My Reply to Frank Turk’s Reply
Frank, Though I posted my note to you on my blog, your reply will be kept confidential unless you give permission otherwise. I found your reply gracious and with a spirit worth pondering. That's why I am going to share my heart with you on this in no uncertain terms. The reason is because I, at this time, do not share your patience with Horton, TT, DA Carson, John Piper, Tim Keller, et al. I believe they are fostering a doctrine that was conceived by the late Jack Miller (Prof of practical theology at Westminster Theological Seminary) some 30 years ago that was known as "Sonship Theology." Jay Adams wrote an apology against it (a book published by Timeless Texts in 1996). Though Horton and others have tweaked it to some extent, the doctrine is virtually identical to what they teach, and many of these men attribute the teaching to him directly (Jack Miller) while others were mentored by him. I also believe that these men think synergistic sanctification is a false gospel and that they are on the cutting edge of a new reformation, with their arrogance and visions of grandeur following. The doctrine is a radical departure from orthodoxy: repentance is now "deep repentance," obedience is now "new obedience," church discipline is now "redemptive church discipline," and progressive sanctification is really progressive justification. And unfortunately, as I am sure you already suspect, I have personal life experience with how this doctrine is effecting (trashing) the lives of many Christians. Its ill effect on biblical counseling is also cause for major concern. Sorry Frank, I think these men are dangerous and I think they need to be exposed. Perhaps they mean well, but the results are the same regardless. Thank you for your kind response and your prayer that God will be with me. Paul Dohse.
Frank Turk’s Reply to Open Email: Cited with Permission
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
An Open Email to Frank Turk
Frank,
I saw your latest comment on WHI. You invited anybody that had questions to email you at this address frank@iturk.com. I may have misunderstood what you wrote in the comment, but it seems that you see the controversy at hand this way: “This is not a dire theological emergency.” Not that I think your original open letter was a definitive antinomian charge, as Horton apparently did, but I will ask the following question: how is progressive justification not antinomianism? How can there be any use of the law at all in sanctification if “the same gospel that saved us also sanctifies us”? Many respected teachers of the past such as JC Ryle called the combining of justification and sanctification antinomianism. I believe antinomianism is a “theological emergency.”
That’s my question, now perhaps you will allow me a comment concerning this statement: “As the person now listed as probably worse than Torquemada when it comes to the Reformed blogsophere….” That might be because of the following: the logical conclusion of their theology, if not directly stated, would question your salvation. Certainly, they would be offended by some lost guy calling their theology into question!
Let’s see if that might be the case. When you got saved, did you remain in the gospel, or did you move on to “something else”? What’s the “something else”? Tullian Tchividjian says the something else is the following:
“As I’ve said before, I once assumed (along with the vast majority of professing Christians) that the gospel was simply what non-Christians must believe in order to be saved, while afterward we advance to deeper theological waters. But I’ve come to realize that ‘the gospel isn’t the first step in a stairway of truths, but more like the hub in a wheel of truth.’ As Tim Keller explains it, the gospel isn’t simply the ABCs of Christianity, but the A-through-Z. The gospel doesn’t just ignite the Christian life; it’s the fuel that keeps Christians going every day. Once God rescues sinners, his plan isn’t to steer them beyond the gospel, but to move them more deeply into it.”
So, the something else can be ANYTHING else but the gospel, which in this case is “deeper theological waters” as opposed to “move[ing] deeper into it” [the gospel]. If you do that (move on to something else), Michael Horton says you loose your sanctification AND your justification. Correct me if I’m wrong, but if we loose our justification, doesn’t that mean we’re lost? Here is what he said:
“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 depen- dent 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.”
Also, John Piper says that we (Christians) must make our battle (“our battle” must certainly pertain to sanctification) to only believe, not to perform as grounds for our justification (I thought we perform to please God and our justification is already settled, but I guess that’s just me). Here is what he said:
“All the good that God requires of the justified is the fruit of justification by faith alone, never the ground of justification. Let the battle of your life be there. The battle to believe. Not the battle to perform.”
Is that true? Is our only battle as Christians, a battle to believe?
Nevertheless, if you move deeper into the gospel everyday and haven’t moved on to anything else – your in good standing with the guys at WHI. And saved to boot!
paul
Psychological Theory: Antinomians Want to Be Caught, Part 2
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
Psychological Theory: Antinomians Want to Be Caught, Part 1
Don’t get me wrong, I’m thankful; it’s about time antinomians of our day have to answer the charge. But have you ever heard the theory by psychologist that serial criminals want to be caught? In regard to applying the same theory to the serial antinomians of our day, I have to think the theory has merit.
Consider what has happened this week. A writer for “Pyromaniacs,” a blog authored by Phil Johnson, (an associate of John MacArthur Jr.), wrote a six-page open letter to Micheal Horton and others at the “White Horse Inn,” another blog of the Reformed sort. Horton responded to the open letter by denying that he was an antinomian while defending another proponent of gospel sanctification / Sonship theology who had supposedly been accused as well by pastor Jason Hood, via an article Hood wrote in Christianity Today. A rough week for antinomians, supposedly.
But the fact that Horton responded to the open letter as if it was an accusation that he is antinomian – is surprising because it would take at least five attorneys to interpret the letter that way, if in fact it was an accusation of antinomianism to begin with; I certainly didn’t take it that way.
So why did Horton respond that way? See, it’s true; deep down, they want to get caught. Horton initially defended himself in the first paragraphs of his response, but then toyed with his “accuser” by dropping in clues as to what they should really be accusing him of: antinomianism based on his doctrine! After his defense, his suggested cure for antinomianism was “more gospel”(hint, hint). So after denying that he’s antinomian, he actually launched into a full-blown antinomian doctrine! I will dissect his response in part 2, but in essence, he said “more justification in sanctification.” I posed this question in the comment section and expect it will never get out of moderation purgatory:
“Dr Horton: or anyone else,
If we are sanctified by justification, and we don’t have a role in justification, how can we have a role in our sanctification? And if we can’t have a role in our sanctification, isn’t that antinomianism by default? I don’t have to obey / I can’t obey. What’s the difference?”
But it gets better. In the other article Horton complains about, Hood doesn’t accuse the new pastor of Coral Ridge Presbyterian (the late James D. Kennedy’s church) of antinomianism, but rather only complains that Tullian Tchividjian bragged about being an antinomian! See, again, Tchividjian is another example of a serial antinomian who wants to get caught; so he bragged about being an antinomian. However, it didn’t work.
Will the Keystone Discernment Police ever figure it out? Stay tuned. But meanwhile, here’s another clue for Team Pyro: you don’t need six pages – you only need six words; “How is progressive justification not antinomianism?
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
leave a comment