I was recently informed that there are those within the PCA who argue that guys like Tim Keller, John Piper, Tullian Tchividjian, and Michael Horton (among others) are antinomian. Have any of you heard this, or do you subscribe to this view. If so, why?

Darryl F.
Church Planter in Residence/Pastor Perimeter Church (PCA)
Johns Creek, GA

Howdy, Pastor Ford.

Welcome to the Puritan Board. Please amend your signature according to the rules (which are linked in my signature).

Thanks!

Thanks Joshua. Sorry for the oversight.

Hi Darryl! My family attended Christ Community a few years back, we miss Mike and that wonderful assembly! So far as your post . . . , that is quite an entrance to the PB! Welcome!

Originally Posted by DarrylFord

Thanks Joshua. Sorry for the oversight.

No worries, Pastor. Actually, you'll need to go into your "Settings" top right hand of screen, and click "Edit Signature." This way, it will automatically add and you won't have to work in to every post.

Darryl, some Reformed theologians question whether some other Reformed theologians give proper scope to God's law in the ongoing sanctification of the believer. That may be a better way of orienting this thread, so as to avoid a flame war.

Hi CJ! Thanks. I'm really excited to be here. I've been reformed for about 4 years now, and have recently become involved with the PCA. There is much to be learned for sure. This antinomian issue is one that struch a chord because I hold the aforementioned gentleman in high esteem and I'm sensing a bit of a "straw man" argument levied against them. At the same time, I want to hear the arguments as objectively as I can....


Darryl F.
Church Planter in Residence/Pastor Perimeter Church (PCA)
Johns Creek, GA

z
God has work to do in this world; and to desert it because of its difficulties and entanglements, is to cast off His authority. It is not enough that we be just, that we be righteous, and walk with God in holiness; but we must also serve our generation, as David did before he fell asleep. God has a work to do; and not to help Him is to oppose Him."
-John Owen

---------- Post added at 11:32 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:27 AM ----------

Thanks Charlie. I definitely get that there is a distinction between the view that the gospel exists for salvation exclusively, and the view that the gospel exists for both salvation and sanctification. There are undoubtedly Godly men and women on both sides. My concern is that those who are for gospel salvation exclusively may be extrapolating out the "logical progression" of the gospel sanctification view. In other words, is it possible that the concern or fears of the first view may be a the logical fallacy of reductio ad absurdum?

Darryl F.
Church Planter in Residence/Pastor Perimeter Church (PCA)
Johns Creek, GA

"God has work to do in this world; and to desert it because of its difficulties and entanglements, is to cast off His authority. It is not enough that we be just, that we be righteous, and walk with God in holiness; but we must also serve our generation, as David did before he fell asleep. God has a work to do; and not to help Him is to oppose Him."
-John Owen

Originally Posted by DarrylFord

Hi CJ! Thanks. I'm really excited to be here. I've been reformed for about 4 years now, and have recently become involved with the PCA. There is much to be learned for sure. This antinomian issue is one that struch a chord because I hold the aforementioned gentleman in high esteem and I'm sensing a bit of a "straw man" argument levied against them. At the same time, I want to hear the arguments as objectively as I can....


Darryl F.
Church Planter in Residence/Pastor Perimeter Church (PCA)
Johns Creek, GA

z
God has work to do in this world; and to desert it because of its difficulties and entanglements, is to cast off His authority. It is not enough that we be just, that we be righteous, and walk with God in holiness; but we must also serve our generation, as David did before he fell asleep. God has a work to do; and not to help Him is to oppose Him."
-John Owen

You will greatly profit from the folks here on the PB. They do take the moniker "Puritan" seriously though, you might heed Charlies suggestion and tone down the thread title. Rather than characterizing the men as antinomian better to question their use or emphasis of the law. These puritans love precision!!!

Also check out the search function, there is a tremendous catalog of past threads.

Thanks CJ. How do I change the thread title?

You're never going to get a clear answer on that one because you're lumping apples and oranges and asking for generalities. OK they're all 5 pointers, but one's a baptist, one's liberal, one's radical two kingdoms and one not many of us know much about except the controversy of the church split.

