Pyromaniacs: Open Letter to Michael Horton

Unfortunately, some particular Baptists don't think the Law/Gospel distinction is important or that doctrine matters. What really matters is that you have some sort of behavioral change. (See Frank Turk's article at Pyromaniacs: Pyromaniacs: Open Letter to Michael Horton). I guess the morality gospel trumps the Gospel of Jesus every time in the mind of the self-justifying Pharisees. Unfortunately, Frank Turk does not understand the systematic nature of the Reformed confessions and standards as a whole. He would rather proof text out of context and create straw man arguments that prove the Reformed faith is "antinomian". It really goes to show how deeply ingrained the Anabaptist worldview is in the United States. As R. Scott Clark pointed out recently, it is a reflection of a rejection of authority of any kind and an overemphasis on individualism over and above any confessional commitments within a congregational or denominational setting.  (See:  Sister Aimee and the Anabaptist Nation).

What is especially amazing is that Turk thinks the hortatory subjunctive somehow escapes the classification of "Law" as in the Law/Gospel distinction. He says:

The first is a general complaint: I think you fellows have taken the right-minded theological distinction "Law and Gospel" too far; you have made all of human life and God's interactions with man into either an imperative or an indicative — missing the point that some things in life (especially in the Christian life, and in Christian theological anthropology) fall under the subjunctive mood.

For example, Hebrews 12:1 says, "Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, looking to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God." Now, I realize that the hortatory subjective is a way to "command one's self" as they say, but let's recognize something here: that kind of command is not external or decreed but in fact internal and voluntary, speaking to a willingness and not merely to submission to some exterior force or authority. Here the writer of Hebrews — someone we must agree is not a pelagian or syncretist or closet Roman Catholic or any sort of denier of the Gospel — really says, "somehow we can relate to the life of faith, and relate to Christ himself, and want to do what the faithful have always done."

There is much to be gained from the Law/Gospel, imperative/indicative distinction in Scripture, but not everything is resolved by it. And one of the things which is not resolved by it is what manner of people the Gospel makes us - which is actually part and parcel of the Good News.

There are several problems with Turk's position here. The one that immediately jumps out, however, is his understanding of the subjunctive mood. He seems to not be aware that the hortatory subjunctive is indeed a command as almost every Greek grammar I consulted indicates. It is not a reflexive command back to one's self, as Turk thinks.  Rather it is a command to others.  It's not expressed in the singular but the plural. In other words, the hortatory subjunctive is still an expression of the Moral Law and does not therefore escape the Law and Gospel distinction:

160. The Hortatory Subjunctive. The Subjunctive is used in the first person plural in exhortations, the speaker thus exhorting others to join him in the doing of an action. HA. 866, 1; G. 1344; B. p. 209; WM. p. 355; G.MT. 255, 256.

Heb. 12:1; diV u`pomonh/j tre,cwmen to.n prokei,menon h`mi/n avgw/na, "let us run with patience the race that is set before us."

1 John 4:7; avgaphtoi,( avgapw/men avllh,louj, "beloved, let us love one another."

(See: Syntax of the Moods and Tenses in New Testament Greek, by Ernest De Witt Burton).

What part of "doing an action" does Turk not understand? Anything in Scripture associated with "doing" is "Law". That is not to say that the Reformed position or the Lutheran position is antinomian. It is simply an insistence that justification is always and forever based and founded upon faith alone and not upon any action that we take or "do". Another example of a Greek grammar that says the hortatory subjunctive carries an imperatival force is:

a. Hortatory Subjunctive (a.k.a. Volitive) [let us]

1) Definition

The subjunctive is commonly used to to exhort or command oneself and one’s associates. This use of the subjunctive is used “to urge some one to unite with the speaker in a course of action upon which he has already decided.” Since there is no first person imperative, the hortatory subjunc­tive is used to do roughly the same task. Thus this use of the subjunctive is an exhortation in the "first person plural". The typical translation, rather than "we should" . . . is "let us . . . ."

On five occasions, the first person singular is also used in a hortatory way. The force is akin to asking permission for the verbal action. "Let me" or "per­mit me" brings out its meaning. The key to the singular hortatory usage is the presence of a;fej (“permit” [aorist imperative of avfi,hmi]) or the adverb deu/ro (“come”) preceding the subjunctive.

(See: Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, by Daniel B. Wallace, p. 464).

You will note that both of the above grammars indicate that the hortatory subjunctive is a command and Wallace further particularizes by telling us that when the verb is used in the first person plural it is a command. This is true because Greek has no other way to express the imperative in the first person since "there is no first person imperative". In short, this is precisely where Frank Turk misses the boat. He proposes a third option to avoid the category of Law, hoping to sidestep the Law/Gospel distinction. Instead he falls into the trap of confusing Law with Gospel. While it is good to avoid antinomianism, the Reformed position is clearly not antinomian simply because it insists on the Law/Gospel distinction.

A further problem with Turk's view is this comment:

. . . but let's recognize something here: that kind of command is not external or decreed but in fact internal and voluntary, speaking to a willingness and not merely to submission to some exterior force or authority.

I guess by that comment that Turk also rejects the doctrine of Sola Scriptura since the Bible is an exterior force or authority that is outside of our inward experience?  This is a perfect example of Anabaptist thinking.  Basically the individual justifies himself through his own experience.  It is subjectivism carried to the extreme.  This sort of thinking is precisely what Michael Horton was refuting in his book, Christless Christianity.  The description below the video at that link says,

Christless Christianity guides the reader to a greater understanding of a big problem within the American religious setting, namely the creeping fog of countless sermons in churches across the country that focus on moralistic concerns and personal transformation rather than the theology of the cross.

I could not agree with Horton's assessment more.  R. Scott Clark talks about this as well in the discussion about Sister Aimee at the Reformed Forum.

Not only is Turk's article a straw man argument against the Reformed position but Turk's understanding of Greek grammar leaves much to be desired. For a better understanding of the Law/Gospel issue you might want to listen to this edition of The White Horse Inn: Law and Gospel. If you doubt that Michael Horton is not an antinomian, you might want to read the Heidelberg Catechism: Lord's Day 32-45. Ironically, Turk claims to be a "reformed" Baptist. I found it amusing that at the bottom of the page there is this disclaimer:

Disclaimer

The opinions expressed in this blog do not necessarily represent the views of all contributors. Each individual is responsible for the facts and opinions contained in his posts. Generally, we agree. But not always.

Unfortunately, having "strong opinions" does not necessarily coincide with having true, right or accurate opinions on the matter. Baptists cannot bind each other's consciences because they do not accept creeds or confessions. It's no wonder that they cannot reach any consensus among themselves. But then, the Reformed denominations cannot enforce their own confessions of faith as the current situation with the Federal Visionists illustrates. And who could forget the divisions within Anglicanism?

[To view the above Greek terms you will need to download and install the Bibleworks Greek fonts.]