writes: "If we give 'gospel' a broader definition, as I did earlier in this review, it is possible to say that all Scripture is gospel. But it is similarly possible to say that all Scripture is law, worldview, ethical guidance, etc." Huh? Really? Why not just say that it means everything and nothing all at the same time?

When Frame can begin to speak with some coherence about the classic articulations of Reformed doctrine in his own writings, I will begin to take his critiques of others more seriously. Until then, I just chalk this review up as an excuse to rant against an institution towards which he is still sore through one of its theologians.


----------



## Hamalas




----------



## Christusregnat

I think this article will offend Reformed Lutherans.


----------



## CharlieJ

Archlute said:


> Knowing that this is coming from Frame, who left Westminster West for warmer and less confessional waters, I would view this as more of an attempted poke in the eye than a credible review. His footnotes on Mike Horton and other WSC faculty in his last work on ethics were so ridiculous as to make me skeptical that he will ever have anything evenhanded and worthwhile to say in the future about the institution or the men who teach there.
> 
> Did you notice Frame attacking Horton for not being confessional in one of the final paragraphs? How ironic is that coming John Frame? This is the man whose theology is the fuel behind the fire in the Pacific NW presbytery of ditching any meaningful view of the confessions altogether; a man who has less use in his works for the confessions than an Oregonian has for sun screen?
> 
> Remember, Frame also recently endorsed Norm Shepherd's latest work against the protestant doctrine of justification, and has in his latest volume on ethics completely garbled the relationship between the law and justification. For an example of his confused thinking check out his statement in footnote 20 of the review where he writes: "If we give 'gospel' a broader definition, as I did earlier in this review, it is possible to say that all Scripture is gospel. But it is similarly possible to say that all Scripture is law, worldview, ethical guidance, etc." Huh? Really? Why not just say that it means everything and nothing all at the same time?
> 
> When Frame can begin to speak with some coherence about the classic articulations of Reformed doctrine in his own writings, I will begin to take his critiques of others more seriously. Until then, I just chalk this review up as an excuse to rant against an institution towards which he is still sore through one of its theologians.



_Ad hominem_ is still a logical fallacy. Frame's shortcomings should not be read into this review, unless they are actually relevant.


----------



## Christusregnat

Archlute said:


> Knowing that this is coming from Frame, who left Westminster West for warmer and less confessional waters, I would view this as more of an attempted poke in the eye than a credible review.



To close your mind to an article because it is written by a certain person that you dislike is certainly not going to benefit this thread, nor yourself. I am not a big fan of Frame, but the article contains some excellent points.


----------



## MW

> Review of Michael Horton, Christless Christianity: The Alternative Gospel of the American Church



Raising an alarm can be useful to awaken an individual who slumbers in his ignorance or negligence. Frame chooses to make "Christless Christianity" a matter of gospel or no gospel in the vein of Galatians 1; but he might have charitably taken it in the same light as he would receive Paul's exhortation in Ephesians 5:14. Saying that someone sleeps and needs the light of Christ does not equate to calling them non Christians. It merely indicates their desperate need to wake up and start living what they profess.

On the issues the review raises, I find it hard to believe that a Christian professor would criticise a Christian writer for maintaining that modern Christianity does in fact see God and Christ as supporting characters in our own drama. I don't know too many reformed pastors today who don't see and feel this as a reality every time he addresses his flock. We are a self-centred society (or should I simply say, group of individuals, because there is nothing social about selfishness), and this self-centredness permeates the church. Everyone acknowledges that "myspace" is not simply an internet phenomenon. It permeates all of life, including church-life. It is a continual battle to bring every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ, but it must be done whether people like it or not -- that is what being a servant of Christ entails.

Latent in Frame's comments is a process of self-justification for his theology as application model. His model is full of holes and cannot be rescued. He should simply face the fact and abandon it. Theology does not merely meet needs, it creates the needs which require fulfilment. Frame fails to account for this reality. Yes, God is our fortress, but such imagery is only meaningful when it is placed within the context of a biblical worldview in which God Himself takes centre stage and man is seen as the servant of God.

Horton correctly observes that cultural translation of the gospel removes the offence of the gospel thus making conversion something less than a miracle. Frame thinks this mistakes the relation between divine sovereignty and human responsibility. Yet he nowhere addresses the problems involved with translation and contextualisation. He simply provides a counterpoint to Horton's point. Horton has provided biblical and theological reasons why the church should not remove the offence of the gospel, but the reviewer simply leaves these unanswered.

The positives of this review are to be found in the criticisms of Horton's view of law, morality, and redemption. I think it can be sustained that Horton is representing more of a Lutheran than Reformed view of the law. He seems to espouse the "gospel of justification alone," with very little concern with the way the gospel changes man in the totality of his life. At this point some of Frame's criticisms are very pointed and well worth pondering in an age when reformed churches are falling prey to the "justification only" gospel.

The review subsequently fails to do justice to Horton's concerns with regard to church, ministry and worship. Here, again, Frame simply engages in self-justification rather than genuine review. He obviously feels the sting of Horton's criticisms, and so he should. Frame has not acted responsibly in the way he has presented ministry and worship in his own writings. "Accommodation" rather than "perfection" has been his aim, whereas the true model of gospel ministry is set forth in the apostle Paul -- Colossians 1:28, "Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus." The idea that "every man" is capable of warning and teaching every man is simply absurd, and could never truly aim at the "perfection" of the body of Christ since "every man" merely recreates Christianity in his own image.

By and large Frame has offered a poor review to a book which is generally written in the apostolic spirit and with genuine concerns for the state of Christianity today. While the book has its weaknesses, it would appear that its weaknesses are stronger than the reviewer's strengths.


----------



## Sven

Well spoken, Mr. Moderator. Frame's critique was shameful. His track record shows that he would rather defend Evangelicalism rather than classic Reformed Protestantism.


----------



## Christusregnat

Sven said:


> Well spoken, Mr. Moderator. Frame's critique was shameful. His track record shows that he would rather defend Evangelicalism rather than classic Reformed Protestantism.



The law/gospel dichotomy that downplays, is critical of, is negligent in, or recasts any of the three uses of the law does not represent classic or confessional Reformed Protestantism. Frame may have a great deal amiss, and his formulation of law/gospel may be problematic, but he is closer to the Westminster Standards on this than a more antinomian approach.

Cheers,


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Christusregnat said:


> The law/gospel dichotomy that downplays, is critical of, is negligent in, or recasts any of the three uses of the law does not represent classic or confessional Reformed Protestantism. Frame may have a great deal amiss, and his formulation of law/gospel may be problematic, but he is closer to the Westminster Standards on this than a more antinomian approach.
> 
> Cheers,



Can your rephrase this so I can understand what you are saying? I am not getting your point? Are you saying that the three uses of the law are incorrect according to the Westminster Standards?


----------



## Archlute

Christusregnat said:


> Archlute said:
> 
> 
> 
> Knowing that this is coming from Frame, who left Westminster West for warmer and less confessional waters, I would view this as more of an attempted poke in the eye than a credible review.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To close your mind to an article because it is written by a certain person that you dislike is certainly not going to benefit this thread, nor yourself. I am not a big fan of Frame, but the article contains some excellent points.
Click to expand...


I didn't close my mind, I actually read it and considered it's content. However, I also know that Frame writes with an agenda against WSC, and saw some of that animosity driving his review. Well, a lot of that animosity driving the review would be a more accurate way to put it.

-----Added 10/21/2009 at 11:57:39 EST-----



Christusregnat said:


> Sven said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well spoken, Mr. Moderator. Frame's critique was shameful. His track record shows that he would rather defend Evangelicalism rather than classic Reformed Protestantism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The law/gospel dichotomy that downplays, is critical of, is negligent in, or recasts any of the three uses of the law does not represent classic or confessional Reformed Protestantism. Frame may have a great deal amiss, and his formulation of law/gospel may be problematic, but he is closer to the Westminster Standards on this than a more antinomian approach.
> 
> Cheers,
Click to expand...


So you are saying that Frame's moralistic confusion on law/gospel issues is somehow closer to the confessions than antinomianism?

Btw, I'm not sure why folk insist on making the accusation that Horton/WSC "downplays, is critical of, is negligent in, or recasts" specifically the third use of the law (which is usually the charge). I know that Horton wrote a great essay on the third use, which seemed to me about as orthodox a formulation as anything you will find in the Westminster confession. If he has ditched the third use, please cite a clear statement from him in print or on air from WHI.


----------



## Christusregnat

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Can your rephrase this so I can understand what you are saying? I am not getting your point? Are you saying that the three uses of the law are incorrect according to the Westminster Standards?



I'm sorry for the confusion. All three uses of the law are required and heartily endorsed by the Westminster Standards.


----------



## Archlute

CharlieJ said:


> _Ad hominem_ is still a logical fallacy. Frame's shortcomings should not be read into this review, unless they are actually relevant.



They are relevant in as much as you cannot expect him to properly critique Horton's teaching in relationship to confessional theology when he himself has recognizable confusion on the very issue he is seeking to critique.

Again, read footnote 20, and tell me how he can clarify anything with multi-perspectival redefinitions of that magnitude?


----------



## DMcFadden

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Christusregnat said:
> 
> 
> 
> The law/gospel dichotomy that downplays, is critical of, is negligent in, or recasts any of the three uses of the law does not represent classic or confessional Reformed Protestantism. Frame may have a great deal amiss, and his formulation of law/gospel may be problematic, but he is closer to the Westminster Standards on this than a more antinomian approach.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can your rephrase this so I can understand what you are saying? I am not getting your point? Are you saying that the three uses of the law are incorrect according to the Westminster Standards?
Click to expand...


Randy, my read was that many people critique the WSC crew for taking a more Lutheran than Calvinian view of the Law. Luther vacillated greatly in trying to bring himself to affirm what Calvin called the third use of the Law. Critics of WSC often try to make them out to have a more Lutheran than Calvinian approach. So, in his critique of Horton, it would not be unusual to make the standard objection to WSC profs.


----------



## Josiah

Archlute said:


> How ironic is that coming John Frame? *This is the man whose theology is the fuel behind the fire in the Pacific NW presbytery of ditching any meaningful view of the confessions altogether*; a man who has less use in his works for the confessions than an Oregonian has for sun screen?



I appreciate you mentioning this. I assume you are referencing the examination of the views of Peter leithart by the PNW Presbytery?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

DMcFadden said:


> Randy, my read was that many people critique the WSC crew for taking a more Lutheran than Calvinian view of the Law. Luther vacillated greatly in trying to bring himself to affirm what Calvin called the third use of the Law. Critics of WSC often try to make them out to have a more Lutheran than Calvinian approach. So, in his critique of Horton, it would not be unusual to make the standard objection to WSC profs.




Is this true though? I noticed this accusation in Rev. Winzer's comments. 



> The positives of this review are to be found in the criticisms of Horton's view of law, morality, and redemption. *I think it can be sustained that Horton is representing more of a Lutheran than Reformed view of the law. He seems to espouse the "gospel of justification alone," with very little concern with the way the gospel changes man in the totality of his life. *At this point some of Frame's criticisms are very pointed and well worth pondering in an age when reformed churches are falling prey to the "justification only" gospel.



I don't listen the White Horse Inn nor have I read much of Horton. I did read 'Christ the Lord' many many moons ago which was on the Lordship Controversy issue. I don't recall it being a 'gospel of justification alone' type of book. I like that phrase, "Gospel of justification alone." That is a catchy phrase and very descriptive. I just don't have the experience of hearing such teaching coming out of Reformed leaning men.


----------



## mvdm

PuritanCovenanter said:


> DMcFadden said:
> 
> 
> 
> Randy, my read was that many people critique the WSC crew for taking a more Lutheran than Calvinian view of the Law. Luther vacillated greatly in trying to bring himself to affirm what Calvin called the third use of the Law. Critics of WSC often try to make them out to have a more Lutheran than Calvinian approach. So, in his critique of Horton, it would not be unusual to make the standard objection to WSC profs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is this true though? I noticed this accusation in Rev. Winzer's comments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The positives of this review are to be found in the criticisms of Horton's view of law, morality, and redemption. *I think it can be sustained that Horton is representing more of a Lutheran than Reformed view of the law. He seems to espouse the "gospel of justification alone," with very little concern with the way the gospel changes man in the totality of his life. *At this point some of Frame's criticisms are very pointed and well worth pondering in an age when reformed churches are falling prey to the "justification only" gospel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't listen the White Horse Inn nor have I read much of Horton. I did read 'Christ the Lord' many many moons ago which was on the Lordship Controversy issue. I don't recall it being a 'gospel of justification alone' type of book. I like that phrase, "Gospel of justification alone." That is a catchy phrase and very descriptive. I just don't have the experience of hearing such teaching coming out of Reformed leaning men.
Click to expand...


I don't think Horton himself would find the label "Lutheran" to be something negative. He often {and unapologetically} appeals to Luther for his natural law/ R2k theology. As just one example, listen to the 10/18/09 WHI entitled "Christianity and Secular Culture". {approx. 38 minutes}. The first part is an interview with a German journalist who says, among other things, that when speaking to an atheist, you cannot appeal to the Bible to condemn abortion, because the Bible is meaningless to the atheist. The journalist defends Luther and natural law theology. The WHI roundtable discussion is very approving of this-- and also of the idea that holding to the Bible/God's Law speaking to the civil realm is what leads to over-realized and apocalyptic eschatologies {Anabaptists, Jonestown, Waco, etc}. 

White Horse Inn


----------



## SolaScriptura

armourbearer said:


> I think it can be sustained that Horton is representing more of a Lutheran than Reformed view of the law.



After hearing him on the White Horse Inn and reading a couple of his more recent works, I tend to agree with you.


----------



## CatechumenPatrick

“What are these subtle distortions? Evidently, what Horton is concerned with is an emphasis. The metaphors of “looking away from” Christ and putting something else on “center stage” have to do with the emphasis we put on Christ.”

Having read most of Frame’s books (as well as Horton's), I cannot recall one in which he did not purport to resolve serious disagreements by his hand-waving “emphasis” pleading. More and more, it strikes me as a red-herring, and extremely unhelpful. 

I’ve never seen Frame so uncharitably, sloppily interpret someone than in this review. Just take a look at the conclusion at what he thinks are ten unconfessional, unscriptural theses in Horton’s work. All ten of them are appalling distortions of what Horton wrote. I’m quite depressed now.


----------



## SemperEruditio

_" If we remove #1-10 as measuring sticks for the American church, the church does not look nearly as bad as Horton presents it."_

It seems that Frame and I are living in different America's. I suspect this is what happens to professors when they are completely immersed in orthodox academia. In the rest of the US or I will say in the churches I visited in a number of states the state of American Christianity is Christless. Well perhaps not christless but the Christ worshipped is not the Christ found in God's word. Unless I'm mistaken liberal theology is the norm and liberals claim that scripture is fallible, in error, uninspired, and biased...how is that not as bad as Horton or anyone presents the state of American Christianity?


----------



## Marrow Man

SemperEruditio said:


> Well perhaps not christless but the Christ worshipped is not the Christ found in God's word.



That is worse than Christless -- it is anti-Christ.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Excellent observations in this thread. I have to admit to a personal fondness for both men in spite of some differences (much more so with Frame than Horton). I would agree with those that note that Horton's theology on the Law is much more Lutheran and that is fairly transparent in the most recent WHI interview.

Providentially I've been listening to Frame on Pastoral Ethics on itunes.rts.edu.

I think that if I didn't know more about the Puritans and Reformed thought then I might find Frame's repeated swipes at Reformed theology in his presentation more compelling. He consistently sets himself up as a balance against the excesses of the Reformation, which he constantly refers to as "intellectual."

My problem is not that he criticizes but that his criticisms are typically straw man attacks against Reformed positions. When he wants to posit a perspectival aspect of something in opposition to where the Reformed are in a matter he regularly mischaracterizes and shows little appreciation for the historically Reformed understanding of things. If he does understand them then this mischaracterization is inexcusable.

I find myself increasingly saddened when I listen to Frame's teaching these days. What I seem to sense are those that are looking for a mythical "balance". Frame offers for them a way to "outgrow" Reformed theology by giving them tools to justify that the historic Reformed confessions are written by intellectualists who have no appreciation for the difficulties of life. Frame offers the out of his balanced approach that sees things as they really are. Where he ever (and its rarely) interacts with the Confessions it is usually to either criticize or often to recast.