Here is a discussion we had on the topic Pastor. You might want to check out this thread. There are numerous threads on this topic on the Puritanboard.
Excellent Article On the Current Issues Surrounding Sanctification and Justification

Originally Posted by DarrylFord

Thanks Charlie. I definitely get that there is a distinction between the view that the gospel exists for salvation exclusively, and the view that the gospel exists for both salvation and sanctification. There are undoubtedly Godly men and women on both sides. My concern is that those who are for gospel salvation exclusively may be extrapolating out the "logical progression" of the gospel sanctification view. In other words, is it possible that the concern or fears of the first view may be a the logical fallacy of reductio ad absurdum?

I think you may be misunderstanding the issue so far. NO Reformed theologian believes that the gospel exists exclusively for salvation, by which I assume you mean initial salvation. ALL Reformed theologians agree that the gospel continues to function in a believer's ongoing sanctification.

The issues are several:
1) What is the content of the gospel? Is it merely a message of justification, or is it also a message of sanctification (and adoption)? Some Reformed theologians think that some (or all) of the men you mentioned unjustifiably restrict the gospel to justification when they talk about its role in sanctification.

2) What is the relationship of the law to the believer? Does it merely show us our need for Christ (pedagogical use), or does it also provide a rule of life for the believer? If so, how? See WCF 19.6-7.

3) Given that we all agree that we are sanctified by faith, what is the object of that faith? See WCF 14.2.

Originally Posted by TimV

OK they're all 5 pointers, but one's a baptist, one's liberal, one's radical two kingdoms and one not many of us know much about except the controversy of the church split.

Which one is liberal?

Originally Posted by SolaScriptura

Originally Posted by TimV
OK they're all 5 pointers, but one's a baptist, one's liberal, one's radical two kingdoms and one not many of us know much about except the controversy of the church split.
Which one is liberal?

Probably referring to Keller on (at least) the issue of deaconesses.

Originally Posted by hammondjones

Originally Posted by SolaScriptura

Originally Posted by TimV
OK they're all 5 pointers, but one's a baptist, one's liberal, one's radical two kingdoms and one not many of us know much about except the controversy of the church split.
Which one is liberal?

Probably referring to Keller on (at least) the issue of deaconesses.

The RPCNA is liberal by that standard. Keller (so far as I know) is an inerrantist and therefore whatever else he is, he is not a liberal---at least not in the historic sense of the word.

Keller is awfully conservative for a liberal.

It seems Keller's Church allows a lot of strangeness concerning creation and evolution to enter through its doors and teaching.

The RPCNA is liberal by that standard.

Do they allow people who beleive in theistic evolution to hold office?

Originally Posted by DarrylFord

I was recently informed that there are those within the PCA who argue that guys like Tim Keller, John Piper, Tullian Tchividjian, and Michael Horton (among others) are antinomian. Have any of you heard this, or do you subscribe to this view. If so, why?

Darryl-

I would second what CharlieJ stated, and also, the following links may help:

The Fear of Antinomianism - White Horse Inn Blog
http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/...rton-part-one/
http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/...rton-part-two/
http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/...on-part-three/
http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/...ton-part-four/
http://www.monergism.com/thethreshol...ton/union.html

Randys link to the PB thread featuring the dialog between Evans and Lucas on Reformation 21 is excellent. Here is another very helpful thread that might assist you in framing some of the issues. Reformed Forum: Union with Christ. On the Reformed Forum, Lane Tipton helps flesh-out some of the distinguishing emphases that one finds within the reformed camp; it's a long show but worth the investment. Among other points, Tipton breaks-down what is sometimes referred to as the "WSC" hermeneutic, that practice that places a priority on justification and assigns renovative qualities to justification that actually belong to definitive sanctification. I promise, you won't be disappointed, check out both these threads.

Yes, Tipton does a very good job.

Here is Richard Gaffin's conference on the Mystery of Union with Christ. It is excellent.

