Paul's Passing Thoughts

Paul --

Thanks for your note.

There is one specific way in which my concern does not lead to calling
Dr. Horton & Co. "antinomians" or those who "foster antinomians": by
understanding that my concern is with their approach and not their
confession.

I think the problem is with their approach to the question of
justification having the necessary consequence of sanctification.  I
am familiar with, and a fan of, Dr. Horton's books about the Gospel
and about orthodoxy.  I look forward to reading his new Systematic
Theology.  My concern is that when the WHI conducts discussions about
the centrality of the Gospel and fails to close the discussion as Paul
-always- did by disclaiming antinomianism and fruitlessness (Paul's
approach was always to declare the centrality of the Gospel as the
/cause/ of fruitfulness, with no excuse to the fruitless), their
approach is flawed.

In that, I think it also goes back to their intention to reform the
church with the Gospel.  They want to vanquish works-righteousness --
which is entirely right-minded.  But if you eliminate the possibility
of works-righteousness but /excuse fruitlessness as merely
"unhealthy"/, you are not finishing the job.  That's not defective
theology: that's defective effort, a defective teaching method.

It is unequivocal confessional language to say that those who are born
again, those who are receivers of the Gospel, those who believe, must
experience sanctification (-not- perfection)(cf. WCF XIII.1).  To say
-that- is a kind of works righteousness is to say that the reformed
confessions advocate such a thing -- which I am certain you would
never do.

To the other quotes you have proffered here, I am not seeking to
defend anyone else's statements in or out of context.  I stand by my
critique, and ask you to address it as I have presented it if I have
not answered your concerns about it.

God be with you,

~Frank