----------



## Marrow Man

The WHI has responded: A Response to Professor John Frame » White Horse Inn Blog

This part of the response (not by Horton) is included in the rebuttal:



> _6. Law and gospel should be utterly separate. There should be no good news in the bad news and no bad news in the good news._ This is a longstanding complaint by Frame. Not only does he consistently misrepresent the Lutheran view on this point; he seems to be unaware of the consensus of Reformed theologians that the confusion of law and gospel is the heart of theological errors. This point has been made not only by Calvin, but by Beza, Ursinus, Perkins, Owen, and Spurgeon all the way to Louis Berkhof and John Murray. In _Christless Christianity_ (and elsewhere), Horton very clearly affirms that law and gospel are to be distinguished but never separated. The one thing that Professor Frame accurately says about the book on this point is that “There should be no good news in the bad news and no bad news in the good news.” That’s why the law reveals our sin and misery (as the Heidelberg Catechism and Westminster Shorter Catechism confess), and the gospel reveals God’s saving grace toward us in Jesus Christ. One should be far less bothered that Professor Frame is confused about Christless Christianity than that he seems confused about the difference between commands (imperatives) and declarations of God’s promises (indicatives).


----------



## Archlute

Josiah said:


> Archlute said:
> 
> 
> 
> How ironic is that coming John Frame? *This is the man whose theology is the fuel behind the fire in the Pacific NW presbytery of ditching any meaningful view of the confessions altogether*; a man who has less use in his works for the confessions than an Oregonian has for sun screen?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I appreciate you mentioning this. I assume you are referencing the examination of the views of Peter leithart by the PNW Presbytery?
Click to expand...


Yes. Frame's theology was mentioned several times from the floor, and in particular the application of his tri-perspectivalism to a reading of the confessions. I believe it was Rob Rayburn who tried making the point that "there are paradigms within paradigms of how we read the confessions" in an attempt to deny the validity of the minority report's assertion that Leithart's views contradicted the confessions at several key points.

I should clarify that I believe that this is a misapplication of Frame's theology, and I do not think that he would say it was being used as he intended it to be used. What was being done to confessional interpretation at that meeting by some of the men had more to do with post-modern hermeneutics than anything coming out of Frame's writings. 

The fact remains, however, that they were claiming Frame's theology as justification for divesting the confessions of any real authority in the presbytery trial for," if you can view it this way, and I can view it that way, who is to say which is the right perspective? Maybe they are all right!" (which actually comes a little closer to John Frame's way of thinking, since he does say all of Scripture can be law, gospel, ethics, etc simultaneously).


----------



## Irish Presbyterian

> The positives of this review are to be found in the criticisms of Horton's view of law, morality, and redemption. *I think it can be sustained that Horton is representing more of a Lutheran than Reformed view of the law. He seems to espouse the "gospel of justification alone," with very little concern with the way the gospel changes man in the totality of his life. *At this point some of Frame's criticisms are very pointed and well worth pondering in an age when reformed churches are falling prey to the "justification only" gospel.



You have to be very careful in making these kind of statements and give proof of these accusations. Just because others have said that Horton et al have a more 'Lutheran' view of the law rather than a Reformed view doesn't mean that we have to give the same unsubstantiated response.

'Christless Christianity' must also be read in it's own context as a critique of large parts of an Evangelicalism that seems to neglect justification altogether. If Horton places an emphasis on this particularly that doesn't automatically suggest that he neglects regeneration and sanctification (read 'Covenant and Salvation'). Remember that this is the 'diagnosis' and 'The Gospel Driven Life' is the 'remedy'. A wiser man than I once said "we cannot say everything we want to say, every time we say anything at all". Read Horton's Covenant trilogy, read his book on the Ten commandments, read God of Promise and then, just maybe, we can all get away from this 'Lutheran' view nonsense.


----------



## Myshkin

Matthew, Adam B., Mark, Ben, Rich, and others,

I think that too often the assertion that WSC et. al. are "more Lutheran" regarding law and gospel is never challenged or made to be clarified.

I'd like to ask those who think that Horton is teaching a "Lutheran" view of law to please define exactly what they mean and why it is uniquely "Lutheran" as opposed to Reformed? 

So far in this thread, a "Lutheran" view of law has been defined as:
1. natural law
2. Two-Kingdoms
3. a denial of the third use of the law
4. "justification only gospel" (which I assume is meant "Christ as Savior but not Lord")

I would submit that until Theonomy arose, natural law was considered classical protestantism (i.e. Lutheran and Reformed). Same with 2K, despite the differences of application (i.e. _Theocratic_ among the magisterial reformers, _principled pluralism_ today).

And to suggest that a denial of the third use of the law is a Lutheran position shows that one has simply not read the Lutheran confessions.

Regarding point four, all one has to do is read "_Christ the Lord_" which Randy mentioned above.

Perhaps this misreading of Horton and others is due to individual circumstances (or not actually engaging all of his written material). Those critical of "his" view of Law and Gospel seem to be persuaded that the third use of the law is being denied at an alarming rate. I would agree and state that it is being replaced with a general moralism and a view of the third use as in itself sanctifying. But it is also the case, in my experience and in the experience of those that Horton is reaching, the second use of the law was either never taught on our way into the faith, is never used in the life and worship of the converted/church, or is explained as only useful for when one first believed but now is irrelevant (i.e. part of the "assumed gospel"). Anyone who thinks Horton has denied or neglected the third use of the law simply needs to read more of his writings and quit repeating well worn phrases by those who don't, and won't, agree with his views. 

So, again, please define what _exactly_ makes Horton's view "Lutheran"? Perhaps if I understood more clearly what is meant by this, I could then also see something I am presently missing.

Thanks.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

RAS,

Please listen to the latest WHI episode where Horton interviews a Lutheran (http://www.whitehorseinn.org/white-horse-inn.html - Christianity and Secular Culture). I'm not saying that Mike is wholly Lutheran in his theology but on the Law/Gospel distinction he can be heard to agree with criticisms aimed at some Puritan formulations in this interview.

Regarding what the concern is, I believe Matthew already spelled it out:


armourbearer said:


> The positives of this review are to be found in the criticisms of Horton's view of law, morality, and redemption. I think it can be sustained that Horton is representing more of a Lutheran than Reformed view of the law. *He seems to espouse the "gospel of justification alone," with very little concern with the way the gospel changes man in the totality of his life. At this point some of Frame's criticisms are very pointed and well worth pondering in an age when reformed churches are falling prey to the "justification only" gospel.*


Don't get me wrong, I love Mike Horton. I consider him a dear Brother in Christ and an important voice for the Gospel of Grace. I also note, however, that the WHI has a problem with some of our Confessional notions where there is an "oughtness" to the Gospel. Romans 6 is as much a part of the Gospel as Romans 8. Both are grounded in what God has accomplished through the power of Christ's death and resurrection for us His own.


----------



## Irish Presbyterian

Semper Fidelis said:


> RAS,
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I love Mike Horton. I consider him a dear Brother in Christ and an important voice for the Gospel of Grace. *I also note, however, that the WHI has a problem with some of our Confessional notions where there is an "oughtness" to the Gospel. Romans 6 is as much a part of the Gospel as Romans 8. *Both are grounded in what God has accomplished through the power of Christ's death and resurrection for us His own.



Please substantiate the claim that there is an 'oughtness' to the Gospel in the Confessions and how the WHI have a 'problem' with it. 

Also, you say:

"Both are grounded in what God has accomplished through the power of Christ's death and resurrection for us His own". 

The death and resurrection of Christ (that object work) is the Gospel (good news, proclamation) (1 Corth 15). The walking in newness in Romans 6 and life in the Spirit in Romans 8 are the 'result' of the Gospel, so I don't see the point being made here. Sorry.


----------



## Archlute

I know that Horton and WSC fully agree with the guilt, grace, gratitude paradigm of the HC, which teaches that our response is driven by a thankfulness for the grace given us in Christ. This is no different than the Westminster Confession which states that our sanctification comes also by faith and not by law (14.2). 

I believe that what gets people tied in a knot is that they want the law to be the driving force behind our sanctification, rather than a guide to it. The scriptures and confessions agree that it is the Spirit of Christ in us that works conformity to God's will. The external demands of the law cannot produce that in the Christian.


----------



## Irish Presbyterian

This might be helpful. Let Mike Horton speak for himself:

Westminster Seminary California faculty


----------



## Christusregnat

RAS said:


> Same with 2K, despite the differences of application (i.e. _Theocratic_ among the magisterial reformers, _principled pluralism_ today).



The "differences in application" are directly contradictory theories of civil government. Simply because somebody uses the term "natural law" does not mean that they mean the same thing as the Reformers, or that they agree with them _at all_. There is a difference between mousish quitude regarding whether sodomites ought to be allowed to marry and a demand that sodomites should surely be put to death. The two theories of natural law have nothing in common, and *are therefore not the same thing*. This is even true if we examen Luther's theory of "natural law" as it was applied to the civil sphere. He called for the punishment of heretics and idolaters, as did Lutheran theologians for some time afterward. This has nothing to do with modern civil antinomianism, even if the same terms are used.

Cheers,


----------



## DMcFadden

I have appreciated (not uncritically, but pretty generally) the work of Dr. Horton. Such a withering review by a former colleague on the same faculty is beyond the pale. If Horton and Frame need to go out back and whack each other around for a bit, so be it. But this kind of public broadside is unbecoming, embarrassing, and unnecessary.

It sort of reminds me of the academic equivalent of a divorced couple where the one ex-spouse is so bitter that she/he cannot find a positive (or even neutral!) word to say about the other one.


----------



## Myshkin

Semper Fidelis said:


> Regarding what the concern is, I believe Matthew already spelled it out:
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> The positives of this review are to be found in the criticisms of Horton's view of law, morality, and redemption. I think it can be sustained that Horton is representing more of a Lutheran than Reformed view of the law. *He seems to espouse the "gospel of justification alone," with very little concern with the way the gospel changes man in the totality of his life. At this point some of Frame's criticisms are very pointed and well worth pondering in an age when reformed churches are falling prey to the "justification only" gospel.*
> 
> 
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I love Mike Horton. I consider him a dear Brother in Christ and an important voice for the Gospel of Grace. I also note, however, that the WHI has a problem with some of our Confessional notions where there is an "oughtness" to the Gospel. Romans 6 is as much a part of the Gospel as Romans 8. Both are grounded in what God has accomplished through the power of Christ's death and resurrection for us His own.
Click to expand...


Thanks Rich. As to the quote you cite from Matthew, I answered that in my original post with the directive towards the book edited by Horton "_Christ the Lord_". This book clearly denies what it "seems" Horton is teaching. I guess if one does not focus on/emphasize the law as much as another individual does, then that automatically is grounds for concerns of antinomianism or anti-lordship salvation? Where in the bible is the exact degree of personal law emphasis/focus given for which we can discern whether one is being antinomian? I'm not trying to be feisty here, I just think it is dangerous to think someone else is antinomian if they don't care about the law as much as _I_ do. At that point we are conflating the subjective experience(personal assessment?) with the objective definition of antinomianism. It is one thing to be a practicing antinomian and clearly another to be a theoretical antinomian. And once we get into judging who is a practicing antinomian we start getting into issues of stronger and weaker brothers if the judgements are separated from a proper interpretation of biblical law.

To add to Irish Presbyterian's challenge, certainly there are commands ("oughtness") under the gospel (i.e. the third use of the law), but that is not the same as the gospel itself being a command (which would be a contradiction of terms). I believe law and gospel are not to be confused, nor are they to be separated, but they are to be distinguished. There is an "oughtness" that comes from the gospel (law and gospel are not separated), but it is not gospel itself that commands (law and gospel are distinguished and not confused).

Thanks for the response Rich.


----------



## Josiah

Darryl Hart at Old Life Theological Society Has weighed in on this as well.



> Erdman’s Passive-Aggressive Step-Grandson-in-Law
> October 22nd, 2009 by Darryl G. Hart
> 
> John Frame faced a choice. He could have reviewed Mike Horton’s book, Christless Christianity, or he could have abstained. He could have critiqued Horton’s indictment of Joel Osteen. He also could have offered his own critique of Osteen. Even if he disagreed vigorously with Horton, he could have let it go out of a sense of living with the eccentricities of a former colleague and a minister in a church with whom his own communion is in fellowship.
> 
> But Frame decided to write a lengthy review in which Horton’s assessment comes off as more theologically flawed than those whom Horton critiques.
> 
> On the one hand, according to Frame, Horton is wrong about contemporary evangelicalism:
> 
> Speaking, perhaps presumptuously, for “the American church,” let me attempt a reply. For what it is worth, my own perception of American evangelicalism is very different from Horton’s. My observation is anecdotal (just like his, in the final analysis), but based on around 55 years of adult observation in many different kinds of churches including the much maligned mega-churches. In most every evangelical church I have visited or heard about, the “focus” is on God in Christ. There has been something of a shift over the years in what Horton would call a “subjective” direction. But that is best described not as unfaithfulness, but as a shift toward more application of Scripture to people’s external situations and inner life. There is a greater interest in sanctification (not just justification), on Christianity as a world view, on believers’ obligations to one another, on love within the body of Christ, and in the implications of Scripture for social justice.
> 
> I don’t see this as wrong, or unbiblical. Indeed, I think this general trend is an improvement over the state of affairs fifty years ago. Scripture is certainly concerned about these matters, and we ought to teach and learn what it has to say.
> 
> (By the way, Frame thinks that Horton shares this outlook primarily with secular critics of American religion. But Frame does not acknowledge that conservative Protestants like David Wells and Carl Trueman, or moderate to liberal Protestants such as Douglas Webster, William Willimon, and Stanley Hauerwas agree with Horton more than Frame.)
> 
> On the other hand, Frame thinks that the basis for Horton’s critique is theologically defective:
> 
> Horton’s alarmism is persuasive to many people, and I have been moved to try to show them their persuasion is premature. The problem is that the yardstick Horton uses to measure the American church’s allegiance to Christ is not an accurate yardstick. Or, to drop the metaphor, Horton measures the American church with a defective theology.
> 
> He comes on to the reader as a generic Protestant Christian with a passion for the historic doctrines of the atonement and of justification by faith alone. He writes engagingly. Naturally, then, other Protestants tend to resonate to his arguments. But Horton is not just a generic Protestant or even a generic Reformed theologian. He holds certain positions that are not warranted by the Reformed Confessions and which in my mind are not even Scriptural.
> 
> Frame is fully within his duties as a theology professor to review critically the book of another theologian, even one who apparently shares his theological tradition. But he is on shaky ground when he has faulted folks like Horton at other times for being Machen’s Warrior Children, that is, for needlessly criticizing those within the Reformed household. According to Frame:
> 
> The Machen movement was born in the controversy over liberal theology. I have no doubt that Machen and his colleagues were right to reject this theology and to fight it. But it is arguable that once the Machenites found themselves in a “true Presbyterian church” they were unable to moderate their martial impulses. Being in a church without liberals to fight, they turned on one another.
> 
> For some reason, John Frame thinks he is not a pugilist even after writing reviews like his of Horton (not to mention that the Warrior Children piece contained several punches, some below the belt). If he had a better understanding of “the Machen movement, Frame might realize that every controversy has more than two sides. In the 1920s, the alternatives were not simply conservatives like Machen or liberals like Harry Emerson Fosdick. In between were evangelicals like Charles Erdman who needed to decide whether to agree with conservatives and oppose liberals, or find a way to avoid controversy and work for the unity of the church, even to the point of keeping people who were not Calvinistic in the fold. Erdman never thought that his case for unity was controversial or contested. He thought Machen was extreme and temperamentally defective, and Erdman, an acknowledged evangelical, threw Machen under the bus. In so doing, Erdman made room in the Presbyterian Church for Machen’s enemies.
> 
> Blame it on the tri-perspectivalism, but Frame does not see that his notion of evangelical unity does not make room for Horton or other confessional Protestants who critique born-again Protestantism. Does Frame mean to embrace Osteen more than Horton? He may not. But if he doesn’t, why not write his own review of Osteen, instead of waiting to rip Horton’s critique?
> 
> John Frame is in denial about being a warrior. But at least he is correct about his family ties to Machen.


----------



## MW

It is remarkable how a differing interpretation of an author instantly brings forth a challenge to read this or read that as if simple ignorance must be the reason. Well, I have read Horton, both earlier and latter works. The reality is that he teaches the Lutheran view of the Mosaic covenant as a covenant of works and the Lutheran view of the antithesis between law and gospel. Please read God of Promise. And, if you don't agree with my interpretation of him, then I will simply ask you to read God of Promise ... again. If you believe other writings of Horton contradict what is taught in God of Promise, so be it; that doesn't prove anything other than a unique ability to negate with one book what he affirms with another.

