Paul's Passing Thoughts

In part 1, I mention that I will dissect Michael Horton’s written denial that he is an antinomian by reiterating his antinomian doctrine in the same denial. My comments are in [brackets]:

“What’s striking is that Paul answers antinomianism not with the law but with more gospel!

[No, what’s striking is Paul is refuting those who teach that less law leads to more gospel. In fact, Paul does answer with the law: ‘Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound?’ John said the biblical definition of sin is the transgression of the law (1Jn 3:4). Paul’s point following is: to sin in order to get more grace is to contradict the very purpose of grace, which is to defeat sin itself (1Jn 3:8). Secondly, why would grace break the power of sin if more sin brought forth more grace (Rom 6:6)? That’s Paul’s point – not what Horton says. Paul doesn’t preach grace to the exclusion of the law in sanctification. In fact, one definition of biblical sanctification is abstinence from what the law instructs us to avoid (1Thess 4:3). You are saying that Paul emphasized grace to the exclusion of the law in regard to the antinomian question (‘not with the law’ / ‘but with more gospel’). That’s not true.]

In other words, antinomians are not people who believe the gospel too much, but too little!

[That’s not true either. Paul said they are trying to get more grace with less law, the opposite of what you are saying.]

They restrict the power of the gospel to the problem of sin’s guilt, while Paul tells us that the gospel is the power for sanctification as well as justification.

[No they don’t – they don’t see guilt as a problem at all because we are supposedly ‘dead to the law,’ ie., free from its obligations in sanctification. Why would guilt even be an issue?]

The danger of legalism becomes apparent not only when we confuse law and gospel in justification, but when we imagine that even our new obedience can be powered by the law rather than the gospel.

[Nobody ever said the law ‘powers’ our obedience. It is the standard that we align our life with while trusting God for the necessary strength to do so. You use the term ‘new obedience’ which is a gospel sanctification / Sonship Theology term that refers to Christ obeying for us. If we are not obligated to uphold the law, but rather believe that Christ obeys it for us, that’s still antinomianism because it excludes the law from our realm of responsibility.]

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.

[This is the gospel sanctification / Sonship Theology concept of law negative, which means the law serves the exact same purpose in sanctification that it does in justification – to show a supposed inability to keep the law and reveal our ‘helplessness’ (in keeping the law). However, the Bible doesn’t say that the application of the law to our lives leads to ‘helplessness,’ but rather happiness and blessing (James 1:25), and strength (Matt 7:24,25). Also, the gospel sanctification / Sonship Theology doctrine also says that any effort on our part to obey the law is an attempt to establish our own righteousness apart from Christ, which can be seen in ‘….it strips us of our righteousness and makes us aware of our helplessness apart from Christ.’ Furthermore, the gospel sanctification / Sonship Theology element of Christian hedonism can also be seen in Horton’s statement which teaches that true obedience is always accompanied by a willing, joyful spirit. That’s how we supposedly know that it is Christ obeying through us: ‘….it also directs us in grateful obedience.’]

No one who says this can be considered an antinomian. [Gag! Why not? What Horton is saying is antinomian!]

However, it’s not a matter of finding the right “balance” between law and gospel, but of recognizing that each does different work.

[The law has different roles in justification and sanctification. But gospel sanctification / Sonship Theology teaches that the role of the law is the same in both.]

We need imperatives—and Paul gives them. But he only does this later in the argument, after he has grounded sanctification in the gospel.”

[The indicative does not always precede the imperative in Scripture. And in some cases, the imperative is based on something Christ has not even done yet, which doesn’t include the finished work of the gospel ( Heb 10:24,25 and 2Peter 3:11,12).]

paul