Mike Horton on the "Myth" of the Inspired Bible

The following is a quote that shows how far the Van Tilian theology of the neo-Calvinists is willing to go in compromising with postmodernism and rejecting the special revelation of the plenary verbal inspiration of Scripture.  Mike Horton states plainly that he does not believe the Bible is literally true but is instead "inspired myth", which is nothing more than neo-orthodoxy restated:

We do not have to say that Christianity is a metanarrative to affirm that it is true.  C. S. Lewis pointed out that Christianity is the true myth--the myth that actually became fact.  "It happens--at a particular, in a particular place, followed by definable historical consequences.  We pass from a Balder or an Osiris, dying nobody knows when or where, to a historical Person crucified (it is all in order) under Pontius Pilate.  By becoming fact it does not cease to be myth." 7  In other words, it is still a story, even though it is true.  Not even the resurrection is a metanarrative; its meaning cannot be read off of the surface of historical events but is defined by its intratextual context as part of an unfolding plot.  Mike Horton.  The Christian Faith:  A Systematic Theology for Pilgrims on the Way.  (Grand Rapids:  Zondervan, 2011).  Page 18.

In other words, for Horton the Bible is not necessarily narrative history.  It is an inspired myth that happens to be "true", whatever that means.  Since for Horton the Scriptures are at no single point the same knowledge God and man knows on man's level, then it follows that Scripture is not really God's revelation since God cannot possibly reveal anything to man on his level "at any single point."  The Bible is not really God's words after all, according to Horton.  This is the legacy of Cornelius Van Til:  skepticism pretending to believe.  And inspired "myth" is still a "myth" or a "story" and not the literal truth in the very inspired words of God Himself--words spoken through the prophets and the apostles.

Addendum:  It looks like Mike Horton is now promoting evolution as a viable option for Christians on The White Horse Inn.  Why am I not surprised?  See: Out of the Horse's Mouth: Myths about Christianity:  Anglicans Ablaze

Was Tozer A Calvinist?

[This article was written some time ago.  Since this time my views have been modified slightly.  In agreement with the late Dr. Gordon H. Clark I can no longer say that all Arminians are unconverted.  But they are most certainly mistaken.  Secondly, the Bible does contain a few paradoxes.  But properly understood a paradox is merely an apparent contradiction, not an actual contradiction.  These paradoxes can be solved through either logical and propositional thinking or through further discoveries in archeology or textual criticism.  But a theology based totally on mystery or a theology that "all Scripture is apparently contradictory" amounts to something very similar to Neo-Orthodoxy.  The Scriptures are the Word of God and without error in all they affirm as recorded in the original autographs.  Charlie J. Ray.  5/12/2022.]

John,

In regards to your post, Was Tozer a Calvinist, I say no.  You admitted as much when you said:

"After I read the comment about Tozer not being a Calvinist I thought to myself, “Yes, that is true in one sense. But in a more important sense it is not quite true.” Why? Well, because Calvinism does not consist in affirming the five points of the Synod of Dordt."

By definition all Arminians were officially condemned as non-Calvinists at the Synod of Dort.  Any so-called "Calvinist" who thinks Arminians are by some magical incantation believers in the sovereignty of God is simply redefining terms or plain out dissimulating and equivocating.  The Canons of Dort are hardly optional.  In fact, I would go so far as to say that the Canons of Dort anathematize Arminians as unconverted and as a papist leaning movement back to Rome.   Your deliberate equivocation above and quoting a few proof texts where Tozer "seemed" to agree with Calvinism does not negate the many more quotes where he upholds free will and other such nonsense.

No, Tozer was not a Calvinist.  He was heterodox since he said things that contradicted Calvinism many times over.  I appreciate your quotes but they do not and cannot prove a man to be Calvinist who had no commitment whatsoever to any Reformed standard or confession.  In particular, the Arminian doctrine of free will negates any claim to Calvinism:

Now this twofold predestination, of some to life and of others to death (if it may be called twofold, both being constituent parts of the same decree), cannot be denied without likewise denying (1) most express and frequent declarations of Scripture, and (2) the very existence of God, for, since God is a Being perfectly simple, free from all accident and composition, and yet a will to save some and punish others is very often predicated of Him in Scripture, and an immovable decree to do this, in consequence of His will, is likewise ascribed to Him, and a perfect foreknowledge of the sure and certain accomplishment of what He has thus willed and decreed is also attributed to Him, it follows that whoever denies this will, decree and foreknowledge of God, does implicitly and virtually deny God Himself, since His will, decree and foreknowledge are no other than God Himself willing and decreeing and foreknowing.   Jerome Zanchius: ABSOLUTE PREDESTINATION: CHAPTER II WHEREIN THE DOCTRINE OF PREDESTINATION IS EXPLAINED AS IT RELATES IN GENERAL TO ALL MEN.

