Open Discussion: The Horton Statement That Nobody Wants To Talk About
Christless Christianity, page 62:
“Where we land on these issues is perhaps the most significant factor in how we approach our own faith and practice and communicate it to the world. If not only the unregenerate but the regenerate are always dependent at every moment on the free grace of God disclosed in the gospel, then nothing can raise those who are spiritually dead or continually give life to Christ’s flock but the Spirit working through the gospel. When this happens (not just once, but every time we encounter the gospel afresh), the Spirit progressively transforms us into Christ’s image. Start with Christ (that is, the gospel) and you get sanctification in the bargain; begin with Christ and move on to something else, and you lose both.”
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
Gerry,
No, that comment was not directed at you. I did not ever see your post until I had posted mine. This might be why face to face discussion would be better. Do you have Skype?
Randy
LikeLike
Gerry,
Quite frankly, it means little to me to win an argument with Paul. I don’t think much of anyone takes him very seriously anyway. What means more to me is that good people not be slandered because Paul has found some statement he can twist to make them look like heretics. I know what I believe and can defend my views based on Scriptures taken in context. I don’t need him or anyone else to tell me what I believe based on some unrelated statement I have made
May I remind you that you are the one who asked me a question about Christ being made under the law, then accused me of taking the verse I cited out of context. Then as I recall you stated that I wasn’t regenerate or something to that effect. It is heartening to know that in your opinion my “heart is not Entirely deadened.” That didn’t seem too kind to me. I didn’t cite the surrounding context, first because I assumed you knew it and secondly because it bore no direct relation to the question you had asked me. If you had asked me follow up questions, I would have been happy to respond to those questions, using the context to do so.
I knew the “My dear brother” comment wasn’t meant for me since you had already identified me as unregenerate.
I very much liked what you said about Christians taking commands about gluttony seriously. I wrote a chapter for a book several years ago entitled “Gluttony–the acceptable sin.” I could have used your input about BMI ect.
I am sorry you took offense at my comment. It wasn’t meant for you.
Randy
LikeLike
Randy,
A classic NC/Sonship/GS/NCT argument: “The cat ran across the street.” Because we have not read every book written by Dr. Zeuss, we cannot conclude that the cat ran across the street. Yet, the GS crowd constantly quote puritans from obscure, massive volumes.
> —–Original Message—– >
LikeLike
Was that argument from “Horton hears a Who?”
LikeLike
Paul, [Just to make sure everyone knows to whom my comments are addressed]
I have read lots of those obscure massive volumes, but they are not my authority. They had some really good things to say. You probably should read them so you can find something heretical about them too. Great pass time.
LikeLike
Randy,
New Calvinism devastated my family. The new “pastor” assumed his position allowing the congregation to believe he was orthodox. Until it was made official, he used the grammatical-historical hermeneutic. Then, after he was voted in–boom! Day one, he’s using the redemptive-historical method. People wanted to know what was going on and couldn’t get a straight answer, so many left, not even knowing why other than, “somethings different about the preaching and we don’t like it.”
To my own fault, when I heard things like: “Any separation of justification and sanctification is an abomination,” I should have stopped everything and gotten to the bottom of the matter. I will continue the fight while the likes of Mark Dever gets a pass on bringing-up 256 people on false church discipline, but I am called a “slanderer” for telling the truth.
> —–Original Message—– >
LikeLike
by the way, I have become rather fond of green eggs and ham. Makes me really happy to be free from the law.
LikeLike
Now to the matter at hand:
“If not only the unregenerate but the regenerate are always dependent at every moment on the free grace of God disclosed in the gospel, then nothing can raise those who are spiritually dead or continually give life to Christ’s flock but the Spirit working through the gospel.”
1. We grow by the same gospel that saved us and the Spirit only works through the gospel.
“When this happens (not just once, but every time we encounter the gospel afresh), the Spirit progressively transforms us into Christ’s image. ”
2. This is clearly sanctification by justification alone.
“Start with Christ (that is, the gospel) and you get sanctification in the bargain.”
3. So, like justification, sanctification is by the same means–faith alone.
“begin with Christ and move on to something else, and you lose both.”
4. I you add anything to sanctification because it’s also justification, it’s works salvation and a false gospel.
LikeLike
How can Evangelicals not be totally spooked by “When this happens (not just once, but every time we encounter the gospel afresh)”? This is clearly spiritual growth by daily justification, which necessarily excludes the Law for all practical purposes. To Gerry’s point (while rechecking my info because the one boy is definitely not overweight. The other one? Uh, well, anyway), the wife and I can toss out our diet and just focus on the gospel. Don’t think so. We want to loose weight to be better ambassadors for Christ–calling on people to be “reconciled to God.” We are already reconciled–this should be evident.
LikeLike
The grammatical-historical hermeneutic IS the redemptive historical method. Your explanation helps me understand why you react to things emotionally rather than intellectually
LikeLike
Randy,
I’m a layman, but not a typical parishioner who can be led to the slaughter for lack of understanding such things.
00000
> —–Original Message—– >
LikeLike
Susan and I are applying biblical instruction to the problem: radical amputation, accountability, fleeing lust, right thinking, right praying etc. But is focusing on the gospel going to make that all a “mere natural flow”? NOT.
LikeLike
Paul,
I am responding to what you posted at 6:51 PM. You didn’t get my point at all did you? I’m not focused on your son’s weight. My point is, IT IS NOT MY BUSINESS!!!!! I cannot extrapolate that because one or both of your sons is/are overweight you must be an antinomian. My point [although I am almost certain it will be lost on you] is that you cannot extrapolate based on some terminology I may use that I believe a certain doctrine. Let me tell you what I believe and why. Don’t assume that you can divine a person’s beliefs because he uses some term that someone else has used who believes Whatever.
Randy
LikeLike