The Dispute Between John Frame and Michael Horton

John Frame reveals many confused ideas about the Scriptures and the Reformed confessions in his diatribe against Michael Horton's new book, Christless Christianity. (See John Frame's book review). Frame constantly confuses law and Gospel, even failing to recognize what even basic Reformed believers understand: the New Testament contains imperatives and commands, which are inherently statements of the moral law. That would include many sayings of Jesus in the sermons on the mount and in the command to "repent" and "believe" the Gospel. That Frame does not get this is indeed alarming.

What is also alarming is the fact that Frame thinks Joel Osteen is just fine. But Frame seems to be totally ignorant of the theological roots of Osteen's teaching. It is a well documented fact that John Osteen, the father of Joel Osteen, was a health and wealth preacher. The theology of the health and wealth movement comes from its father, Kenneth Hagin, and others who followed him. Indeed, the roots of Hagin's teaching comes from Christian Science and New Thought as it was imbibed and distributed in the writings of E.W. Kenyon, a Baptist revivalist of the 1940s. In his book, A Different Gospel, D. R. McConnell documented the outright pelagiarism of Kenyon by Hagin. McConnell traces Kenyon's exposure to Christian Science to Kenyon's training in oratory at Emerson College, Boston Massachusetts. Kenyon imbibed unbiblical doctrines of Christ's person and nature and other ideas like positive confession directly from Christian Science and New Thought, popular at Emerson College. Kenyon then combined this with his Baptist faith and wrote books on the topic. Thus, for Frame to endorse Osteen and his prosperity gospel is to endorse a different gospel (Galatians 1:6-8) and a different Jesus (2 Corinthians 11:3-4).

Furthermore, I think Horton was trying to be conciliatory in the opening remarks of his book, Christless Christianity. In fact, what he is saying is that many churches are preaching a false gospel. This might mean your church as well.

Frame continually confuses sanctification and justification in this review and seems to think that modern psychological terms are rightly read into the Scriptures. I cannot understand why Frame claims that Horton is being divisive when in fact Frame's own views are divisive and unconfessional. Horton is much more confessional and in adherence with Scripture than Frame, though I have problems with Horton's endorsement of common grace and his view of the two kingdoms as an endorsement of that common grace.

I think Frame's critique speaks for itself. In the past, he obviously has not seriously interacted with any of the complaints against himself regarding his endorsement of Norman Shepherd, who was deposed from Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia. Frame's endorsement of triperspectivalism is inherently subjective as R. Scott Clark has pointed out, so it is not surprising that Frame sides with the subjectivists, the legalists, and the outright heretics (Joel Osteen). Frame's inherent irrationalism is obvious to anyone who has studied Gordon H. Clark's presuppositional apologetics and his critique of Frame's mentor, Cornelius Van Til. It is Frame's commitment to irrationalism in fact which leads him to contradict himself over and over again in this critique of Horton who is at least consistently confessional in his approach to the law and Gospel distinction.

Since I'm not worried about offending a popular audience as the folks at the White Horse Inn are, I can openly say that I believe most of the churches teaching the things Horton condemns are indeed "christless" and therefore apostate. I hope John Frame gets the message before it is too late.

Charlie