The idea that some Calvinists think that we have no choice in our conversion is just untrue.  The Calvinist view is that we cannot do anything to save ourselves whatsoever.  But the choice we make is itself a gift of God!  Even our conviction of sin and being effectually called to saving faith is ALL of God.  Your contention here is just ridiculous:

Calvinists have the tendency to preach divine election as if humans make no real choice. In fact, a well known theologian once preached a sermon in my own pulpit and said, “Since you are dead in your sins you can do nothing at all. The best you can do it [sic] put yourself in the place where God might save you!”

Bad news.  Dead men cannot put themselves anywhere!  Until God effectually calls a person to Christ they will not and cannot believe anything whatsoever.  While preaching is an instrumental cause of conversion which God uses (Romans 10:14-17), it cannot persuade a reprobate person of the truth.  God ONLY grants the elect the ability to believe.  That's Calvinism.  You reveal yourself to be in fact a closet Arminian.  You probably think those who believe the false doctrines of Rome and of the Remonstrance to be genuinely converted.  But how can that be when all of their logical propositions directly contradict the doctrines of free grace? 

You reveal yourself to be an Arminian when you suggest that the reprobate have "free choice" to accept Christ as if they have the "ability" to do so:

Simply put, the doctrine of total depravity is never presented in the Scripture as a doctrine that hinders any unbeliever from coming to Christ whenever they desire to come. Free grace and human responsibility, and thus real choice, are doctrines of the Bible.

If you had said, "The doctrine of total depravity is never presented in the Scripture as a doctrine that hinders any "elect" unbeliever from coming to Christ," you would have been correct.  But you conflate reprobation with election as if all men without exception are able to "desire to come".  The reprobate are clearly unable to come to Christ for if they were they would.  It's that simple.  Although the doctrine of predestination is no excuse for the reprobate's rejection of the Gospel, it is not a doctrine that should never be preached as you imply.  In fact, it should be preached with vigor because it gives assurance to believers and warns those who reject the Gospel of their impending doom:

XVII. Of Predestination and Election.

PREDESTINATION to life is the everlasting purpose of God, whereby, before the foundations of the world were laid, He hath constantly decreed by His counsel secret to us, to deliver from curse and damnation those whom He hath chosen in Christ out of mankind, and to bring them by Christ to everlasting salvation as vessels made to honour. Wherefore they which be endued with so excellent a benefit of God be called according to God's purpose by His Spirit working in due season; they through grace obey the calling; they be justified freely; they be made sons of God by adoption; they be made like the image of His only-begotten Son Jesus Christ; they walk religiously in good works; and at length by God's mercy they attain to everlasting felicity.

As the godly consideration of Predestination and our Election in Christ is full of sweet, pleasant, and unspeakable comfort to godly persons and such as feeling in themselves the working of the Spirit of Christ, mortifying the works of the flesh and their earthly members and drawing up their mind to high and heavenly things, as well because it doth greatly establish and confirm their faith of eternal salvation to be enjoyed through Christ, as because it doth fervently kindle their love towards God: so for curious and carnal persons, lacking the Spirit of Christ, to have continually before their eyes the sentence of God's Predestination is a most dangerous downfall, whereby the devil doth thrust them either into desperation or into wretchlessness of most unclean living no less perilous than desperation.

Furthermore, we must receive God's promises in such wise as they be generally set forth in Holy Scripture; and in our doings that will of God is to be followed which we have expressly declared unto us in the word of God.

Your deliberate equivocation is exemplified in your admiration for the confused theology of A.W. Tozer.  The Word of God has no contradictions, mysteries, or paradoxes therein.  What God reveals in propositional truth claims is a rational revelation.  Your view renders any hope of understanding God's Word utterly impossible since for you it is merely a mystery.  If the Scriptures are nothing more than analogy and mystery, why would God bother revealing Himself to us in special revelation in the first place?

Ironically, all Calvinists are supposed to believe the Canons of Dort.  You do not.  What a mystery that is!

Sincerely yours,


Charlie J. Ray, M. Div.

--
Glory be to the Father, and to the Son : and to the Holy Ghost; As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be : world without end. Amen. Visit 1662 Book of Common Prayer: Daily Prayer and Reasonable Christian Blog

Mark Thompson Comments: Sydney Anglicans I. Biblically confessional : Anglican Church League, Sydney, Australia

The following is an excerpt from an article posted at the Anglican Church League and at Mark Thompson's blog, Theological Theology:

The Thirty-nine Articles are most definitely a Reformed confession (as opposed to a Catholic, Lutheran or Anabaptist confession). This is confirmed by a study of the homilies. Cranmer was comfortable with the theology of Calvin and Bullinger (indeed prior to drafting the Articles he had sought a common Reformed confession which could be used by these churches in common). Despite John Henry Newman’s attempt in Tract 90 to suggest the Articles should be read in a Catholic fashion, a proper contextual reading does not permit the conclusions which he wished to reach.