Mystery of Union With Christ Sermons - SermonAudio.com

Originally Posted by CharlieJ

Darryl, some Reformed theologians question whether some other Reformed theologians give proper scope to God's law in the ongoing sanctification of the believer. That may be a better way of orienting this thread, so as to avoid a flame war.

Yes, please no flame wars!

Union with Christ is a part of this discussion that has many implications as I see it. Also the implications of Klinean theology have a lot to do with this discussion.

I was directed to a pdf to read by Marcus Johnson. He was responding to Thomas L. Wenger's assertions in an article 'THE NEW PERSPECTIVE ON CALVIN:RESPONDING TO RECENT CALVIN INTERPRETATIONS'.
http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PD...328_Wenger.pdf

Marcus Johnson has done an excellent job clarifying some of the issues in my estimation and a lot can be learned just from reading this response to Wenger.

You can actually just read Marcus Johnson's response and gain a tremendous amount of edification and good theology from it. He does an excellent job. I think you will see why I linked to Marcus Johnson's article after you read it. I also think that you will benefit greatly from it as it does relate to this issue in my opinion. I would have only linked to Johnson's reply but I want to be fair. At least read the Johnson article if that is the only one you read.


NEW OR NUANCED PERSPECTIVE ON CALVIN?
A REPLY TO THOMAS WENGER
http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PD...58 Johnson.pdf
Here is just a tid bit from it.

The first of Wenger’s arguments stemming from this passage is largely semantic. He proposes that it is significant that Calvin twice described sanctification as “secondary,” suggesting that Calvin thus understood justification as the “primary” of the “double graces.” This argument runs into the following problems: (1) it is not clear that Calvin intended to assign a relative worth to sanctification when he described it as “second” in order, as if justification were first in order of soteriological value and sanctification a rung lower in value; (2) Calvin did not describe justification and sanctification here as “double graces,” but as a “double grace (duplex gratia).” This is important to note because Calvin understood that the duplex gratia is received only by “partaking of him” in whom the benefits reside. When Christ is “grasped and possessed by us in faith,” we receive the duplex gratia of justification and sanctification; it is a two-fold grace, not two graces.


… Calvin’s
understanding of the relationship between justification and sanctification, as Wenger has it, is one of cause and effect: sanctification is impossible if not founded on justification.35

The primary evidence Wenger presents for these claims is Calvin’s refutation of Osiander in Book 3 of the Institutes. Having already warned his readers of the problem of “erratic readings” and “proof-texting,” I am a bit surprised that Wenger chose the dispute with Osiander to prove his point. As the texts that Wenger selected show quite clearly, Calvin’s problem with Osiander was that his understanding of justification destroyed the foundation for the believer’s assurance of salvation. By asserting that Christ is our righteousness according to his divine nature—in a “mixing of essences— Osiander construes justification as both forgiveness and renewal unto holiness.36 Osiander’s understanding of union with Christ resulted in a commingling of justification and sanctification which Calvin flatly rejected.37 Calvin’s concern with Osiander is not that he has inseparably bound together justification and sanctification;38 Calvin’s concern is that Osiander has included sanctification within justification and thus destroyed the foundation on which a believer’s assurance rests. The assurance of one’s reconciliation with God, the peace that quiets the soul, is grounded in justification, not in one’s inherent holiness (sanctification).39 Thus, Calvin’s point is not that sanctification must be grounded in justification, but that the assurance of salvation must be grounded in justification.

As Calvin stated repeatedly, justification and sanctification are benefits that are to be distinguished but never separated (distinctio sed non separatio). In this respect, the importance of 1 Cor 1:30 for Calvin could hardly be over- stressed as a paradigm for understanding the relationship between the two benefits.40

From this also, we infer, that we cannot be justified freely through faith alone without at the same time living holily. For these fruits of grace are connected together, as it were, by an indissoluble tie, so that he who attempts to sever them does in a manner tear Christ in pieces. Let therefore the man who seeks to be justified through Christ, by God’s unmerited goodness, consider that this cannot be attained without his taking him at the same time for sanctification or, in other words, being renewed to innocence and purity of life.41

