Being Watchful against False Teachings: A Survey

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

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

Ahhh! What's the truth? I hope someone way smarter than me can shed some light on this.
 
Last edited:
The prosperity gospel is by far In my humble opinion one of the worst false teachings in today's world.



[video=youtube;jLRue4nwJaA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLRue4nwJaA&feature=youtu.be[/video]
 
The thing that scares me is that as much as I've like and learned from Dr. Horton, if these two teachings are indeed false, then almost everything I read/listen to is misleading me.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your analysis is spot on, Sister. It is held to by godly men in the URC, PCA, and OPC and I have not seen it condemned by any denomination or individual as being on par with the Federal Vision. Nor have I heard it said anywhere, except for recently on PuritanBoard, that it is antinomian. Though we may disagree with 2K Theology (at the moment, my understanding of Scripture leads me to disagree with 2K Theology) I don't think we should refer to those who hold to it as antinomians and false teachers.
 
Take the 2 kingdoms etc. matters to other threads; under this subject line it gets in the way of simply dealing with the questions of substance. And on such other threads, to ensure successful discussion, discuss subjects and views without making this about the people and groups, and who needs to be drawn and quartered or who not.:judge:
 
Take the 2 kingdoms etc. matters to other threads; under this subject line it gets in the way of simply dealing with the questions of substance. And on such other threads, to ensure successful discussion, discuss subjects and views without making this about the people and groups, and who needs to be drawn and quartered or who not.:judge:

Great point. I am primarily interested the survey aspect of the thread and was hoping to give a summary of my findings to the leadership class that I'm sitting in on. I'm still exploring the whole 2K issue, but from what I understand so far I don't think that it's antinomian. Anyway, sorry for getting the thread off topic with my excessive commentary. :blah: I'll attempt to be more disciplined in the future. :)
 
Last edited:
You make a great point; many contemporary false teachings are likely to be old heresies adapted to new circumstances. I like how you have suggested some of these connections in your response. Thanks!


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

1. Did God really say.......?
2. You will not surely die....
3. You too can be like God...
 
Take the 2 kingdoms etc. matters to other threads; under this subject line it gets in the way of simply dealing with the questions of substance. And on such other threads, to ensure successful discussion, discuss subjects and views without making this about the people and groups, and who needs to be drawn and quartered or who not.:judge:

:agree:

And, I would NOT include Two Kingdoms as a false teaching in the summary of your findings!
 
The prosperity gospel is by far In my humble opinion one of the worst false teachings in today's world.



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

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

(And has been stated, there really is nothing "new under the sun" in this regard).
 
Thank you to Randy for your detailed analysis of Modern Grace Theology and 2 Kingdoms Theology. I have highlighted what you wrote and saved it to reference back to often as I seek to understand these two teachings and determine if they are true or in error. I REALLY appreciate you stepping out and trying to show what you see to be error because it is very easy to hear these two teachings and believe them to be truth at first glace because they sound really good/true. As one considering attending Westminster CA and as a reader/listener of Horton, much of what he says sounds so appealing to my antinomian-ish ears but critiques like yours help me keep watch for error. Perhaps Horton isn't teaching antinomianism as much as I'm reading antinomianism into his teachings?

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

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

As one who has been wrestling through this very issue for the past few years let me encourage you to take it slow! Don't be too hasty to jump into one camp or the other and certainly don't throw out the baby with the bath water. :) Wherever you come down on this (and in the interest of full disclosure I am not a R2k guy) Drs. Horton and Van Drunen still have many helpful things to say. Here's a really helpful article I came across that helped to refine my thinking on the topic that recognizes the good while also challenging some of the weaknesses of the R2K guys. I hope it is helpful: 2K or Not 2K? That is the Question: A Review of David VanDrunen's Living in God's Two Kingdoms by Keith Mathison | Ligonier Ministries Blog
 
Take the 2 kingdoms etc. matters to other threads; under this subject line it gets in the way of simply dealing with the questions of substance. And on such other threads, to ensure successful discussion, discuss subjects and views without making this about the people and groups, and who needs to be drawn and quartered or who not.:judge:

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

Perhaps you could take the answers already provided and put them together in a poll either on this thread or a new one. That might help get an idea of what the top problems are.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top