Anyone who attempts to reconcile Horton's Lutheran sympathies with the Westminster formulary is simply deluding himself. It cannot be done. If you think otherwise, you need to read the Westminster formulary. The law is given as an administration of the covenant of grace and the the good works of believers which are done in obedience to God's commandments are called evangelical obedience. If you agree with Horton over the Westminster formulary, so be it; but no amount of sophistry will make Horton's teaching agree with the Westminster formulary.


----------



## Scott1

DMcFadden said:


> I have appreciated (not uncritically, but pretty generally) the work of Dr. Horton. Such a withering review by a former colleague on the same faculty is beyond the pale. If Horton and Frame need to go out back and whack each other around for a bit, so be it. But this kind of public broadside is unbecoming, embarrassing, and unnecessary.
> 
> It sort of reminds me of the academic equivalent of a divorced couple where the one ex-spouse is so bitter that she/he cannot find a positive (or even neutral!) word to say about the other one.



Perhaps in one sense it is an advantage to never have read anything by Mr. Frame, only to have heard of him in generalized discussion.

From that standpoint, one thing is becoming more pronounced. Whatever the underpinnings of Mr. Frame's philosophy and teaching, more and more it is used to pit the Confessional standards (e.g. Westminster Standards) against Scripture, rather than as a faithful summary thereof.

While his arguments are cited to support claims for need to "change" or "amend" the Standards, it seems never to be stated just what, specifically, should be changed. 

Those who seem to want to move toward a "works based" gospel (e.g. under 'federal vision') cite them. Also those who disagree with the regulative principle, not only toward worship but generally, cite them.

This is not what someone who is biblical, reformed, confessional and holds the mystery of godliness in a clear conscience would want for the fruit of his work.


----------



## Myshkin

armourbearer said:


> It is remarkable how a differing interpretation of an author instantly brings forth a challenge to read this or read that as if simple ignorance must be the reason...Anyone who attempts to reconcile Horton's Lutheran sympathies with the Westminster formulary is simply deluding himself. It cannot be done. If you think otherwise, you need to read the Westminster formulary.



I am sorry Matthew, but is this not a double standard? It is impossible that you are misinterpreting, but it is certain that we are delusional? I'd hate for this to derail an otherwise civil conversation.



armourbearer said:


> ...the Lutheran view of the antithesis between law and gospel.



Please, may I have your exact definition of what constitutes the Lutheran view of antihesis between law and gospel? I can't really begin to agree with you until I know exactly what you are saying.


----------



## Casey

Marrow Man said:


> This part of the response (not by Horton) is included in the rebuttal:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _6. ... That’s why the law reveals our sin and misery (as the Heidelberg Catechism and Westminster Shorter Catechism confess), and the gospel reveals God’s saving grace toward us in Jesus Christ. One should be far less bothered that Professor Frame is confused about Christless Christianity than that he seems confused about the difference between commands (imperatives) and declarations of God’s promises (indicatives)._
Click to expand...

_
Must I embrace the WSCal/Lutheran law-gospel distinction to not be adhering to a "Christless Christianity"?

The Shorter Catechism, strictly speaking, nowhere explicitly links the phrase "sin and misery" with the law. It is rather linked with the fall and the consequences of guilt (see QQ. 17, 20, 31). But the answer to Q. 44, connecting the law with believers, does say: "The preface to the ten commandments teacheth us that because God is the Lord, and our God, and redeemer, therefore we are bound to keep all his commandments."

"I agree with the law that it is good" (Rom. 7:16). The law is not the source of my problem; I am._


----------



## Prufrock

RAS said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is remarkable how a differing interpretation of an author instantly brings forth a challenge to read this or read that as if simple ignorance must be the reason...Anyone who attempts to reconcile Horton's Lutheran sympathies with the Westminster formulary is simply deluding himself. It cannot be done. If you think otherwise, you need to read the Westminster formulary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am sorry Matthew, but is this not a double standard? It is impossible that you are misinterpreting, but it is certain that we are delusional? I'd hate for this to derail an otherwise civil conversation.
Click to expand...


I do believe he was being slightly ironic.


----------



## Archlute

A review from the Heidelblog in which Dr. Scott Clark also makes note of Frame's underlying motives:

In John’s Latitudinarian Garage Heidelblog

If you still don't believe it, then ask yourself why John Frame has not published a similar tirade against David Wells' work _The Courage to be Protestant_ in which Wells makes many of the same assessments and critiques of the American church as Horton.


----------



## DMcFadden

Thanks for citing Clark. His concluding paragraphs were particularly telling:



> In the interests of duct-taping evangelicalism together, Frame is advocating confessional minimalism and multi-perspectival inclusivism. By contrast, in the interests of a genuinely biblical and Reformed theology, piety, and practice, Horton is advocating confessional maximalism. He still believes not just the broad outlines (from some perspective or other) of the faith confessed by the Reformed churches but he actually believes the stuff between the first article and the last. He actually wants to see that inform our piety (the way we relate to God) and practice (the way we live out our faith). The practical fruit of John’s theology is that Reformed churches become less distinct from broad evangelical churches. Frame is explicit that, in his view, this is a good thing. He’s argued for this sort of “evangelical” ecumenism in his book Evangelical Reunion. Horton is arguing for a sharp antithesis between what today constitutes “evangelicalism” and confessional Reformed theology, piety, and practice. The function of the review then is to discredit, partly by misrepresenting him, Horton’s case so as to strengthen confidence in the broad, inclusivist approach to evangelicalism.
> 
> This review is an outstanding example of latter-day latitudinarianism. If you want to know where latitudinarianism leads, check out Julius Kim’s chapter in CJPM. What happened to the Church of England when it was over run by Latitudinarians?
> 
> Finally, the odd thing about this version of Latitudinarianism is that John seems to have room in his theological garage for theonomy, Norman Shepherd, the Federal Vision, and Joel Osteen but he doesn’t have room for Mike Horton and his ilk. That’s an interesting garage but it’s not one in which folk who still believe the Reformed faith should want to live.



I would agree with those who complain that Christians get into too many shooting wars over secondary (or tertiary) issues. However, any review that censures Horton and celebrates Osteen is one that makes me want to take up arms. Where is my weapon? I have heard Dr. Kim speak on his doctoral research (English Latitudinarianism done as a PhD research project at Trinity-"TEDS"). Clark is correct: it is a VERY scary direction for the church to go.


----------



## MW

Prufrock said:


> RAS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is remarkable how a differing interpretation of an author instantly brings forth a challenge to read this or read that as if simple ignorance must be the reason...Anyone who attempts to reconcile Horton's Lutheran sympathies with the Westminster formulary is simply deluding himself. It cannot be done. If you think otherwise, you need to read the Westminster formulary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am sorry Matthew, but is this not a double standard? It is impossible that you are misinterpreting, but it is certain that we are delusional? I'd hate for this to derail an otherwise civil conversation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do believe he was being slightly ironic.
Click to expand...


Yes, holding the challengers to their own standards. Why should they be the only ones to set required reading in order to qualify one to speak on the subject?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

CaseyBessette said:


> Marrow Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> This part of the response (not by Horton) is included in the rebuttal:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _6. ... That’s why the law reveals our sin and misery (as the Heidelberg Catechism and Westminster Shorter Catechism confess), and the gospel reveals God’s saving grace toward us in Jesus Christ. One should be far less bothered that Professor Frame is confused about Christless Christianity than that he seems confused about the difference between commands (imperatives) and declarations of God’s promises (indicatives)._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _
> Must I embrace the WSCal/Lutheran law-gospel distinction to not be adhering to a "Christless Christianity"?
> 
> The Shorter Catechism, strictly speaking, nowhere explicitly links the phrase "sin and misery" with the law. It is rather linked with the fall and the consequences of guilt (see QQ. 17, 20, 31). But the answer to Q. 44, connecting the law with believers, does say: "The preface to the ten commandments teacheth us that because God is the Lord, and our God, and redeemer, therefore we are bound to keep all his commandments."
> 
> "I agree with the law that it is good" (Rom. 7:16). The law is not the source of my problem; I am._
Click to expand...

_



As Paul says in Romans 7:7a "Is the law sin? Certainly not!"...and verse 12 "Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good."._


----------



## Irish Presbyterian

armourbearer said:


> It is remarkable how a differing interpretation of an author instantly brings forth a challenge to read this or read that as if simple ignorance must be the reason. Well, I have read Horton, both earlier and latter works. The reality is that he teaches the Lutheran view of the Mosaic covenant as a covenant of works and the Lutheran view of the antithesis between law and gospel. Please read God of Promise. And, if you don't agree with my interpretation of him, then I will simply ask you to read God of Promise ... again. If you believe other writings of Horton contradict what is taught in God of Promise, so be it; that doesn't prove anything other than a unique ability to negate with one book what he affirms with another.
> 
> Anyone who attempts to reconcile Horton's Lutheran sympathies with the Westminster formulary is simply deluding himself. It cannot be done. If you think otherwise, you need to read the Westminster formulary. The law is given as an administration of the covenant of grace and the the good works of believers which are done in obedience to God's commandments are called evangelical obedience. If you agree with Horton over the Westminster formulary, so be it; but no amount of sophistry will make Horton's teaching agree with the Westminster formulary.



First of all, I think that it is not necessary to say that someone is 'deluded' because they may hold a view of the Law to your own. A Little humility wouldn't go amiss. 

Secondly, Horton does not say in 'God of Promise' that the Mosaic covenant is a covenant of works. This is simply a misunderstanding of the Reformed Federal understanding of Covenant Theology which describes the Mosaic covenant as 'partly' a recapitulation of the covenant of works and yet still being fundamentally an administration of the covenant of grace. Their is absolutely no conflict here with the Westminster Standards. The new publication 'The Law is not of Faith' (which Horton contributed to) makes this point very clearly. There is no conflict with the content of 'God of Promise' and 'The Law is not of Faith'. To suggest that the recapitulation theory (which Horton teaches) is Lutheran is to lump Owen, Boston, Bullinger, Hodge, Warfield and others into this category.

Thirdly, the law/gospel distinction is held by Reformed authors from the magisterial reformers, through the scholastic, right up to Louis Berkhof. R. Scott Clark has written great articles on this and I'd advice people to read the above link I posted by Horton on 'Calvin on law/gospel'. 

Armourbearer, maybe you should take your own advice and re-read 'God of Promise' until you understand what Horton is saying. You might realize that it is not him that is in conflict with the Reformed heritage.


----------



## Christusregnat

Irish Presbyterian said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who attempts to reconcile Horton's Lutheran sympathies with the Westminster formulary is simply deluding himself. It cannot be done.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, I think that it is not necessary to say that someone is 'deluded' because they may hold a view of the Law to your own. A Little humility wouldn't go amiss.
Click to expand...


Brother, as an observer of this thread, I think you may need to re-read what Rev. Winzer actually said. He didn't say you had to agree with him.

Cheers,


----------



## Irish Presbyterian

Christusregnat said:


> Irish Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who attempts to reconcile Horton's Lutheran sympathies with the Westminster formulary is simply deluding himself. It cannot be done.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, I think that it is not necessary to say that someone is 'deluded' because they may hold a view of the Law to your own. A Little humility wouldn't go amiss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Brother, as an observer of this thread, I think you may need to re-read what Rev. Winzer actually said. He didn't say you had to agree with him.
> 
> Cheers,
Click to expand...


I'm sorry, I think my phrasing was misleading. However, I still think that their was a lack of humility in the post. He said:
*
Anyone who attempts to reconcile Horton's Lutheran sympathies with the Westminster formulary is simply deluding himself. It cannot be done.*

I think that suggesting that if anyone attempts to reconcile Horton's views to the Westminster formulary they are deluding themselves, does show an distinct lack of humility. To suggest that Horton's views are in tension with the Westminster formulary in the first place (a set of standards which he subscribes to at WSC) is mistaken. It also suggests that armourbearer's interpretation of those standards is the right one and those who hold Horton's views are deluding themselves. I have absolutely no personal animosity to Rev Winzer and have a great respect for him. I'm just saying that I found it to be a personally offensive comment.


----------



## ChristianTrader

As far as Law and Gospel goes, I thought we had finally ended that discussion with these two threads:

http://www.puritanboard.com/f77/believe-law-gospel-18589/

http://www.puritanboard.com/f31/what-reformed-view-law-gospel-33247/


----------



## Christusregnat

Irish Presbyterian said:


> I think that suggesting that if anyone attempts to reconcile Horton's views to the Westminster formulary they are deluding themselves, does show an distinct lack of humility.



To state that the Westminster formulary teaches a republication of the covenant of works is likewise hubris of the highest order, despite its clear statements to the contrary. This argument can be turned back upon you.




Irish Presbyterian said:


> To suggest that Horton's views are in tension with the Westminster formulary in the first place (a set of standards which he subscribes to at WSC) is mistaken.



No, it is simply honest. By the way, this kind of appeal to a person private actions is unbecoming in discussions of ideas, and is logically invalid.

Cheers,


----------



## Irish Presbyterian

Christusregnat said:


> Irish Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that suggesting that if anyone attempts to reconcile Horton's views to the Westminster formulary they are deluding themselves, does show an distinct lack of humility.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To state that the Westminster formulary teaches a republication of the covenant of works is likewise hubris of the highest order, despite its clear statements to the contrary. This argument can be turned back upon you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Irish Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> To suggest that Horton's views are in tension with the Westminster formulary in the first place (a set of standards which he subscribes to at WSC) is mistaken.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it is simply honest. By the way, this kind of appeal to a person private actions is unbecoming in discussions of ideas, and is logically invalid.
> 
> Cheers,
Click to expand...


Please indicate the 'clear' statements to the contrary in the Westminster Standards'

Michael Horton's subscription to the Westminster Standards is not a private action. It is something that he must uphold in order to teach in Westminster Seminary. When a member of one of the Westminster faculties is seen to be saying something that is contrary to the Westminster Standards then this is treated very seriously. See for example Norman Shepherd and Peter Enns. Michael Horton's stand on the Westminster Standards is no less public than his written works and therefore in a discussion of the man, it is very appropriate and not at all logically invalid.


