Keller, Piper, Tchividjian, and Horton - View of Law in Sanctification

Discussion in 'Exegetical Forum' started by DarrylFord, Dec 15, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. DarrylFord

    DarrylFord Puritan Board Freshman

    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
     
    Last edited: Dec 15, 2011
  2. DarrylFord

    DarrylFord Puritan Board Freshman

    Thanks Joshua. Sorry for the oversight.
     
  3. seajayrice

    seajayrice Puritan Board Sophomore

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

    CharlieJ Puritan Board Junior

    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.
     
  5. DarrylFord

    DarrylFord Puritan Board Freshman

    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
     
  6. seajayrice

    seajayrice Puritan Board Sophomore

    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.
     
    Last edited: Dec 15, 2011
  7. DarrylFord

    DarrylFord Puritan Board Freshman

    Thanks CJ. How do I change the thread title?
     
  8. TimV

    TimV Puritanboard Botanist

    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.
     
  9. PuritanCovenanter

    PuritanCovenanter Moderator Staff Member

  10. CharlieJ

    CharlieJ Puritan Board Junior

    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.
     
  11. SolaScriptura

    SolaScriptura Puritanboard Softy

    Which one is liberal?
     
  12. hammondjones

    hammondjones Puritan Board Freshman

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

    Philip Puritan Board Graduate

    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.
     
  14. AThornquist

    AThornquist Puritan Board Doctor

    Keller is awfully conservative for a liberal.
     
  15. PuritanCovenanter

    PuritanCovenanter Moderator Staff Member

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

    TimV Puritanboard Botanist

    Do they allow people who believe in theistic evolution to hold office?
     
  17. Myshkin

    Myshkin Puritan Board Freshman

    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/tullian/2011/08/24/interview-with-mike-horton-part-one/
    http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tullian/2011/08/26/interview-with-mike-horton-part-two/
    http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tullian/2011/08/29/interview-with-mike-horton-part-three/
    http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tullian/2011/08/31/interview-with-mike-horton-part-four/
    http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/questions/horton/union.html
     
    Last edited: Dec 15, 2011
  18. seajayrice

    seajayrice Puritan Board Sophomore

    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. http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/reformed-forum-union-christ-70807/. 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.
     
  19. PuritanCovenanter

    PuritanCovenanter Moderator Staff Member

    Yes, Tipton does a very good job.
     
  20. PuritanCovenanter

    PuritanCovenanter Moderator Staff Member

  21. Rufus

    Rufus Puritan Board Junior

    Yes, please no flame wars!
     
  22. PuritanCovenanter

    PuritanCovenanter Moderator Staff Member

    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-PDFs/50/50-2/JETS_50-2_311-328_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-PDFs/51/51-3/JETS 51-3 543-558 Johnson.pdf
    Here is just a tid bit from it.

    http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/51/51-3/JETS 51-3 543-558 Johnson.pdf
     
  23. E Nomine

    E Nomine Puritan Board Freshman

    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 :)
     
  24. Jack K

    Jack K Puritan Board Post-Graduate

    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.
     
  25. ChristianTrader

    ChristianTrader Puritan Board Graduate

    http://www.puritanboard.com/f48/law-gospel-65775/#post844768
     
  26. Brother John

    Brother John Puritan Board Sophomore

    Welcome Pastor Darryl
     
  27. Semper Fidelis

    Semper Fidelis 2 Timothy 2:24-25 Staff Member

    http://www.puritanboard.com/f48/law-gospel-65775/#post844972
     
  28. PuritanCovenanter

    PuritanCovenanter Moderator Staff Member

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

    Here is the one from Christian Trader.
    Here is the one from Semper Fidelis
     
  29. Jack K

    Jack K Puritan Board Post-Graduate

    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.
     
  30. moral necessity

    moral necessity Puritan Board Junior

    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!
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page