TGC Part 19: Michael Horton Drama, “Decrying Peter at the White Horse Inn”
Read 2Peter, chapter one, and compare that with what Horton and the others at the White Horse Inn are saying about assurance. Regardless of how unspiritual it sounds to us in this antinomian, hyper-grace day we live in, Peter, via the Holy Spirit, clearly says that we make our calling and election “sure” by adding a number of spiritual disciplines and virtues to our lives. And by the way: “the gospel” is not one of them. And by the way: Peter is telling us to live by a LIST. Get over it; grace is not an excuse for spiritual laziness. Also note Horton’s statement that blatantly contradicts Hebrews 10:24, 25 regarding purposes for community worship.
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 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 
6 comments