----------



## Christusregnat

Irish Presbyterian said:


> Please indicate the 'clear' statements to the contrary in the Westminster Standards'



Chapter XIX
Of the Law of God
V. The moral law does forever bind all, *as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof;[8] and that, not only in regard of the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God the Creator, who gave it.[9] Neither does Christ, in the Gospel, any way dissolve, but much strengthen this obligation.[*10]

VI. Although true believers be not under the law, as a covenant of works, to be thereby justified, or condemned;[11] yet is it of great use to them, as well as to others; in that, as a rule of life informing them of the will of God, and their duty, it directs and binds them to walk accordingly;[12] discovering also the sinful pollutions of their nature, hearts and lives;[13] so as, examining themselves thereby, they may come to further conviction of, humiliation for, and hatred against sin,[14] together with a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ, and the perfection of His obedience.[15] It is likewise of use to the regenerate, to restrain their corruptions, in that it forbids sin:[16] and the threatenings of it serve to show what even their sins deserve; and what afflictions, in this life, they may expect for them, although freed from the curse thereof threatened in the law.[17] *The promises of it, in like manner, show them God's approbation of obedience,and what blessings they may expect upon the performance thereof:[18] although not as due to them by the law as a covenant of works.[19] So as, a man's doing good, and refraining from evil, because the law encourages to the one and deters from the other, is no evidence of his being under the law: and not under grace.*[20]

VII. *Neither are the forementioned uses of the law contrary to the grace of the Gospel, but do sweetly comply with it;[21] the Spirit of Christ subduing and enabling the will of man to do that freely, and cheerfully, which the will of God, revealed in the law, requires to be done.*[22]


Chapter VII
Of God's Covenant with Man
II. The first covenant made with man was a covenant of works,[2] wherein life was promised to Adam; and in him to his posterity,[3] upon condition of perfect and personal obedience.[4]

III. *Man, by his fall, having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second,[5] commonly called the covenant of grace;* wherein He freely offers unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ; requiring of them faith in Him, that they may be saved,[6] and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto eternal life His Holy Spirit, to make them willing, and able to believe.[7]


V. *This covenant was differently administered in the time of the law, and in the time of the Gospel:[9] under the law it was administered by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other types and ordinances delivered to the people of the Jews, all foresignifying Christ to come;*[10] which were, for that time, _*sufficient and efficacious, through the operation of the Spirit, to instruct and build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah,[11] by whom they had full remission of sins, and eternal salvation; and is called the Old Testament.*_[12]

VI. Under the Gospel, when Christ, the substance,[13] was exhibited, the ordinances in which this covenant is dispensed are the preaching of the Word, and the administration of the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper:[14] which, though fewer in number, and administered with more simplicity, and less outward glory, yet, in them, it is held forth in more fullness, evidence, and spiritual efficacy,[15] to all nations, both Jews and Gentiles;[16] and is called the New Testament.[17] There are not therefore two covenants of grace, differing in substance, but one and the same, under various dispensations.[18]



Q. 31. With whom was the covenant of grace made?

A. The covenant of grace was made with Christ as the second Adam, and in him with all the elect as his seed.[114]

Q. 32. How is the grace of God manifested in the second covenant?

A. The grace of God is manifested in the second covenant, in that he freely provideth and offereth to sinners a Mediator,[115] and life and salvation by him;[116] and requiring faith as the condition to interest them in him,[117] promiseth and giveth his Holy Spirit[118] to all his elect, to work in them that faith,[119] with all other saving graces;[120] and to enable them unto all holy obedience,[121] as the evidence of the truth of their faith[122] and thankfulness to God,[123] and as the way which he hath appointed them to salvation.[124]

Q. 33. Was the covenant of grace always administered after one and the same manner?

A. The covenant of grace was not always administered after the same manner, but the administrations of it under the Old Testament were different from those under the New.[125]

Q. 34. How was the covenant of grace administered under the Old Testament?

A. The covenant of grace was administered under the Old Testament, by promises,[126] prophecies,[127] sacrifices,[128] circumcision,[129] the passover,[130] and other types and ordinances, which did all fore-signify Christ then to come, and were for that time sufficient to build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah,[131] by whom they then had full remission of sin, and eternal salvation.[132]


Cheers,

Adam


----------



## Ron

Archlute said:


> A review from the Heidelblog in which Dr. Scott Clark also makes note of Frame's underlying motives:
> 
> In John’s Latitudinarian Garage Heidelblog
> 
> If you still don't believe it, then ask yourself why John Frame has not published a similar tirade against David Wells' work _The Courage to be Protestant_ in which Wells makes many of the same assessments and critiques of the American church as Horton.



I won't bother to read anything so absurd as Clark's pronouncements on John's motives, as if Clark could possibly know them. And I hope that you have not impugned Dr. Clark by suggesting that he has declared another man's motives if he indeed hasn't. I prefer to remain agnostic on the entire matter.

Regarding the comment on David Wells being off limits to John:

John is somewhat a logician, though I saw some definite lapses in his thinking or else an unwillingness to cut Mike any slack whatsoever, like with the whole Osteen matter. I even found an irony in his treatment of Mike given that John postured himself as one who wanted to be charitable and precise. Having said that, the sweeping statements and false dichotomies that have become all too customary in (if not dominating of) Mike’s writings are no doubt troublesome to many of us who want to fight for the truth and keep the peace and unity of the Spirit. Nobody wants to see another brother violate the ninth commandment. A little more precision in representing opposing views would suit us all. Nuff said. 

As for Wells verses Mike - I don’t find such sweeping condemnations and anathemas coming forth from Wells. Consider the balance of Wells in _The Courage to Be Protestant_: 

_“The desire of marketers and emergents to engage the culture is commendable. Engaging it, though, is not the same thing as capitulating to it. Missionaries know the difference… If the evangelical church does not want to lose its voice, it will have to ensure that its engagement with postmodern culture is done biblically, thoughtfully, and conscientiously.”_

Wells notes well that IF the church does not want to lose its voice (implying that it has not yet lost its voice), it must continue in its _commendable_ endeavor to engage the culture “biblically, thoughtfully, and conscientiously.” Mike on the other hand seems to prefer to shock his audience into thinking that the battle has already been lost, but thankfully Mike retracts those hooks he casts into his readers and devout followers. As John observes: _“This is something of a ‘bait and switch.’ Horton scares us to death with his brash title, telling us that we are headed for Hell. But then he backtracks. He says there is really no movement today that could be called “Christless Christianity.” But there are some things going on that could lead the church that way.”_

I have serious problems with Mike’s covenant theology and the emphasis he puts on some doctrines over others, like justification over salvation; forensic over existential; and its close cousin, imputation over union. Frankly, I think Mike would do well to spend a bit more time in the circular letter of Ephesians than the situational letter written to the Galatians. Notwithstanding, I do believe that he has some good spiritual reflexes when it comes to Christendom and the culture. I think those he disagrees with as well as those he wants to see the light would all be better off if he expressed his concerns in a more irenic manner. 

Ron


----------



## Myshkin

armourbearer said:


> Prufrock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RAS said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am sorry Matthew, but is this not a double standard? It is impossible that you are misinterpreting, but it is certain that we are delusional? I'd hate for this to derail an otherwise civil conversation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do believe he was being slightly ironic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, holding the challengers to their own standards. Why should they be the only ones to set required reading in order to qualify one to speak on the subject?
Click to expand...


It is unfortunate that the thread has taken this direction. I am at a loss as to how suggesting a book that contradicts one's interpretation is the equivalent of "you're not qualified to speak"; it simply means I think you are incorrect on _this particular point_. Your post said that it "seems" Horton was teaching what you accuse him of. This clearly means that you are not certain that he does, hence the suggestion in order to clear up the "seems". Apparently this suggestion was off limits because now you are certain that he teaches what at first he seemed to teach and to question your certainty is to mean that one is delusional. All I have been asking for is clarification and defintions so that I can better understand your viewpoint and better interact with it, and therefore not misrepresent you. Thats all. I am not here to make, nor have I made, statements about one's competence. 

Matthew, can you please just answer my question? I am not trying to fight you. I just want to be clear, are you stating that Horton definitely teaches a "No-Lordship salvation" ("the gospel of justification alone" in your terms)?

Thanks.


----------



## Irish Presbyterian

Christusregnat said:


> Irish Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please indicate the 'clear' statements to the contrary in the Westminster Standards'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chapter XIX
> Of the Law of God
> V. The moral law does forever bind all, *as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof;[8] and that, not only in regard of the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God the Creator, who gave it.[9] Neither does Christ, in the Gospel, any way dissolve, but much strengthen this obligation.[*10]
> 
> VI. Although true believers be not under the law, as a covenant of works, to be thereby justified, or condemned;[11] yet is it of great use to them, as well as to others; in that, as a rule of life informing them of the will of God, and their duty, it directs and binds them to walk accordingly;[12] discovering also the sinful pollutions of their nature, hearts and lives;[13] so as, examining themselves thereby, they may come to further conviction of, humiliation for, and hatred against sin,[14] together with a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ, and the perfection of His obedience.[15] It is likewise of use to the regenerate, to restrain their corruptions, in that it forbids sin:[16] and the threatenings of it serve to show what even their sins deserve; and what afflictions, in this life, they may expect for them, although freed from the curse thereof threatened in the law.[17] *The promises of it, in like manner, show them God's approbation of obedience,and what blessings they may expect upon the performance thereof:[18] although not as due to them by the law as a covenant of works.[19] So as, a man's doing good, and refraining from evil, because the law encourages to the one and deters from the other, is no evidence of his being under the law: and not under grace.*[20]
> 
> VII. *Neither are the forementioned uses of the law contrary to the grace of the Gospel, but do sweetly comply with it;[21] the Spirit of Christ subduing and enabling the will of man to do that freely, and cheerfully, which the will of God, revealed in the law, requires to be done.*[22]
> 
> 
> Chapter VII
> Of God's Covenant with Man
> II. The first covenant made with man was a covenant of works,[2] wherein life was promised to Adam; and in him to his posterity,[3] upon condition of perfect and personal obedience.[4]
> 
> III. *Man, by his fall, having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second,[5] commonly called the covenant of grace;* wherein He freely offers unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ; requiring of them faith in Him, that they may be saved,[6] and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto eternal life His Holy Spirit, to make them willing, and able to believe.[7]
> 
> 
> V. *This covenant was differently administered in the time of the law, and in the time of the Gospel:[9] under the law it was administered by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other types and ordinances delivered to the people of the Jews, all foresignifying Christ to come;*[10] which were, for that time, _*sufficient and efficacious, through the operation of the Spirit, to instruct and build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah,[11] by whom they had full remission of sins, and eternal salvation; and is called the Old Testament.*_[12]
> 
> VI. Under the Gospel, when Christ, the substance,[13] was exhibited, the ordinances in which this covenant is dispensed are the preaching of the Word, and the administration of the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper:[14] which, though fewer in number, and administered with more simplicity, and less outward glory, yet, in them, it is held forth in more fullness, evidence, and spiritual efficacy,[15] to all nations, both Jews and Gentiles;[16] and is called the New Testament.[17] There are not therefore two covenants of grace, differing in substance, but one and the same, under various dispensations.[18]
> 
> 
> 
> Q. 31. With whom was the covenant of grace made?
> 
> A. The covenant of grace was made with Christ as the second Adam, and in him with all the elect as his seed.[114]
> 
> Q. 32. How is the grace of God manifested in the second covenant?
> 
> A. The grace of God is manifested in the second covenant, in that he freely provideth and offereth to sinners a Mediator,[115] and life and salvation by him;[116] and requiring faith as the condition to interest them in him,[117] promiseth and giveth his Holy Spirit[118] to all his elect, to work in them that faith,[119] with all other saving graces;[120] and to enable them unto all holy obedience,[121] as the evidence of the truth of their faith[122] and thankfulness to God,[123] and as the way which he hath appointed them to salvation.[124]
> 
> Q. 33. Was the covenant of grace always administered after one and the same manner?
> 
> A. The covenant of grace was not always administered after the same manner, but the administrations of it under the Old Testament were different from those under the New.[125]
> 
> Q. 34. How was the covenant of grace administered under the Old Testament?
> 
> A. The covenant of grace was administered under the Old Testament, by promises,[126] prophecies,[127] sacrifices,[128] circumcision,[129] the passover,[130] and other types and ordinances, which did all fore-signify Christ then to come, and were for that time sufficient to build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah,[131] by whom they then had full remission of sin, and eternal salvation.[132]
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Adam
Click to expand...


Adam,

Thanks for taking the time to publish these notes. I can't help but think that you misunderstand the idea of republication when you use these quotes against it. No Reformed believer in the republication theory denies the third use of the Law or that the Mosaic covenant is an administration of the covenant of grace. Let me give you a couple of quotes to show what I mean.

*"To affirm the doctrine of republication does not entail the view that the Mosaic covenant is not part of the covenant of grace. While there are perhaps those in the past who separated the Mosaic covenant and argued that there are two separate covenants of grace, the vast majority of those who hold to the doctrine of republication affirm that the Mosaic covenant is a part of or connected to the covenant of grace (Westminster Confession of Faith 7.6)...To affirm the doctrine of republication is in no way to deny the third use of the law; it is not antinomianism. To hold that the Mosaic covenant republishes the covenant of works does not therefore mean that because Christ fulfilled the obligations of the moral law the believer therefore has no use for the law post-conversion. Rather, in concert with historic Reformed theology, the doctrine of republication merely points the redeemed sinner to Christ as the one who has fulfilled the broken covenant of works and has redeemed him from the curse of the law. Morever, because the believer is no longer under the curse of the law of God upon his heart, the believer is thereby enabled to walk in the statutes of the Lord by the power of the Holy Spirit (Westminster Confession of Faith 19.1-2, 5-7). So, then, while these criticisms are perhaps common objections, one should note that they are unfounded when one carefully examines the scriptures and historic Reformed theology". ('The Law is Not of Faith': Essays on Works and Grace in the Mosaic Covenant.)

"1. The law of Moses was, in the first place, a re-enactment of the covenant of works. A Covenant is simply a promise suspended upon a condition. The covenant of works, therefore, is nothing more than the promise of life suspended on the condition of perfect obedience.

2. The Mosaic economy was also a national covenant; that is, it presented national promises on the condition of national obedience. Under this aspect also it was purely legal.

3. As the gospel contains renewed revelation of the law, so the law of Moses contained a revelation of the gospel. It presented in its priesthood and sacrifices, as types of the office and work of Christ, the gratuitous method of salvation through the Redeemer. This necessarily supposes that faith and not works was the condition of salvation."
Charles Hodge: 1&2 Corthinians.*

Adam, in fairness, I'd say again that the quotes you gave from the standards don't stand against the historic Reformed doctrine of republication.

Thanks.


----------



## timmopussycat

*Can we look out for irritants?*



armourbearer said:


> Yes, holding the challengers to their own standards. Why should they be the only ones to set required reading in order to qualify one to speak on the subject?



Actually the PB stipulates that it is subject to the WCF which stipulates how theological disagreements are to be settled. It is an easily observable trend that some folk on the board tend to put forth unsupported statements that someone is wrong, instead of providing full statements analyzing the disputed premise by Scripture and GNC deductions therefrom justifying their opinions as seems to be required by WCF 1:x. 

I am aware that adopting this practice might lead to longer posts and slow down the pace of discussions, but I also believe that it would increase the light and reduce the heat (now too often generated). For those who want to continue the present practice, may I urge you to consider that when anyone asserts that person A's book B takes an incorrect or heretical position C, such an assertion comes across as lacking humility and needlessly provocative – unless one can demonstrate at least some of the grounds on which that opinion is based. 

Another suggestion I would put forward is that we all try to answer the questions we are asked. I have noticed that sometimes correspondents on one side of the discussion do not answer questions asked by correspondents on the other. While some of this may be due to oversight, (I know I have stumbled here) I also know of at least one instance where the practice seems to be habitual. Omitting to answer questions may have an unfortunate result when the questions have point: not answering them may be experienced as the debaters trick of "dodging", which is another irritant.


----------



## DMcFadden

*MODERATOR WARNING!!!

Please refrain from name calling, counter name calling, counter complaining, sur rejoinders characterized by name calling, counter name calling, counter complaining, etc. We need to stick to the issue of the original post.*


----------



## Archlute

Ron said:


> Archlute said:
> 
> 
> 
> A review from the Heidelblog in which Dr. Scott Clark also makes note of Frame's underlying motives:
> 
> In John’s Latitudinarian Garage Heidelblog
> 
> If you still don't believe it, then ask yourself why John Frame has not published a similar tirade against David Wells' work _The Courage to be Protestant_ in which Wells makes many of the same assessments and critiques of the American church as Horton.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I won't bother to read anything so absurd as Clark's pronouncements on John's motives, as if Clark could possibly know them. And I hope that you have not impugned Dr. Clark by suggesting that he has declared another man's motives if he indeed hasn't. I prefer to remain agnostic on the entire matter.
> 
> Regarding the comment on David Wells being off limits to John:
> 
> John is somewhat a logician, though I saw some definite lapses in his thinking or else an unwillingness to cut Mike any slack whatsoever, like with the whole Osteen matter. I even found an irony in his treatment of Mike given that John postured himself as one who wanted to be charitable and precise. Having said that, the sweeping statements and false dichotomies that have become all too customary in (if not dominating of) Mike’s writings are no doubt troublesome to many of us who want to fight for the truth and keep the peace and unity of the Spirit. Nobody wants to see another brother violate the ninth commandment. A little more precision in representing opposing views would suit us all. Nuff said.
> 
> As for Wells verses Mike - I don’t find such sweeping condemnations and anathemas coming forth from Wells. Consider the balance of Wells in _The Courage to Be Protestant_:
> 
> _“The desire of marketers and emergents to engage the culture is commendable. Engaging it, though, is not the same thing as capitulating to it. Missionaries know the difference… If the evangelical church does not want to lose its voice, it will have to ensure that its engagement with postmodern culture is done biblically, thoughtfully, and conscientiously.”_
> 
> Wells notes well that IF the church does not want to lose its voice (implying that it has not yet lost its voice), it must continue in its _commendable_ endeavor to engage the culture “biblically, thoughtfully, and conscientiously.” Mike on the other hand seems to prefer to shock his audience into thinking that the battle has already been lost, but thankfully Mike retracts those hooks he casts into his readers and devout followers. As John observes: _“This is something of a ‘bait and switch.’ Horton scares us to death with his brash title, telling us that we are headed for Hell. But then he backtracks. He says there is really no movement today that could be called “Christless Christianity.” But there are some things going on that could lead the church that way.”_
> 
> I have serious problems with Mike’s covenant theology and the emphasis he puts on some doctrines over others, like justification over salvation; forensic over existential; and its close cousin, imputation over union. Frankly, I think Mike would do well to spend a bit more time in the circular letter of Ephesians than the situational letter written to the Galatians. Notwithstanding, I do believe that he has some good spiritual reflexes when it comes to Christendom and the culture. I think those he disagrees with as well as those he wants to see the light would all be better off if he expressed his concerns in a more irenic manner.
> 
> Ron
Click to expand...