The “indissoluble bond” by which justification and sanctification are connected is Christ himself. To sever these benefits is to “tear Christ in pieces.” Sanctification, as much as justification, proceeds from the person of Christ who is grasped in faith. Justification no more “grounds” sanctification than sanctification grounds justification: both are grounded in, and proceed from, the believer’s union with Christ:

Why, then, are we justified by faith? Because by faith we grasp Christ’s righteousness, by which alone we are reconciled to God. Yet you could not grasp this without at the same time grasping sanctification also. For he ‘is given unto us for righteousness, wisdom, sanctification, and redemption’ (I Cor.1:30). Therefore Christ justifies no one whom he does not sanctify. These benefits are
joined together by an everlasting and indissoluble bond, so that those whom he illumines by his wisdom, he redeems; those whom he redeems, he justifies; those whom he justifies, he sanctifies. . . . Although we may distinguish them, Christ contains both of them inseparably in himself. Do you wish, then, to attain righteousness in Christ? You must first possess Christ; but you cannot possess him without being made partaker in his sanctification, because he cannot be divided into pieces (I Cor.1:13). Since, therefore, it is solely by expending himself that the Lord gives us these benefits to enjoy. He bestows both of them at the same time, the one never without the other.42

Calvin’s consistent refrain, one that was evident in his debate with Osiander, was that justification and sanctification are distinct benefits that are never to be separated, any more than Christ himself can be separated.43 They are distinct only by reason of their soteriological function. As C. P. Venema has noted, the twofold benefit of union with Christ is distinct in conception: “Justification answers the question, how and on what basis are we acceptable to God? and regeneration (sanctification) answers the question, what positive fruit or effect does the Spirit accomplish in the lives of those who have trusted in Christ alone for their salvation?”44 Calvin emphasized the distinction between the two benefits only insofar as they served differing soteriological ends. It is the living Christ who contains the twofold benefit in himself and who is the living, effectual reality behind both justification and sanctification. They are not related in terms of cause and effect, or of ground and consequence, but in terms of their relation as a dual reality in the singular, redemptive person and work of Christ.

http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PD...58 Johnson.pdf

Originally Posted by TimV

You're never going to get a clear answer on that one because you're lumping apples and oranges and asking for generalities. OK they're all 5 pointers, but one's a baptist, one's liberal, one's radical two kingdoms and one not many of us know much about except the controversy of the church split.

It would be nice to have a sticky (or wiki?) comprehensively listing well-known pastors and theologians along with each one's one or two-word Puritanboard consensus labels

Although there's theology involved, the issue is largely one of pastoral practice and how to use the law when it comes to sanctification. People who think it best to do a lot of "you should follow God's law" preaching sometimes throw around the "antinomian" accusation a little too freely, if you ask me, at people who do a lot of "you should believe the gospel" preaching.

Even if there are good theological points to consider (and there are), "antinomian" is a label that doesn't fit any of the guys you mentioned. All of them believe obeying God matters. And all of them intend, in their preaching, to bring their hearers to both greater faith and fuller obedience. A main reason why they preach "believe the gospel" messages is because they are convinced that a robust belief is the fuel that powers law-keeping.

Originally Posted by Jack K

Although there's theology involved, the issue is largely one of pastoral practice and how to use the law when it comes to sanctification. People who think it best to do a lot of "you should follow God's law" preaching sometimes throw around the "antinomian" accusation a little too freely, if you ask me, at people who do a lot of "you should believe the gospel" preaching.

Even if there are good theological points to consider (and there are), "antinomian" is a label that doesn't fit any of the guys you mentioned. All of them believe obeying God matters. And all of them intend, in their preaching, to bring their hearers to both greater faith and fuller obedience. A main reason why they preach "believe the gospel" messages is because they are convinced that a robust belief is the fuel that powers law-keeping.

Law and Gospel

Welcome Pastor Darryl

Originally Posted by ChristianTrader

Originally Posted by Jack K

Although there's theology involved, the issue is largely one of pastoral practice and how to use the law when it comes to sanctification. People who think it best to do a lot of "you should follow God's law" preaching sometimes throw around the "antinomian" accusation a little too freely, if you ask me, at people who do a lot of "you should believe the gospel" preaching.

