Frame review of Horton's "Christless Christianity"

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

 

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

Ron

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ron

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cheers,

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

3. Both sides also agree that faith without works is dead.

4. With respect to the question of whether justifying faith is an obedient response to the gospel call - it should first be observed that a sinner who tries to obey the command to flee the wrath to come and turn to Christ does so either with a regenerate heart or out of enlightened self-interest. When the latter occurs, obviously no justifying faith is present, obedient or otherwise. Accordingly, it is only possible for one to flee the wrath to come with a regenerate heart. Both sides should agree here too.

5. The question that remains is whether the act of turning and believing is an act of obedience. Before finding an answer, I think there is at least one more point of agreement between the sides that should come to light. As Calvinists, both sides agree that God alone effects faith and repentance in the application of redemption.

Getting to the nub of the matter:

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

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

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

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

Ron

 

Adam you asked:

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

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

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

Cheers.

 

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

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

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

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

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

Semper Fidelis replied: I understand what you're trying to drive at but that is very theoretical.

Ron Replies: I sincerely believe you do from what you wrote. I’m not sure though how it being “theoretical” (whatever that might mean to you) discredits the point, which you understand (and I believe you do). Let’s press on below...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Best wishes,

Ron

 

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

 

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

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

Thanks!

RD

 

Yup

 

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

 

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

I’m going to leave you with three scenarios:

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

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


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

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

Ron