Hello Ron,

I suppose if you are unwilling to read the assessment in that article then you will be unable to make a response of any substance.

However, I would challenge you on wagging your finger against any minister who would place a very strong emphasis upon the forensic doctrines of justification and imputation. Historic Evangelical Protestantism has _always_ placed a higher emphasis upon those aspects of soteriology precisely because they are the points that are denied by the Roman Catholic church. Rome's theologians would have no problem sitting down with you to affirm existential union and the broad definition of "salvation" while shelving a forensic doctrine of justification. 

It would seem that you are following after the trend of some at WTS-P and within the OPC who would push existential union over and above the legal and particular aspects of Reformed soterieology (Gaffin, Garcia, Tipton, etc.), but this is ultimately unhelpful, and most likely detrimental for the health of the OPC in the long run. The down playing of the former doctrines for the latter has already been picked up by Leithart and other men who would seek, not to give some more floor time to union and the broad picture of salvation while still maintaining imputation and a forensic view of justification, but who rather would emphasize the one to cover up their personal denial of the other.

The Christian should glory in active obedience, imputation, sola fide, and like doctrines every day of the week. Without them, our salvation is not nearly so grand.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Irish Presbyterian said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> RAS,
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I love Mike Horton. I consider him a dear Brother in Christ and an important voice for the Gospel of Grace. *I also note, however, that the WHI has a problem with some of our Confessional notions where there is an "oughtness" to the Gospel. Romans 6 is as much a part of the Gospel as Romans 8. *Both are grounded in what God has accomplished through the power of Christ's death and resurrection for us His own.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please substantiate the claim that there is an 'oughtness' to the Gospel in the Confessions and how the WHI have a 'problem' with it.
> 
> Also, you say:
> 
> "Both are grounded in what God has accomplished through the power of Christ's death and resurrection for us His own".
> 
> The death and resurrection of Christ (that object work) is the Gospel (good news, proclamation) (1 Corth 15). The walking in newness in Romans 6 and life in the Spirit in Romans 8 are the 'result' of the Gospel, so I don't see the point being made here. Sorry.
Click to expand...


The point being made is illustrated in one of the threads that CT cited: http://www.puritanboard.com/f31/what-reformed-view-law-gospel-33247/

Please read that thread from beginning to end as you keep asking for substantiation.

Dordt states that the Gospel includes imperatives. If I could find the specific post I would even note where a WSC theologian was arguing that when Peter responded "Repent and Be Baptized" to the crowd at Acts 2 that this was not the Gospel due to the imperative nature of the command.

Dordt:


> Article 3: The Preaching of the Gospel
> 
> In order that people may be brought to faith, God mercifully sends proclaimers of this very joyful message to the people he wishes and at the time he wishes. By this ministry people are called to repentance and faith in Christ crucified. For how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without someone preaching? And how shall they preach unless they have been sent? (Rom. 10:14-15).
> 
> Article 4: A Twofold Response to the Gospel
> 
> God's anger remains on those who do not believe this gospel. But those who do accept it and embrace Jesus the Savior with a true and living faith are delivered through him from God's anger and from destruction, and receive the gift of eternal life.


In other words, the Gospel has an "oughtness". There are imperatives associated with.

Also, as Fred Greco (and others) note in the thread cited, the Good News cannot be divorced from the definitive work that is wrought in the believer by the Holy Spirit as he is vitally united to Christ. It is not that sanctification is justification but that the Gospel includes our definitive sanctification. As Paul notes when he's rebuking the Galatians:

Galatians 3:


> 1O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?
> 
> 2This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
> 
> 3Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?


In other words, Paul considered it an abandonment of the Gospel not simply that the believers were forgetting the grounds of their justification but the grounds of their sanctification.


----------



## MW

timmopussycat said:


> Actually the PB stipulates that it is subject to the WCF which stipulates how theological disagreements are to be settled.



These questions have already been discussed on PB. It is not as if this is a new subject or new information has come to light requiring a fesh treatment.


----------



## py3ak

[OFF-TOPIC]


timmopussycat said:


> Another suggestion I would put forward is that we all try to answer the questions we are asked. I have noticed that sometimes correspondents on one side of the discussion do not answer questions asked by correspondents on the other. While some of this may be due to oversight, (I know I have stumbled here) I also know of at least one instance where the practice seems to be habitual. Omitting to answer questions may have an unfortunate result when the questions have point: not answering them may be experienced as the debaters trick of "dodging", which is another irritant.



Just one response to this, and I don't believe I'm the person you have in view here, Tim, but in my own experience I have noticed that questions are often difficult to answer because:
A. They have no apparent bearing on the topic at hand
B. They impute a false position to the one being asked the questions
C. They are leading or tendentious
D. They could be rhetorical (and that trick can sometimes be used to maintain deniability)
E. Other points have to be addressed before we can come to that question
F. The question has been answered several times, just not to the questioner's satisfaction

So that those asking questions should endeavor to make sure that the questions are fair, on topic, precise, and not previously addressed _ad nauseam_.
[/OFF-TOPIC]


----------



## MW

Irish Presbyterian said:


> First of all, I think that it is not necessary to say that someone is 'deluded' because they may hold a view of the Law to your own. A Little humility wouldn't go amiss.



As noted by Adam, my statement looks for honesty; humility does not require one to be less than honest.



Irish Presbyterian said:


> Secondly, Horton does not say in 'God of Promise' that the Mosaic covenant is a covenant of works. This is simply a misunderstanding of the Reformed Federal understanding of Covenant Theology which describes the Mosaic covenant as 'partly' a recapitulation of the covenant of works and yet still being fundamentally an administration of the covenant of grace. Their is absolutely no conflict here with the Westminster Standards. The new publication 'The Law is not of Faith' (which Horton contributed to) makes this point very clearly. There is no conflict with the content of 'God of Promise' and 'The Law is not of Faith'. To suggest that the recapitulation theory (which Horton teaches) is Lutheran is to lump Owen, Boston, Bullinger, Hodge, Warfield and others into this category.



God of Promise, pp. 100, 101: "The Decalogue (Ten Commandments), although it begins with the indicative announcement of God's liberation -- thus showing its continuity with the Abrahamic promise -- is basically a law covenant. *Purely a suzerainty treaty*, it does not obligate God to do anything but instead *simply command*, with sanctions for obedience and disobedience."

Thomas Boston, Works 2:89: "The ten commandments were not given to the Israelites as a covenant of works, but in the way of the covenant of grace, and under that covert. Ye saw it was Jesus the Mediator that spoke these, Heb. xii. 24, 26. -- Amongst all the reasons there is not one of terror; but the sweet savour of gospel-grace."

You are misreading either Horton or the theologians you have named, but facts are facts, and the fact is that they do not teach the same thing.



Irish Presbyterian said:


> Thirdly, the law/gospel distinction is held by Reformed authors from the magisterial reformers, through the scholastic, right up to Louis Berkhof. R. Scott Clark has written great articles on this and I'd advice people to read the above link I posted by Horton on 'Calvin on law/gospel'.



A law-gospel distinction is held by reformed theologians. It is not the Lutheran distinction as advocated by Horton. In Lutheran theology, the law promises nothing. In reformed theology, the law holds out precious promises to the justified believer from the hand of Christ. Boston (Works 2:255): "Christ being the Surety of the better covenant, having made a new covenant of grace in his blood, he takes the same law in his hands, and gives out the commands of it as a rule of life to his covenanted people, and renews *the promises of it to their sincere obedience of them*, 1 Tim. iv. 8, 'godliness is profitable unto all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come.'"


----------



## MW

RAS said:


> Matthew, can you please just answer my question? I am not trying to fight you. I just want to be clear, are you stating that Horton definitely teaches a "No-Lordship salvation" ("the gospel of justification alone" in your terms)?



No, the Lordship controversy is different again, and Horton is very clear that Christ is Lord and Saviour; he is also very clear that the God who justifies is the God who sanctifies. Regrettably, however, Horton teaches the imperative-indicative division of law and gospel, and thereby undermines the element of "evangelical obedience" which is part and parcel of reformed theology.


----------



## Ron

Archlute said:


> Ron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Archlute said:
> 
> 
> 
> A review from the Heidelblog in which Dr. Scott Clark also makes note of Frame's underlying motives:
> 
> In John’s Latitudinarian Garage Heidelblog
> 
> If you still don't believe it, then ask yourself why John Frame has not published a similar tirade against David Wells' work _The Courage to be Protestant_ in which Wells makes many of the same assessments and critiques of the American church as Horton.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I won't bother to read anything so absurd as Clark's pronouncements on John's motives, as if Clark could possibly know them. And I hope that you have not impugned Dr. Clark by suggesting that he has declared another man's motives if he indeed hasn't. I prefer to remain agnostic on the entire matter.
> 
> Regarding the comment on David Wells being off limits to John:
> 
> John is somewhat a logician, though I saw some definite lapses in his thinking or else an unwillingness to cut Mike any slack whatsoever, like with the whole Osteen matter. I even found an irony in his treatment of Mike given that John postured himself as one who wanted to be charitable and precise. Having said that, the sweeping statements and false dichotomies that have become all too customary in (if not dominating of) Mike’s writings are no doubt troublesome to many of us who want to fight for the truth and keep the peace and unity of the Spirit. Nobody wants to see another brother violate the ninth commandment. A little more precision in representing opposing views would suit us all. Nuff said.
> 
> As for Wells verses Mike - I don’t find such sweeping condemnations and anathemas coming forth from Wells. Consider the balance of Wells in _The Courage to Be Protestant_:
> 
> _“The desire of marketers and emergents to engage the culture is commendable. Engaging it, though, is not the same thing as capitulating to it. Missionaries know the difference… If the evangelical church does not want to lose its voice, it will have to ensure that its engagement with postmodern culture is done biblically, thoughtfully, and conscientiously.”_
> 
> Wells notes well that IF the church does not want to lose its voice (implying that it has not yet lost its voice), it must continue in its _commendable_ endeavor to engage the culture “biblically, thoughtfully, and conscientiously.” Mike on the other hand seems to prefer to shock his audience into thinking that the battle has already been lost, but thankfully Mike retracts those hooks he casts into his readers and devout followers. As John observes: _“This is something of a ‘bait and switch.’ Horton scares us to death with his brash title, telling us that we are headed for Hell. But then he backtracks. He says there is really no movement today that could be called “Christless Christianity.” But there are some things going on that could lead the church that way.”_
> 
> I have serious problems with Mike’s covenant theology and the emphasis he puts on some doctrines over others, like justification over salvation; forensic over existential; and its close cousin, imputation over union. Frankly, I think Mike would do well to spend a bit more time in the circular letter of Ephesians than the situational letter written to the Galatians. Notwithstanding, I do believe that he has some good spiritual reflexes when it comes to Christendom and the culture. I think those he disagrees with as well as those he wants to see the light would all be better off if he expressed his concerns in a more irenic manner.
> 
> Ron
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hello Ron,
> 
> I suppose if you are unwilling to read the assessment in that article then you will be unable to make a response of any substance.
> 
> However, I would challenge you on wagging your finger against any minister who would place a very strong emphasis upon the forensic doctrines of justification and imputation. Historic Evangelical Protestantism has _always_ placed a higher emphasis upon those aspects of soteriology precisely because they are the points that are denied by the Roman Catholic church. Rome's theologians would have no problem sitting down with you to affirm existential union and the broad definition of "salvation" while shelving a forensic doctrine of justification.
> 
> It would seem that you are following after the trend of some at WTS-P and within the OPC who would push existential union over and above the legal and particular aspects of Reformed soterieology (Gaffin, Garcia, Tipton, etc.), but this is ultimately unhelpful, and most likely detrimental for the health of the OPC in the long run. The down playing of the former doctrines for the latter has already been picked up by Leithart and other men who would seek, not to give some more floor time to union and the broad picture of salvation while still maintaining imputation and a forensic view of justification, but who rather would emphasize the one to cover up their personal denial of the other.
> 
> The Christian should glory in active obedience, imputation, sola fide, and like doctrines every day of the week. Without them, our salvation is not nearly so grand.
Click to expand...


You've misread my meaning and misrepresented my position, either intentionally or out of ignorance. Even your assertions regarding Reformed thought and emphasis is in error. At the very least, you seem unaware that salvation includes justification and you impugn me by suggesting that I am speaking of a "broad" salvation that would please delegates to Trent. I could say more but I trust it would be wasted. http://reformedapologist.blogspot.com/2008/01/resurrection-or-conversion.html

Ron


----------



## Archlute

Ron, I've interacted with you before in another venue, although you most likely do not remember. What I saw there was the same as I am seeing here, namely, taking the "high road" of saying that your own position is correct, and that those who disagree with you are ignorant or intentionally misrepresenting you. Yet in doing so each time you refuse to address the points given, or in this case even to do the minimal work of reading an article. I expect more from a ruling elder.


----------



## Ron

Archlute said:


> Ron, I've interacted with you before in another venue, although you most likely do not remember. What I saw there was the same as I am seeing here, namely, taking the "high road" of saying that your own position is correct, and that those who disagree with you are ignorant or intentionally misrepresenting you. Yet in doing so each time you refuse to address the points given, or in this case even to do the minimal work of reading an article. I expect more from a ruling elder.



By all means, please feel free to find fault with me for the emphasis I put on some doctrines over others. Just the same, I find it a bit passing strange that without constraint you would find fault with me for not being inclined to read an article upon which you assert that Dr. Clark has discerned the motives of John Frame. Either Dr. Clark is omniscient, you are mistaken, or Dr. Clark has made assertions beyond his abilities. Anyone of those scenarios does not interest me and has little to do with the accuracy of Frame's review of Horton's book. That's the material point.

“_I suppose if you are unwilling to read the assessment in that article then you will be unable to make a response of any substance._”

It does not follow that because I am not interested in reading an article that you believe speaks to Frame’s motives that, therefore, I must be unqualified to render even reasonable observations regarding Frame’s review of Horton’s book (or theological emphasis). I might be unqualified mind you, but my not reading such an article cannot make it so. The accuracy of the review stands on its own merit, aside from Frame’s motives - which only God knows. Accordingly, your premise would appear false. 

”_However, I would challenge you on wagging your finger against any minister who would place a very strong emphasis upon the forensic doctrines of justification and imputation._”

Your exhortation presupposes that one who places a strong emphasis on important, even essential doctrine is untouchable in other areas. That would appear simply fallacious. 

“_Historic Evangelical Protestantism has always placed a higher emphasis upon those aspects of soteriology precisely because they are the points that are denied by the Roman Catholic church._”

First off, the Confession is a product of its time and circumstances. Accordingly, the emphasis found in the Confession need not be the emphasis we find in Scripture. Secondly, the Confession spreads itself over many doctrines and does not place undo emphasis on those doctrines that you think have a higher emphasis in Reformed thought. Accordingly, your point would seem unfounded. 

“_Rome's theologians would have no problem sitting down with you to affirm existential union and the broad definition of "salvation" while shelving a forensic doctrine of justification._”

Do I have a magical view of baptism? Does my doctrine of salvation confound justification and sanctification? Do I believe that those who are existentially united to Christ can lose that union? Of course not! Accordingly, your statement is simply untrue. 

”_It would seem that you are following after the trend of some at WTS-P and within the OPC who would push existential union over and above the legal and particular aspects of Reformed soterieology (Gaffin, Garcia, Tipton, etc.), but this is ultimately unhelpful, and most likely detrimental for the health of the OPC in the long run._”

That I would point out that I have grave concerns over the emphasis one puts on “justification over salvation; forensic over existential; and its close cousin, imputation over union” does not suggest that I must embrace a contrary order of priority. In other words, my belief that there is undue overemphasis of P relative to Q does not logically imply that I believe Q should take primacy over P. In fact, logically speaking one can maintain that justification should take precedent over sanctification yet that Horton’s emphasis is way too extreme. Consequently, you jumped the gun by lumping me with others, even if you do have them rightly pigeon holed. 