Even if there are good theological points to consider (and there are), "antinomian" is a label that doesn't fit any of the guys you mentioned. All of them believe obeying God matters. And all of them intend, in their preaching, to bring their hearers to both greater faith and fuller obedience. A main reason why they preach "believe the gospel" messages is because they are convinced that a robust belief is the fuel that powers law-keeping.

Law and Gospel

Law and Gospel

I will just supply the posts from the Law and Gospel thread linked to above.

Here is the one from Christian Trader.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Originally Posted by Michael Doyle

For the sake of this conversation, Horton has responded to the antinomian charges here: the-fear-of-antinomianism from whitehorseinn.org - StumbleUpon

Thank you for pointing this out. Please note that in this repudiation we have an avowal of one of the tenets of Antinomianism. It is in this statement: "The law does what only the law can do: reveal God’s moral will. In doing so, it strips us of our righteousness and makes us aware of our helplessness apart from Christ and it also directs us in grateful obedience. No one who says this can be considered an antinomian." I regret that I have to inform those who strongly advocate Dr. Horton's position that this is precisely what the Antinomians of history have taught. I urge you, Christian brethren, to prove all things. Please compare Dr. Horton's statement with the repudiation of Antinomianism by Zacharias Ursinus which I quoted a few posts ago. He explcitly rejects Dr. Horton's Antinomian tenet and insists that the law joined with the gospel "also commences to become the Spirit, which is effectual in the godly." There, my dear Christian brethren, is the point at issue. One should be on his guard against being entrapped in an error on a most serious point: "For this is the will of God, even your sanctification." I point it out to you once more, not for the sake of fear-mongering, but in Christian love, that you might be delivered from the counsel which causes to err. What do you believe? Do you hold the antinomian tenet of Dr. Horton that the law does what only the law can do? or do you maintain with reformed theology throughout the centuries, as represented by faithful teachers on many continents, what Dr. Horton considers to be a most serious error, that the law is changed by the Spirit into something that is effectual in the believer's progressive sanctification? They are two different views, repeatedly contrasted, which an individual cannot believe at one and the same time.

Here is the one from Semper Fidelis

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Originally Posted by Prufrock

I think it is beyond safe to say that all members of this discussion board are profoundly thankful for the great service Dr. Horton has done in making such wonderful Reformed truths known so widely through his various engagements - his constant speaking out in behalf of the visible, institutional church, his emphases upon the means of grace and corporate piety, his stand against "contemporizing" the church, his advocacy of confessionalism, etc. are things for which everyone here has great respect, and for which they embrace him as a brother and co-laborer in Christ. Those who differ with him on these in-house issues, though they disagree earnestly and strongly, do so in that spirit, and I hope all will see that and seriously consider their participation and the manner of their conduct in these conversations, and whether it becomes the gospel of Christ.

Thank you, Paul. Please let it be noted, that I have not said anything against the person of Dr. Horton. The truth is that I have great respect for Dr. Horton and his labours. I do not regard him as Antinomian but I regard this one particular emphasis of his teaching as Antinomian. As stated elsewhere, I regret that I have to speak these things. If modern Protestantism did not have the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons, I doubt whether "bringing into captivity every thought" would cause so much consternation. Such an action would probably be regarded as an essential part of faithful ministry.

Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis

Originally Posted by ChristianTrader

Originally Posted by Jack K

Although there's theology involved, the issue is largely one of pastoral practice and how to use the law when it comes to sanctification. People who think it best to do a lot of "you should follow God's law" preaching sometimes throw around the "antinomian" accusation a little too freely, if you ask me, at people who do a lot of "you should believe the gospel" preaching.

Even if there are good theological points to consider (and there are), "antinomian" is a label that doesn't fit any of the guys you mentioned. All of them believe obeying God matters. And all of them intend, in their preaching, to bring their hearers to both greater faith and fuller obedience. A main reason why they preach "believe the gospel" messages is because they are convinced that a robust belief is the fuel that powers law-keeping.

