Thread: Frame review of Horton's "Christless Christianity"

A detailed critical review:

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

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.

I think this article will offend Reformed Lutherans.

Originally Posted by 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.

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

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

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.

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

Originally Posted by 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.

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,

Originally Posted by Christusregnat

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?

Originally Posted by Christusregnat

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

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-----

Originally Posted by Christusregnat

Originally Posted by 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.

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,

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.

Originally Posted by PuritanCovenanter

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.

Originally Posted by CharlieJ

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?

Originally Posted by PuritanCovenanter

Originally Posted by Christusregnat

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?

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.

Originally Posted by Archlute

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?

Originally Posted by DMcFadden

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.

Originally Posted by PuritanCovenanter

Originally Posted by DMcFadden

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.

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

Originally Posted by armourbearer

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.

“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.

" 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?

Originally Posted by SemperEruditio

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.

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.

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).

Originally Posted by Josiah

Originally Posted by Archlute

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?

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).

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.

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.

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:

Originally Posted by armourbearer

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.

Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis

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.

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.

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

Westminster Seminary California faculty

Originally Posted by RAS

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,

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.

Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis

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

Originally Posted by armourbearer

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.

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.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

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.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

...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.

Originally Posted by Marrow Man

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

[I]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).

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.

Originally Posted by RAS

Originally Posted by armourbearer

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.

I do believe he was being slightly ironic.

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.