“_The down playing of the former doctrines for the latter has already been picked up by Leithart and other men who would seek, not to give some more floor time to union and the broad picture of salvation while still maintaining imputation and a forensic view of justification, but who rather would emphasize the one to cover up their personal denial of the other._”

Even if true, the foolish (even devilish) acts of some are no reason in and of itself to eclipse so much of Pauline soteriology. Consequently, your point is not logically sustainable. 

_”The Christian should glory in active obedience, imputation, sola fide, and like doctrines every day of the week. Without them, our salvation is not nearly so grand._

Did anything I said suggest that these are not doctrines in which we should glory? Again, it would seem as though you simply missed the mark. 

Now of course rather than acknowledge all of these false accusations, you may prefer to write something akin to what you wrote before, that I’m taking the “’high road’ of saying that my position is correct, and that those who disagree with [me] are ignorant or intentionally misrepresenting [me].” 

I’m fine leaving you with the last word. I think that a careful read brings the truth of our exchange to light.

Ron


----------



## TimV

I'm learning much from this thread. Thanks to all, and especially Pastor W.


----------



## py3ak

armourbearer said:


> No, the Lordship controversy is different again, and Horton is very clear that Christ is Lord and Saviour; he is also very clear that the God who justifies is the God who sanctifies. Regrettably, however, Horton teaches the imperative-indicative division of law and gospel, and thereby undermines the element of "evangelical obedience" which is part and parcel of reformed theology.



Mr. Winzer, I think I see the point but I just want to make sure I am not misapprehending it. Would you say that when "law" is treated or defined as equal to "imperative" and "gospel" is treated or defined as equal to "indicative", that this is more Lutheran than Reformed? Would that involve also being contrary to the Confession on the precise point of its affirmation of the category of evangelical obedience?
And on that topic, should evangelical obedience be understood as not merely obedience to the law in an evangelical manner, but in fact obedience to the gospel, which is thus seen to have commands?


----------



## Christusregnat

Irish Presbyterian said:


> *"To affirm the doctrine of republication does not entail the view that the Mosaic covenant is not part of the covenant of grace.*



The Mosaic covenant is the covenant of grace, administered differently than during the times of the gospel. Is this what he means by the Mosaic covenant being "part of the covenant of grace"?

If this is the case, then logically, we must likewise believe in a republication of the covenant of works in the New Covenant? For example, what else can be Christ's response to the Rich Young Ruler? What else can be the call to forsake all, deny yourself, and follow Christ? What else can the Sermon the Mount be? Do you agree that the covenant of works is republished in the New Covenant?



Irish Presbyterian said:


> *While there are perhaps those in the past who separated the Mosaic covenant and argued that there are two separate covenants of grace, the vast majority of those who hold to the doctrine of republication affirm that the Mosaic covenant is a part of or connected to the covenant of grace (Westminster Confession of Faith 7.6)*



What exactly does it mean for the Mosaic covenant to be "part of" or "connected to" the covenant of grace. It is the covenant of grace.

Say I told you that you were part of my church, or connected to my church. Is that the same thing as saying you are my church? Logically and grammatically, these are not the same thing. Hence, the quotations from the standards cited above, intended to demonstrate that making Moses' covenant anything less than or other than the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ in preparation is not confessional.



Irish Presbyterian said:


> *Rather, in concert with historic Reformed theology, the doctrine of republication merely points the redeemed sinner to Christ as the one who has fulfilled the broken covenant of works and has redeemed him from the curse of the law.*



Then, as I stated above, the Gospel likewise republishes the covenant of works, with even more force than the Mosaic.




Irish Presbyterian said:


> *1. The law of Moses was, in the first place, a re-enactment of the covenant of works. A Covenant is simply a promise suspended upon a condition. The covenant of works, therefore, is nothing more than the promise of life suspended on the condition of perfect obedience.*



How can the covenant of grace promise life on the condition of perfect obedience?




Irish Presbyterian said:


> *2. The Mosaic economy was also a national covenant; that is, it presented national promises on the condition of national obedience. Under this aspect also it was purely legal.*



Excuse me? The nation arose out of the Abrahamic promise by God Almighty, who loved their fathers, and chose them by His pure grace. Also, He alone saved the nation out of the fiery furnace by His grace. He alone gave them a free promise of land. He alone drove out their enemies, and planted our fathers. Furthermore, the Abrahamic covenant prophecied of all *nations* coming to Christ. The Great Commission deals with making disciples of all nations because Christ has all authority on heaven and *upon the earth*. Paul argues that Abraham would be the heir of the *whole world*. Therefore, something being national does not make it purely legal. This vitiates the catholic and Reformed doctrine of Christendom.



Irish Presbyterian said:


> *3. As the gospel contains renewed revelation of the law, so the law of Moses contained a revelation of the gospel. It presented in its priesthood and sacrifices, as types of the office and work of Christ, the gratuitous method of salvation through the Redeemer. This necessarily supposes that faith and not works was the condition of salvation.
> Charles Hodge: 1&2 Corthinians.*
> 
> Adam, in fairness, I'd say again that the quotes you gave from the standards don't stand against the historic Reformed doctrine of republication.
> 
> Thanks.



The standards have no pretense of abrogating Christendom, or making the Mosaic covenant an adjunct to the covenant of grace. The Mosaic covenant is the covenant of grace. Christendom is both presupposed and explicitly taught in our standards. If the modern version of the republication doctrine teaches otherwise, then it is not the historic Reformed doctrine of republication: it is a version of modern Biblical Theology.

Cheers,


----------



## Irish Presbyterian

armourbearer said:


> Irish Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, I think that it is not necessary to say that someone is 'deluded' because they may hold a view of the Law to your own. A Little humility wouldn't go amiss.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As noted by Adam, my statement looks for honesty; humility does not require one to be less than honest.
> 
> 
> 
> Irish Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Secondly, Horton does not say in 'God of Promise' that the Mosaic covenant is a covenant of works. This is simply a misunderstanding of the Reformed Federal understanding of Covenant Theology which describes the Mosaic covenant as 'partly' a recapitulation of the covenant of works and yet still being fundamentally an administration of the covenant of grace. Their is absolutely no conflict here with the Westminster Standards. The new publication 'The Law is not of Faith' (which Horton contributed to) makes this point very clearly. There is no conflict with the content of 'God of Promise' and 'The Law is not of Faith'. To suggest that the recapitulation theory (which Horton teaches) is Lutheran is to lump Owen, Boston, Bullinger, Hodge, Warfield and others into this category.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God of Promise, pp. 100, 101: "The Decalogue (Ten Commandments), although it begins with the indicative announcement of God's liberation -- thus showing its continuity with the Abrahamic promise -- is basically a law covenant. *Purely a suzerainty treaty*, it does not obligate God to do anything but instead *simply command*, with sanctions for obedience and disobedience."
> 
> Thomas Boston, Works 2:89: "The ten commandments were not given to the Israelites as a covenant of works, but in the way of the covenant of grace, and under that covert. Ye saw it was Jesus the Mediator that spoke these, Heb. xii. 24, 26. -- Amongst all the reasons there is not one of terror; but the sweet savour of gospel-grace."
> 
> You are misreading either Horton or the theologians you have named, but facts are facts, and the fact is that they do not teach the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> Irish Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thirdly, the law/gospel distinction is held by Reformed authors from the magisterial reformers, through the scholastic, right up to Louis Berkhof. R. Scott Clark has written great articles on this and I'd advice people to read the above link I posted by Horton on 'Calvin on law/gospel'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A law-gospel distinction is held by reformed theologians. It is not the Lutheran distinction as advocated by Horton. In Lutheran theology, the law promises nothing. In reformed theology, the law holds out precious promises to the justified believer from the hand of Christ. Boston (Works 2:255): "Christ being the Surety of the better covenant, having made a new covenant of grace in his blood, he takes the same law in his hands, and gives out the commands of it as a rule of life to his covenanted people, and renews *the promises of it to their sincere obedience of them*, 1 Tim. iv. 8, 'godliness is profitable unto all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come.'"
Click to expand...


"Like the covenant of creation, this covenant is made between God and human partners – in this case, fallen Adam, Seth, Abraham, and David. IT is in this covenant that provisions are made for offenders, based on another’s fulfillment of the legal covenant on their behalf. *Thus, instead of it being a covenant based on law (“Do this and you shall live”), it is based on promise (“Live and you will do this”)*. There are real partners in this covenant (God with believers and their children) and *real conditions (repentance and faith)*, but as it is grounded in the eternal covenant of redemption and the Mediator’s fulfillment of the covenant of works, even the meeting of these conditions is graciously given and not simply required."
Michael Horton, 'God of promise' pg 104-105


----------



## Christusregnat

Irish Presbyterian said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> A law-gospel distinction is held by reformed theologians. It is not the Lutheran distinction as advocated by Horton. In Lutheran theology, the law promises nothing. In reformed theology, the law holds out precious promises to the justified believer from the hand of Christ. Boston (Works 2:255): "Christ being the Surety of the better covenant, having made a new covenant of grace in his blood, he takes the same law in his hands, and gives out the commands of it as a rule of life to his covenanted people, and renews *the promises of it to their sincere obedience of them*, 1 Tim. iv. 8, 'godliness is profitable unto all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come.'"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Like the covenant of creation, this covenant is made between God and human partners – in this case, fallen Adam, Seth, Abraham, and David. IT is in this covenant that provisions are made for offenders, based on another’s fulfillment of the legal covenant on their behalf. *Thus, instead of it being a covenant based on law (“Do this and you shall live”), it is based on promise (“Live and you will do this”)*. There are real partners in this covenant (God with believers and their children) and *real conditions (repentance and faith)*, but as it is grounded in the eternal covenant of redemption and the Mediator’s fulfillment of the covenant of works, even the meeting of these conditions is graciously given and not simply required."
> Michael Horton, 'God of promise' pg 104-105
Click to expand...


It is notable that the Mosaic covenant is left out. Does he happen to mention it in context?

Also, do you believe or does Horton teach that the saints of God should look to the promises of blessings in the Mosaic covenant as given in Leviticus 26 to encourage them in obedience to God's law?

I think this is part of what Boston refers to when he states that:

Christ being the Surety of the better covenant, having made a new covenant of grace in his blood, he takes the same law in his hands, and gives out the commands of it as a rule of life to his covenanted people, and renews *the promises of it to their sincere obedience of them*.

This can be confirmed by reading the Confessional quotations cited above, but let me give a reference for it:

Chapter XIX
Of the Law of God
VI. Although true believers be not under the law, as a covenant of works, to be thereby justified, or condemned; yet is it of great use to them, as well as to others;... It is likewise *of use to the regenerate*, to restrain their corruptions, in that it forbids sin: and the threatenings of it serve to show what even their sins deserve; and what *afflictions, in this life, they may expect for them, although freed from the curse thereof threatened in the law*. The *promises of it*, in like manner, show them God's approbation of obedience,and what *blessings they may expect upon the performance thereof*:[18] although not as due to them by the law as a covenant of works.

[18] (*LEV 26*) 2CO 6:16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. EPH 6:2 _*Honour thy father and mother; (which is the first commandment with promise) 3 That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth*_. PSA 37:11 But _*the meek shall inherit the earth*_; and shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace. MAT 5:5 Blessed are the meek: for *they shall inherit the earth*. PSA 19:11 Moreover by them is thy servant warned: and *in keeping of them there is great reward*.


----------



## Irish Presbyterian

Christusregnat said:


> Irish Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"To affirm the doctrine of republication does not entail the view that the Mosaic covenant is not part of the covenant of grace.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Mosaic covenant is the covenant of grace, administered differently than during the times of the gospel. Is this what he means by the Mosaic covenant being "part of the covenant of grace"?
> 
> If this is the case, then logically, we must likewise believe in a republication of the covenant of works in the New Covenant? For example, what else can be Christ's response to the Rich Young Ruler? What else can be the call to forsake all, deny yourself, and follow Christ? What else can the Sermon the Mount be? Do you agree that the covenant of works is republished in the New Covenant?
> 
> 
> 
> Irish Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> *While there are perhaps those in the past who separated the Mosaic covenant and argued that there are two separate covenants of grace, the vast majority of those who hold to the doctrine of republication affirm that the Mosaic covenant is a part of or connected to the covenant of grace (Westminster Confession of Faith 7.6)*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What exactly does it mean for the Mosaic covenant to be "part of" or "connected to" the covenant of grace. It is the covenant of grace.
> 
> Say I told you that you were part of my church, or connected to my church. Is that the same thing as saying you are my church? Logically and grammatically, these are not the same thing. Hence, the quotations from the standards cited above, intended to demonstrate that making Moses' covenant anything less than or other than the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ in preparation is not confessional.
> 
> 
> 
> Then, as I stated above, the Gospel likewise republishes the covenant of works, with even more force than the Mosaic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can the covenant of grace promise life on the condition of perfect obedience?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Irish Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> *2. The Mosaic economy was also a national covenant; that is, it presented national promises on the condition of national obedience. Under this aspect also it was purely legal.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Excuse me? The nation arose out of the Abrahamic promise by God Almighty, who loved their fathers, and chose them by His pure grace. Also, He alone saved the nation out of the fiery furnace by His grace. He alone gave them a free promise of land. He alone drove out their enemies, and planted our fathers. Furthermore, the Abrahamic covenant prophecied of all *nations* coming to Christ. The Great Commission deals with making disciples of all nations because Christ has all authority on heaven and *upon the earth*. Paul argues that Abraham would be the heir of the *whole world*. Therefore, something being national does not make it purely legal. This vitiates the catholic and Reformed doctrine of Christendom.
> 
> 
> 
> Irish Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> *3. As the gospel contains renewed revelation of the law, so the law of Moses contained a revelation of the gospel. It presented in its priesthood and sacrifices, as types of the office and work of Christ, the gratuitous method of salvation through the Redeemer. This necessarily supposes that faith and not works was the condition of salvation.
> Charles Hodge: 1&2 Corthinians.*
> 
> Adam, in fairness, I'd say again that the quotes you gave from the standards don't stand against the historic Reformed doctrine of republication.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The standards have no pretense of abrogating Christendom, or making the Mosaic covenant an adjunct to the covenant of grace. The Mosaic covenant is the covenant of grace. Christendom is both presupposed and explicitly taught in our standards. If the modern version of the republication doctrine teaches otherwise, then it is not the historic Reformed doctrine of republication: it is a version of modern Biblical Theology.
> 
> Cheers,
Click to expand...



The republication aspect of the covenant of works in the Mosaic covenant finds it's necessary fulfillment in the Person and work of Christ. To suggest a republication of the covenant of works therefore in the New covenant simply doesn't follow. You might want to think of exactly what place Christ has in your drafting of things.

You might want to consider Jesus words before trying to re-institute the Constantinian idea of Christendom:

Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world." John 18:36


----------



## py3ak

[Moderator]*If you want to argue about Christendom start a new thread, gentlemen.*[/Moderator]


----------



## Christusregnat

Irish Presbyterian said:


> The republication aspect of the covenant of works in the Mosaic covenant finds it's necessary fulfillment in the Person and work of Christ. To suggest a republication of the covenant of works therefore in the New covenant simply doesn't follow. You might want to think of exactly what place Christ has in your drafting of things.



The quotation you cited stated:
*Rather, in concert with historic Reformed theology, the doctrine of republication merely points the redeemed sinner to Christ as the one who has fulfilled the broken covenant of works and has redeemed him from the curse of the law.*

How does the gospel not do this? The gospel did this in Moses' covenant as well as in the new; how is that fulfilled? Certainly, Christ physically, mentally, morally, and actually fulfilled, but that was reckoned as good as done in the Mosaic. And, would you kindly address the questions about the Mosaic being _a part of_ the covenant of grace rather than the covenant of grace, as this is crucial to help us understand yours and Dr. Horton's position?



Irish Presbyterian said:


> You might want to consider Jesus words before trying to re-institute the Constantinian idea of Christendom:
> 
> Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world." John 18:36



The Reformers rejected the anabaptist idea that you are espousing here, and our confession embodies what you dispariage as a man-made unscriptural doctrine. The Bible says more than the important thought captured in John 18:36; it also informs us that the magistrate is God's deacon and liturgos, and is to do His bidding in punishing offenses against both tables of the law. It also informs us that Christ is the Lord of all lords, and the King of all kings. The anabaptists never got past such verses to see the entirety of Scripture; this is why the confession is so helpful. Among other things, it gives a biblical doctrine of Christendom rather than blindly utilizing it, or blindly opposing it.