Law and Gospel

Law and Gospel

Yeah, I know. But I still don't think "antinomian" is a helpful accusation to make. Because in many, many people's minds it denotes a person who thinks you're allowed to live however you choose. That too has been a central tenet of many antinomians. And that doesn't fit these guys. Better for an opponent to explain his beef more precisely.

I agree, Jack. Luther was accused of antinomianism, and yet he wrote a work entitled, "Against the Antinomians". So, the definition varies as the wind. One could technically even call the Reformed "antinomians", for we are truly "anti-law" when it comes to being under it as a covenant of works. It ought to be a courtousy, and grace ought to compel us, that we never use the word without defining the specific way in which we wish to convey that one is being "anti-law". I don't see why that would be so hard. Plus, it would save us a vast amount of thread space by not talking past one another. More importantly, it would even promote the restraint of bitterness and other sins, both in ourselves and others...and isn't that what we all should want anyway?

Blessings!

I don't think anyone on this board has called Luther, Horton, the White Horse Inn, Westminster California, and their advocates antinomian. Now maybe it is done in other places. I know it is done in relationship to the Radical Two Kingdom teaching. But I don't think it has been done here. It has only been announced that some of their teaching is antinomian in nature as Rev. Winzer has pointed out in several posts on the PB using the Reformers such as Samuel Rutherford to expose certain aspects of their teaching as being such. There is a big difference in this. And it is not confusing if it is followed and listened to in the correct light.

Originally Posted by TimV

The RPCNA is liberal by that standard.

Do they allow people who beleive in theistic evolution to hold office?

I see Keller as an accommodationist rather than a liberal. He's much more a Charles Erdman than a Harry Emerson Fosdick.

Originally Posted by SRoper

I see Keller as an accommodationist rather than a liberal.

Possibly more accurate. His views aren't liberal in any meaningful sense, unless you would count Alistair McGrath as a liberal. A friend of mine once reminded me that "there aren't liberals in the PCA, just some who are less conservative." There are several I know who hold theistic evolution (sort of) who I would not consider liberal at all.

Take a look at the article in this current thread Jesus + Nothing + Everything review

Originally Posted by SRoper

Originally Posted by TimV

The RPCNA is liberal by that standard.

Do they allow people who beleive in theistic evolution to hold office?

I see Keller as an accommodationist rather than a liberal. He's much more a Charles Erdman than a Harry Emerson Fosdick.

I'm not sure how to make a hard distinction between an accommodationist and a liberal. The only thing I can see is that perhaps a liberal accommodates on more things?

CT

Originally Posted by ChristianTrader

Originally Posted by SRoper

Originally Posted by TimV

The RPCNA is liberal by that standard.

Do they allow people who beleive in theistic evolution to hold office?

I see Keller as an accommodationist rather than a liberal. He's much more a Charles Erdman than a Harry Emerson Fosdick.

I'm not sure how to make a hard distinction between an accommodationist and a liberal. The only thing I can see is that perhaps a liberal accommodates on more things?

CT

It would seem to me that generally (i.e. without speaking of any one in particular) a liberal believes unBiblical theology, while an accomodationist does not, but allows a liberal to do so.

Originally Posted by ChristianTrader

I'm not sure how to make a hard distinction between an accommodationist and a liberal. The only thing I can see is that perhaps a liberal accommodates on more things?

Liberalism is a way of doing theology. Accomodationism is an attitude within the Church. Liberals have a clear theological agenda: do away with objective revelation and doctrine. Accomodationists are generally within the bounds allowed by the denominations standards but would allow a broader spectrum of doctrinal beliefs than have previously been permitted within a denomination. That's the difference. This could apply in directions other than liberalism: the CREC is accomodationist with regard to FV as well as confessionalism---but calling it liberal would be wildly innaccurate.

Originally Posted by P. F. Pugh

the CREC is accomodationist with regard to FV as well as confessionalism

I'd disagree a bit - CREC embraces FV. Some PCA presbyteries have proven accommodationalist as to FV.