-----Added 10/23/2009 at 07:50:37 EST-----



py3ak said:


> [Moderator]*If you want to argue about Christendom start a new thread, gentlemen.*[/Moderator]



I missed this while posting; I'll discuss elsewhere. I think it relevant to the topic at hand, but will defer to your judgment.


----------



## MW

py3ak said:


> Mr. Winzer, I think I see the point but I just want to make sure I am not misapprehending it. Would you say that when "law" is treated or defined as equal to "imperative" and "gospel" is treated or defined as equal to "indicative", that this is more Lutheran than Reformed? Would that involve also being contrary to the Confession on the precise point of its affirmation of the category of evangelical obedience?
> And on that topic, should evangelical obedience be understood as not merely obedience to the law in an evangelical manner, but in fact obedience to the gospel, which is thus seen to have commands?



Ruben, thankyou for your clarifying questions. Yes, yes, and yes. The law has a gracious aspect in Reformed theology. The believer receives it as a kindly signification of the way to please God in Christ and obeys it out of love to the Saviour who has kept the law for him and promised the eternal kingdom to all who follow after and persevere in His ways.


----------



## MW

Irish Presbyterian said:


> "Like the covenant of creation, this covenant is made between God and human partners – in this case, fallen Adam, Seth, Abraham, and David. IT is in this covenant that provisions are made for offenders, based on another’s fulfillment of the legal covenant on their behalf. *Thus, instead of it being a covenant based on law (“Do this and you shall live”), it is based on promise (“Live and you will do this”)*. There are real partners in this covenant (God with believers and their children) and *real conditions (repentance and faith)*, but as it is grounded in the eternal covenant of redemption and the Mediator’s fulfillment of the covenant of works, even the meeting of these conditions is graciously given and not simply required."
> Michael Horton, 'God of promise' pg 104-105



First, there is nothing here about the Decalogue. Secondly, it distorts the Reformed view of the covenant of grace. The reformed view is, "Live and do this," not," "Live and you will do this." Your quotation substantiates the very criticism you are seeking to negate.


----------



## py3ak

[Moderator]


Christusregnat said:


> I missed this while posting; I'll discuss elsewhere. I think it relevant to the topic at hand, but will defer to your judgment.



It is a related issue, but it seems unlikely that such a discussion will permit the point more immediately at issue on this thread to continue to be helpfully expounded. But if you're willing to take on a new thread I'll be willing to move some posts or partial posts to it.[/Moderator]


----------



## Ron

*1.* The gospel as it is narrowly delineated in 1 Corinthians 15 implies no obedience on the part of the recipient. The _gospel _in that context is an historical fact only. Jesus died for the sins of believers, was buried and raised from the dead. Whereas the gospel that Paul is jealous to guard in Galatians has to do not with Christ’s work but rather the appropriation of that work: it is appropriated by grace through faith alone apart from law-works. In neither of those two cases does the gospel imply obedience. _Both sides of the issue should agree. _

*2.* Now leaving aside any discussion regarding elect infants dying in infancy, other elect persons incapable of being outwardly called by the word, and infants God regenerates in infancy – _both sides should also agree _that one is justified by appropriating Christ’s obedience and satisfaction through the evangelical graces of repentance and faith. 

*3.* _Both sides also agree_ that faith without works is dead.

*4.* With respect to the question of whether justifying faith is an obedient response to the gospel call - it should first be observed that a sinner who tries to obey the _command_ to flee the wrath to come and turn to Christ does so either with a regenerate heart or out of enlightened self-interest. When the latter occurs, obviously no justifying faith is present, obedient or otherwise. Accordingly, it is only possible for one to flee the wrath to come with a regenerate heart. _Both sides should agree here too. 
_
*5.* The question that remains is whether the act of turning and believing is an act of obedience. Before finding an answer, I think there is at least one more point of agreement between the sides that should come to light. As Calvinists, _both sides agree_ that God alone effects faith and repentance in the application of redemption. *

Getting to the nub of the matter: *

In one sense, if God alone effects justifying faith in _dead_ sinners, then it is somewhat a misnomer to refer the such implanted grace as obedient. Yet on the other hand, given that the grace of faith is exercised _in response to a command_ to believe, then of course there is an appropriateness in referring to justifying faith as obedient because it is a response to a command. 

Here’s the point I’d like to make. Both sides, if asked very specific questions, would agree on seemingly everything with possibly one exception only. Yet from what I can tell, it seems that both sides of that point of disagreement have a reasonable claim on the best way to view justifying faith, whether as obedient or passive. When we only consider that justifying faith is a response to God’s command, then obedience obtains. If we merely consider that justifying faith is a necessary result of effectual calling, then a non-obedient (not to be confused with disobedient) or passive faith seems to be a better description. 

The heresy that one is trying to guard against will often dictate the position he defends. If one is jealous to guard against the notion of merit, then of course he will recoil over the term _obedient faith_ (in the realm of justification). If one wishes to fight against antinomianism, then he might prefer to speak with a view to the command to believe and hence use terms like _obedient faith_. 

I sincerely hope that I haven't made too little of what seems to be such a divisive subject but it seems to me that neither side in this disagreement is denying any tenets of Calvinism. 

Ron


----------



## Irish Presbyterian

Adam you asked:

*How does the gospel not do this? The gospel did this in Moses' covenant as well as in the new; how is that fulfilled? Certainly, Christ physically, mentally, morally, and actually fulfilled, but that was reckoned as good as done in the Mosaic. And, would you kindly address the questions about the Mosaic being a part of the covenant of grace rather than the covenant of grace, as this is crucial to help us understand yours and Dr. Horton's position?*

The covenant of works aspect of the Mosaic law called for perfect obedience just as it did in the time of Adam. That perfect obedience was met and fulfilled completely in the death and resurrection of Christ and his perfect active obedience. Therefore evangelical obedience is NOT a covenant of works in this sense but is purely gracious.

To answer your question, the Mosaic economy was not the totality of the covenant of grace and is therefore seen as an 'administration' of the covenant of grace. That's what I mean by a part of. I can't speak for Dr. Horton but I'm looking at it eschatologically.

Cheers.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Of course, the law of God ALWAYS demands perfect obedience, with appropriate promises and threats.

The issue with understanding Moses is that any republication concept has to be subordinate, or viewed as an "overlay" upon the essential Covenant-of-Grace principle that grounds the whole thing. The overlay is precisely what the Pharisee and every other legalist takes _*erroneously*_ for the substance.

And, I fear it when Reformed men (non-legalist or anything else) assume a basic correctness of the Pharisaic mistake.

There is a reason that _in the heart_ (literally) of the law (Leviticus) is the sacrificial system. ATONEMENT lies at the heart of the Mosaic Covenant. Gracious salvation comes bfore it. The Promised Land lies just beyond it. How can Moses covenant be anything _other_ than the Covenant of Grace?

2Cor.3:7-18 tells us that God allowed the externalities, the earthly "glory" of the Mosaic covenant to function as a blinder, an overlay, a veil to its fundamental character. Suggesting that this *function* of certain _aspects_ of that covenant comprise its essential character turns the reality on its head, making the Covenant of Grace the secondary, add-on reality of the Mosaic administration.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Ron said:


> Getting to the nub of the matter: [/B]
> 
> In one sense, if God alone effects justifying faith in _dead_ sinners, then it is somewhat a misnomer to refer the such implanted grace as obedient. Yet on the other hand, given that the grace of faith is exercised _in response to a command_ to believe, then of course there is an appropriateness in referring to justifying faith as obedient because it is a response to a command.


The writers of the Westminster Standards did not believe it was a "misnomer" to refer to the response to the Gospel as obedience:


> CHAPTER III.
> Of God's Eternal Decree.
> 
> VIII. The doctrine of this high mystery of predestination is to be handled with special prudence and care, that men attending to the will of God revealed in his Word, and yielding obedience thereunto, may, from the certainty of their effectual vocation, be assured of their eternal election. So shall this doctrine afford matter of praise, reverence, and admiration of God; and of humility, diligence, and abundant consolation to all that sincerely obey the gospel.





> Here’s the point I’d like to make. Both sides, if asked very specific questions, would agree on seemingly everything with possibly one exception only. Yet from what I can tell, it seems that both sides of that point of disagreement have a reasonable claim on the best way to view justifying faith, whether as obedient or passive. When we only consider that justifying faith is a response to God’s command, then obedience obtains. If we merely consider that justifying faith is a necessary result of effectual calling, then a non-obedient (not to be confused with disobedient) or passive faith seems to be a better description.


I understand what you're trying to drive at but that is very theoretical. While nobody disagrees that God has fulfilled all righteousness, it cannot be stated that the hearer of the News of the Gospel is called to passivity. While the work of the Holy Spirit is, in fact, monergistic that work is one of vivification. The hearer is now alive. He is not dead. He is called to repentance and faith and does, in point of fact, obey. The call of the Gospel is not "Christ has died for you and now do nothing." Those who do, in fact, do nothing or disobey the call of the Gospel are justly judged (Romans 10 and compare with language of Dordt above).

As some of us have also argued here (and in other threads), it is not possible to _separate_ the sanctifying fruit in a believer's life from the broader sense of the term Gospel. As I noted above, Paul considered it a departure from the Gospel in Galatians 3 not that the Galatians had their beginning in faith wrong but that they had their continuation all wrong. They were trusting in the deeds of the flesh to perfect.

I personally have a lot wrapped up in this in my own walk with Christ. I cannot express how powerful it was when I began to see how freeing it was to understand the Gospel's power in sanctification. The sharp Law/Gospel distinction had left me with the understanding that my only motivation for the 3rd use of the Law was gratitude for what Christ had done. I do not want to diminish that point as it is, in fact, great motivation and impetus for the battle against indwelling sin within my members.

Yet, I had not considered fully how Romans 6 (and other places) speak so forcefully about what Christ definitively accomplished for our sanctification on the Cross by putting Sin, as power, to death on the Cross. While it is true and glorious, then, that I try to please my Father for what He has accomplished in Christ I would have no power over Sin if Christ had not defeated Sin on the Cross. I do not just have motivation to obey (from gratitude) but am empowered to obey in my vital union with Christ who lives forever. Please see: http://www.puritanboard.com/f87/dead-sin-alive-Christ-rom-6-1-11-a-50607/#post703514

I do not, in any of this, desire to conflate justification with sanctification nor do I desire to claim any power within myself to have been united to Christ. I simply agree that the "Gospel as justification alone" leaves a gaping hole that has consequences toward how a person understands his battle against indwelling sin and I believe the Reformed Confessions teach richly toward this end contra the Lutheran view.



> The heresy that one is trying to guard against will often dictate the position he defends. If one is jealous to guard against the notion of merit, then of course he will recoil over the term _obedient faith_ (in the realm of justification). If one wishes to fight against antinomianism, then he might prefer to speak with a view to the command to believe and hence use terms like _obedient faith_.


I don't believe I've ever called Mike or John a heretic and I'm not much of a "club joiner" when it comes to the schools of thought that seem to line up on either extreme of the issue. I've considered Mike a dear friend for a number of years and John has been personally kind to provide me some notes on the Trinity years back.

I love the WHI and believe (as Matthew noted) that they are an incredibly important voice in a world of self-centered Christians who have long been impoverished from the pulpit. They were meat and bread to me when I was 3 years in Okinawa with very little Gospel proclaimed to my ears. It is an intramural, Brother to Brother, concern for me. I do not wish to condemn the men but to dialog and persuade even as they desire to persuade us.

I want to close by noting that I wish that this whole thread could have focused more on how egregious Dr. Frame's critique was. I believe Matthew's first analysis hit the nail on the head. Unfortunately, on this board, with strong views being what they are, it was inevitable that the critique would have been obscured as we took up the issue of the WHI's view on Law/Gospel. I wish it could have been a smaller sidebar.


----------



## mvdm

It appears that at least in part, Frame had in mind the idea found in Calvin's commentary on Matthew 5:17 ---which helpfully explores the reason Scripture does not support a dichotomous *separation* between Law and Gospel, but rather exposits the harmony between them:

_Matthew 5:17. Think not. With regard to the perfection of his life, Christ might justly have maintained that he came to fulfill the law: but here he treats of doctrine, not of life. As he afterwards exclaimed, that “the kingdom of God is come,” (Matthew 12:28,) and raised the minds of men with unusual expectation, and even admitted disciples by baptism, it is probable, that the minds of many were in a state of suspense and doubt, and were eagerly inquiring, what was the design of that novelty. Christ, therefore, now declares, that his doctrine is so far from being at variance with the law, that it agrees perfectly with the law and the prophets, and not only so, but brings the complete fulfillment of them.

There appear to have been chiefly two reasons, which induced him to declare this agreement between the law and the Gospel. As soon as any new method of teaching makes its appearance, the body of the people immediately look upon it, as if everything were to be overturned. Now the preaching of the Gospel, as I mentioned a little ago, tended to raise the expectation, that the Church would assume a totally different form from what had previously belonged to it. They thought that the ancient and accustomed government was to be abolished. This opinion, in many respects, was very dangerous. Devout worshippers of God would never have embraced the Gospel, if it had been a revolt from the law; while light and turbulent spirits would eagerly have seized on an occasion offered to them for entirely overthrowing the state of religion: for we know in what insolent freaks rash people are ready to indulge when there is any thing new.

Besides, Christ saw that the greater part of the Jews, though they professed to believe the Law, were profane and degenerate. The condition of the people was so decayed, every thing was filled with so many corruptions, and the negligence or malice of the priests had so completely extinguished the pure light of doctrine, that there no longer remained any reverence for the Law. But if a new kind of doctrine had been introduced, which would destroy the authority of the Law and the Prophets, religion would have sustained a dreadful injury. This appears to be the first reason, why Christ declared that he had not come to destroy the Law. Indeed, the context makes this abundantly clear: for he immediately adds, by way of confirmation, that it is impossible for even one point of the Law to fail, — and pronounces a curse on those teachers who do not faithfully labor to maintain its authority.

The second reason was, to refute the wicked slander which, he knew was brought against him by the ignorant and unlearned. This charge, it is evident, had been fastened on his doctrine by the scribes: for he proceeds immediately to direct his discourse against them. We must keep in mind the object which Christ had in view. While he invites and exhorts the Jews to receive the Gospel, he still retains them in obedience to the Law; and, on the other hand, he boldly refutes the base reproaches and slanders, by which his enemies labored to make his preaching infamous or suspected.

If we intend to reform affairs which are in a state of disorder, we must always exercise such prudence and moderation, as will convince the people, that we do not oppose the eternal Word of God, or introduce any novelty that is contrary to Scripture. We must take care, that no suspicion of such contrariety shall injure the faith of the godly, and that rash men shall not be emboldened by a pretense of novelty. In short, we must endeavor to oppose a profane contempt of the Word of God, and to prevent religion from being despised by the ignorant. The defense which Christ makes, to free his doctrine from slanders, ought to encourage us, if we are now exposed to the same calumnies. That crime was charged against Paul, that he was an apostate from the law of God, (Acts 21:21) and we need not, therefore, wonder, if the Papists endeavor, in the same manner, to render us odious. Following the example of Christ, we ought to clear ourselves from false accusations, and, at the same time, to profess the truth freely, though it may expose us to unjust reproaches.

I am not come to destroy. God had, indeed, promised a new covenant at the coming of Christ; but had, at the same time, showed, that it would not be different from the first, but that, on the contrary, its design was, to give a perpetual sanction to the covenant, which he had made from the beginning, with his own people.

“I will write my law, (says he,) in their hearts, 
and I will remember their iniquities no more,” 
383 

By these words he is so far from departing from the former covenant, that, on the contrary, he declares, that it will be confirmed and ratified, when it shall be succeeded by the new. This is also the meaning of Christ’s words, when he says, that he came to fulfill the law: for he actually fulfilled it, by quickening, with his Spirit, the dead letter, and then exhibiting, in reality, what had hitherto appeared only in figures.

With respect to doctrine, we must not imagine that the coming of Christ has freed us from the authority of the law: for it is the eternal rule of a devout and holy life, and must, therefore, be as unchangeable, as the justice of God, which it embraced, is constant and uniform. With respect to ceremonies, there is some appearance of a change having taken place; but it was only the use of them that was abolished, for their meaning was more fully confirmed. The coming of Christ has taken nothing away even from ceremonies, but, on the contrary, confirms them by exhibiting the truth of shadows: for, when we see their full effect, we acknowledge that they are not vain or useless. Let us therefore learn to maintain inviolable this sacred tie between the law and the Gospel, which many improperly attempt to break. For it contributes not a little to confirm the authority of the Gospel, when we learn, that it is nothing else than a fulfillment of the law; so that both, with one consent, declare God to be their Author.


18. Till heaven and earth pass Luke expresses it a little differently, but to the same import, that it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than for one point of the law to fail The design of Christ, in both passages, was to teach, that the truth of the law and of every part of it, is secure, and that nothing so durable is to be found in the whole frame of the world. Some persons indulge in ingenious refinements on the word till, (ἓως ἂ ν,) as if the passing away of the heaven and earth, which will take place on the last day, the day of judgment, were to put an end to the law and the prophets And certainly, as

“tongues shall then cease, and prophecies shall be abolished,” 
(1 Corinthians 13:8,)

I think that the written law, as well as the exposition of it, will come to an end; but, as I am of opinion that Christ spoke more simply, I do not choose to feed the ears of readers with such amusements. Let it suffice for us to hold, that sooner shall heaven fall to pieces, and the whole frame of the world become a mass of confusion, than the stability of the law shall give way. But what does it mean, that every part of the law shall be fulfilled down to the smallest point? for we see, that even those, who have been regenerated by the Spirit of God, are very far from keeping the law of God in a perfect manner. I answer, the expression, shall not pass away, must be viewed as referring, not to the life of men, but to the perfect truth of the doctrine. “There is nothing in the law that is unimportant, nothing that was put there at, random; and so it is impossible that a single letter shall perish.”


19. Whoever then shall break Christ here speaks expressly of the commandments of life, or the ten words, which all the children of God ought to take as the rule of their life. He therefore declares, that they are false and deceitful teachers, who do not restrain their disciples within obedience to the law, and that they are unworthy to occupy a place in the Church, who weaken, in the slightest degree, the authority of the law; and, on the other hand, that they are honest and faithful ministers of God, who recommend, both by word and by example, the keeping of the law. The least commandments is an expression used in accommodation to the judgment of men: for though they have not all the same weight, (but, when they are compared together, some are less than others,) yet we are not at liberty to think any thing small, on which the heavenly Legislator has been pleased to issue a command. For what sacrilege is it to treat contemptuously any thing which has proceeded from his sacred mouth? This is to sink his majesty to the rank of creatures. Accordingly, when our Lord calls them little commandments, it is a sort of concession. He shall be called the least This is an allusion to what he had just said about the commandments: but the meaning is obvious. Those who shall pour contempt 384 “Comme 1es plus inutiles du monde;” — “as the most useless in the world.” 
on the doctrine of the law, or on a single syllable of it, will be rejected as the lowest of men_


----------



## Ron

*Ron stated:* In one sense, if God alone effects justifying faith in _dead_ sinners, then it is somewhat a misnomer to refer the such implanted grace as obedient. Yet on the other hand, given that the grace of faith is exercised _in response to a command_ to believe, then of course there is an appropriateness in referring to justifying faith as obedient because it is a response to a command.
*
Semper Fidelis replied:* The writers of the Westminster Standards did not believe it was a "misnomer" to refer to the response to the Gospel as obedience:

VIII. The doctrine of this high mystery of predestination is to be handled with special prudence and care, that men attending to the will of God revealed in his Word, and yielding obedience thereunto, may, from the certainty of their effectual vocation, be assured of their eternal election. So shall this doctrine afford matter of praise, reverence, and admiration of God; and of humility, diligence, and abundant consolation to all that sincerely obey the gospel

*Ron Replies:* I believe you have made a subtle equivocation with your reference to the Confession. I was strictly speaking of the call of the gospel that results in conversion by the instrumentality of faith. The portion of the Confession to which you referred is speaking about obedience as it pertains to assurance, a separate matter altogether. 

*Ron Stated:* Here’s the point I’d like to make. Both sides, if asked very specific questions, would agree on seemingly everything with possibly one exception only. Yet from what I can tell, it seems that both sides of that point of disagreement have a reasonable claim on the best way to view justifying faith, whether as obedient or passive. When we only consider that justifying faith is a response to God’s command, then obedience obtains. If we merely consider that justifying faith is a necessary result of effectual calling, then a non-obedient (not to be confused with disobedient) or passive faith seems to be a better description

*Semper Fidelis replied:* I understand what you're trying to drive at but that is very theoretical. 
*
Ron Replies:* I sincerely believe you do from what you wrote. I’m not sure though how it being “theoretical” (whatever that might mean to you) discredits the point, which you understand (and I believe you do). Let’s press on below... 

*Semper Fidelis States:* While nobody disagrees that God has fulfilled all righteousness, it cannot be stated that the hearer of the News of the Gospel is called to passivity. While the work of the Holy Spirit is, in fact, monergistic that work is one of vivification. The hearer is now alive. He is not dead. He is called to repentance and faith and does, in point of fact, obey. 

*Ron States:* Assuming you are speaking of conversion, which is what I was addressing, you are correct, it is most appropriate to speak of the grace of repentance in conversion as an act of obedience _for it can be in response to a command_. I’ve already agreed with that premise. My other premise, which is not contrary to the first, is that because God implants repentance and faith in the believer, those gifts need not be considered strictly as acts of obedience; for _acts_ of obedience are often associated strictly with the acts that proceed from the gifts of repentance and faith. The Confession speaks this way too: _“By this faith, a Christian believes… and acts differently upon that which each particular passage thereof contains; yielding obedience to the commands, etc. But the principle acts of saving faith are accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone…”_ So yes, by the faith that justifies sinners, men do act and obey, but the principle acts of justifying faith are _accepting, receiving and resting_, which I believe Escondido wishes to distinguish from obedience. I have no problem with that distinction; it’s a good one, but not as necessary as they might think. Let me digress ever so slightly (but I think it’s relevant). In those cases in which God regenerates infants, those infants are not merely regenerated without also sharing in all the benefits of Christ, including justification. Accordingly, the seed of faith that is implanted in those regenerate infants is justifying faith. Indeed, that faith must (and will) be exercised but nonetheless justifying faith is present. *In all fairness, Escondido’s paradigm fits those situations much better, for how does a baby obey in conversion?* Again, there is a place for referring to obedience to the gospel call upon men’s lives in the realm of conversion (and more so in the work of progressive sanctification). Notwithstanding, *in the case of a sinner broken before God who all of a sudden is converted by the invading work of the Holy Spirit, it can be terribly misleading to call such a one’s new resting place in Christ as an act obedience*. It’s hard for me to believe that when considered in that light, which is what Escondido is trying to say (I believe), that it’s not palatable to all of us. 

*Semper Fidelis States:* The call of the Gospel is not "Christ has died for you and now do nothing." 

*Ron replies:* I believe everybody appreciates that point. *The question is whether we are required (in the case of non-infants) to always consider “accepting, receiving and resting” as acts of obedience; or may we without denying Scripture distinguish those mental “acts” from the physical acts that proceed from those “acts”, such as feeding the poor, comforting the sick, loving our wives, serving in our churches, etc. *

*Semper Fidelis States:* As some of us have also argued here (and in other threads), it is not possible to _separate_ the sanctifying fruit in a believer's life from the broader sense of the term Gospel. 

*Ron States:* Nobody I know denies the relationship between the gospel, the reception of the gospel, and the changed life. 

*Semper Fidelis:* I do not, in any of this, desire to conflate justification with sanctification nor do I desire to claim any power within myself to have been united to Christ. I simply agree that the "Gospel as justification alone" leaves a gaping hole that has consequences toward how a person understands his battle against indwelling sin and I believe the Reformed Confessions teach richly toward this end contra the Lutheran view.

*Ron Replies:* The “gospel” has many definitions in Scripture, which I alluded to before. The gospel in 1 Corinthians 15 is an historical fact pertaining to redemption accomplished; in Galatians the “gospel” pertains not so much to what Christ has done but rather how we are to appropriate that finished work. Neither of those two cases has obedience in view with respect to what is being labeled “gospel”. You wish to emphasize the good news that God sanctifies those he justifies. That is true true, but *the question is whether there is a significant distinction worth noting between resting in Christ as he is offered in the gospel and feeding the poor. *

*Ron Stated:* The heresy that one is trying to guard against will often dictate the position he defends. If one is jealous to guard against the notion of merit, then of course he will recoil over the term _obedient faith_ (in the realm of justification). If one wishes to fight against antinomianism, then he might prefer to speak with a view to the command to believe and hence use terms like _obedient faith_. 

*Semper Fidelis:* I don't believe I've ever called Mike or John a heretic and I'm not much of a "club joiner" when it comes to the schools of thought that seem to line up on either extreme of the issue. I've considered Mike a dear friend for a number of years and John has been personally kind to provide me some notes on the Trinity years back.

*Ron Replies:* I’m sorry - I did not mean to suggest that you or anyone else considered either of them as heretical. My point is that Escondido is trying to guard against any idea of human effort playing a part in justification. In passing, let me add with you that in my personal exchanges with both these men (much more with John), I have found them to be nothing less than charitable and kind.

Best wishes,

Ron


----------



## py3ak

Ron said:


> *2.* Now leaving aside any discussion regarding elect infants dying in infancy, other elect persons incapable of being outwardly called by the word, and infants God regenerates in infancy – _both sides should also agree _that one is justified by appropriating Christ’s obedience and satisfaction through the evangelical graces of repentance and faith.



Ron, I don't wish to derail things here, but what exactly do you mean by appropriating through repentance?


----------



## jogri17

I appreciate much of Horton's and Frame's works and their ministries. But I do think Horton's analysis of the problem and the solutions he offers (yes I read both books!) have various problems when he talks about the evangelical Church (generally defined as non-mainline protestantism).


----------



## Ron

py3ak said:


> Ron said:
> 
> 
> 
> *2.* Now leaving aside any discussion regarding elect infants dying in infancy, other elect persons incapable of being outwardly called by the word, and infants God regenerates in infancy – _both sides should also agree _that one is justified by appropriating Christ’s obedience and satisfaction through the evangelical graces of repentance and faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ron, I don't wish to derail things here, but what exactly do you mean by appropriating through repentance?
Click to expand...


Thanks for saving me from the tribunal. Please see note 1 above, which speaks of appropriation by faith alone. My blog has point 2 more clearly stated: Reformed Apologist: Gospel, Blessings and Obedience

Also, in that post I finish my thought on this matter. The first part of the blog entry is pretty much what I've stated here. 

Thanks!

RD


----------



## py3ak

So you are rephrasing to this, right?



> 2. Now leaving aside for a moment any discussion regarding (a) elect infants dying in infancy, (b) other elect persons incapable of being outwardly called by the word, and (c) infants God regenerates in infancy – both sides should also agree that one is justified upon appropriating Christ’s obedience and satisfaction through the evangelical grace of faith alone, which is accompanied by the evangelical grace of repentance unto life, also a necessary condition for pardon. (WCF 15.3)


----------



## Ron

py3ak said:


> So you are rephrasing to this, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Now leaving aside for a moment any discussion regarding (a) elect infants dying in infancy, (b) other elect persons incapable of being outwardly called by the word, and (c) infants God regenerates in infancy – both sides should also agree that one is justified upon appropriating Christ’s obedience and satisfaction through the evangelical grace of faith alone, which is accompanied by the evangelical grace of repentance unto life, also a necessary condition for pardon. (WCF 15.3)
Click to expand...


Yup


----------



## Marrow Man

jogri17 said:


> I appreciate much of Horton's and Frame's works and their ministries. But I do think Horton's analysis of the problem and the solutions he offers (yes I read both books!) have various problems when he talks about the evangelical Church (generally defined as non-mainline protestantism).



What are some of those problems you have, J.P.?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Ron said:


> Semper Fideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> The writers of the Westminster Standards did not believe it was a "misnomer" to refer to the response to the Gospel as obedience:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> VIII. The doctrine of this high mystery of predestination is to be handled with special prudence and care, that men attending to the will of God revealed in his Word, and yielding obedience thereunto, may, from the certainty of their effectual vocation, be assured of their eternal election. So shall this doctrine afford matter of praise, reverence, and admiration of God; and of humility, diligence, and abundant consolation to all that* sincerely obey the gospel*
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you have made a subtle equivocation with your reference to the Confession. I was strictly speaking of the call of the gospel that results in conversion by the instrumentality of faith. The portion of the Confession to which you referred is speaking about obedience as it pertains to assurance, a separate matter altogether.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Equivocation? Where? Twice, in the section cited, the Confessions speak of yielding obedience: to the Word and to the _gospel_. Would you care to demonstrate how the Confessions can be said to be referring to assurance in this portion?

Lest you think the Standards are unclear:



> Q. 45. How doth Christ execute the office of a king?
> A. Christ executeth the office of a king, in calling out of the world a people to himself,174 and giving them officers,175 laws,176 and censures, by which he visibly governs them;177 in bestowing saving grace upon his elect,178 rewarding their obedience,179 and correcting them for their sins,180 preserving and supporting them under all their temptations and sufferings,181 restraining and overcoming all their enemies,182 and powerfully ordering all things for his own glory,183 and their good;184 and also in taking vengeance on the rest, who know not God, and *obey not the gospel.*185


----------



## Ron

Again, I would suggest that the portion of the Confession to which you refer does not pertain to the gospel in conversion, which is what I am addressing, but rather the gospel’s work in the life of the believer as it pertains to progressive sanctification. The Confession speaks to the humility and diligence (for instance) that is granted to those who obey the gospel, which I would take as throughout the Christian’s life, because of the reference to assurance, which best fits with sanctification, not initial conversion. Moreover, the Confession footnotes Romans 11, _“Be not high-minded, but fear”_, a clear warning to converted believers being sanctified. Nonetheless, I am pleased to allow for your interpretation. As I’ve noted several times now, I agree that speaking in terms of obedience to the gospel with respect to conversion is appropriate. My point is and has been that it is at least equally important to uphold the teaching that it can be inappropriate to refer to faith as obedient. It depends upon the situation. 

I’m going to leave you with three scenarios:

1. Consider the case of the sinner broken before God who all of a sudden is converted by the invading work of the Holy Spirit. Would we say that such a one who was burdened and heavy laden with his sin and finally found _rest_ in Christ was being _obedient_, especially if no command was needed to bring such a one to faith? It’s hard for me to believe that anyone who did not have a personal axe to grind would insist that we must always consider justifying faith _obedient_. Certainly Scripture teaches a distinction between the mental "acts" of resting upon and receiving Christ, and the physical acts that proceed from such faith, such as feeding the poor, comforting the sick, loving our wives, serving in our churches, etc. James makes this very point. 

2. Imagine another case - this time a person who was a hardened criminal and not burdened with his sin. Then imagine God quickening such a one in his tracks after his hearing the call to repent and believe. In such a case, it is most fitting to describe such a response as obedient to the command (while not forgetting that God granted the obedience).


3. In the cases in which God regenerates infants, those infants are not merely regenerated without also sharing in all the benefits of Christ, including justification. Accordingly, lest justification need not be accompanied by faith, we must conclude that the seed of faith that is implanted in those regenerate infants is justifying faith. Indeed, that faith must (and will) be exercised during years of discretion, but nonetheless justifying faith is present. In all fairness, Escondido’s paradigm fits those situations much better, _for how does a baby obey in conversion?!_ Again, there is a place for referring to obedience to the gospel call upon men’s lives in the realm of conversion (and even more so in the work of progressive sanctification), but it would be a monstrosity to suggest that a woman converted through the shame of adultery and an infant converted in the mother's womb are obeying when God grants them rest.

I really must leave this discussion now. I find it terribly partisan.

Ron


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Partisan? I don't understand how my remarks can be construed as partisan. I have been trying to clarify and accurately present the Confessional language on whether or not it is a "misnomer" to speak of one's response to the Gospel as obedience.

Your insistence that the obedience being spoken of should primarily refer to the converted cannot be sustained as the Standards refer to unbelievers who "obey not the Gospel...." I would assume you agree that unbelievers' disobedience to the Gospel is not post conversion.


----------



## mvdm

Semper Fidelis said:


> Partisan? I don't understand how my remarks can be construed as partisan. I have been trying to clarify and accurately present the Confessional language on whether or not it is a "minomer" to speak of one's response the the Gospel as obedience.



If one is a partisan himself, correction is often viewed as partisan. 

Considering Rich's upfront professed fondness for Horton/WHI, and his clear effort to measure objectively whether a portion of Horton's theology has veered off some Reformed confessional track, we can easily judge the partisan charge ridiculous.


----------