However, while acknowledging and indeed assenting to the Thirty-nine Articles, Sydney Anglicans emphasise their derivative authority. In line with Article 6 they insist ‘whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation’. The Articles are authoritative insofar as and only insofar as they are a faithful account of biblical doctrine. Ultimately, we do not believe in the Trinity or the atonement or justification by faith only, on the basis of their appearance in the Articles but rather because these things are taught in Scripture.

My only complaint with Dr. Thompson is that the Sydney Diocese seems to think that the Anglican Church in North America is somehow superior to The Episcopal Church.  While it is true that the ACNA is conservative on moral issues the ACNA is thoroughly Anglo-Catholic with very few exceptions and many of those exceptions are high church Arminians.  Also, it should be pointed out that the Sydney Anglicans are by and large Amyraldians or four point Calvinists, which means they are not really "Reformed" at all.  The term "Reformed" cannot legitimately be extended to those who compromise any of the five points of the Canons of Dort.  By definition Dort was refuting the five points of the Remonstrants and therefore to agree with any idea of a general atonement or a hypothetical election compromises at least two points of the Canons of Dort.  Amyraldianism lends itself to what can only be called a "practical" Arminianism.  This four point agreement with Dort originates with the late D. Broughton Knox, who was the principle of Moore College in Sydney.

It should be further pointed out that the Archbishop of Sydney, Peter Jensen, is a five point Calvinist.  The problem, however, is that Jensen has been influenced by ecumenicalism via Billy Graham and other "neo-Evangelicals" who opened the door to compromise with false gospels.  It is well known that Graham invited Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches to participate in his crusades and that Graham recommended these churches to those who made "decisions" at his crusades.  Graham also advocated the "wideness of God's mercy view" of those who have not heard the gospel.  This is a direct contradiction of the Scriptures which teach that Jesus Christ is the only way of salvation (1 Timothy 2:5; John 14:6; Acts 4:10, 12; John 12:48; John 5:24-25).

Sydney, although "Evangelical", is not really "Reformed" after all since the original Reformers in Europe and England would have never compromised the gospel with Anabaptists, Roman Catholics, Anglo-Catholics and various other miscreant religions.  In fact, I would argue that they would not have agreed with any of the five points of the Remonstrants because all five points of the Canons of Dort are in fact biblical and can be expressly shown to be so.  Thompson wants to have it both ways.  He wants to affirm the confessional status of the 39 Articles but then he wants to take an Anabaptist approach to Reformed theology:

One of the lessons I remember learning from D. B. Knox as he taught Christian doctrine to the Moore College first year of which I was a part, is that every tradition and every theological system must be tested and repeatedly tested by Scripture. We must not pay mere lip service to the final authority of Scripture and the contingent authority of the Articles. The theology to which we are committed is the theology arising from Scripture and we are convinced that the Thirty-nine Articles are a faithful articulation of critical aspects of that theology. Our confessionalism is thus limited by a prior commitment to the final authority of Scripture as the word of God. It is biblical confessionalism, not strict adherence to a particular theological system (‘the Reformed faith’, ‘Catholic dogma’, etc.) or a particular theological account (Calvin’s, Cranmer’s, Luther’s, etc.). We might read Calvin or Cranmer or Luther or Barth or Knox, but we are not slavish followers of any of them in every particular.

Unfortunately, tolerance seems to trump sound theology for Thompson and the Sydney Anglicans.  Such compromises of the truth will in the end be their downfall.  J. I. Packer is another example of this sort of compromise of Reformed Anglicanism with Anglo-Catholic heresy.

Thompson goes on to say:

But the point being made under this first heading is a little broader. Commitment to biblical truth, as expressed in the Thirty-nine Articles and elsewhere, trumps institutional allegiance every time. That is why Sydney Anglicans have no difficulty standing against the denomination when it moves in directions that are contrary to Scripture. No amount of ecclesiastical consensus can overturn the teaching of the word of God. Furthermore, an opinion or practice is not simply to be accepted because it has a long history in Anglicanism or elsewhere. Everything must be tested by Scripture and if a practice  or doctrine is discovered to be contrary to the teaching of Scripture then it must be put aside.

This would be wonderful if it were indeed true.  Unfortunately it is not true.  The fact is Sydney, like most Evangelicals, has compromised the essentials of the Christian faith and have decided that the Protestant Reformation distinctives are merely adiaphora allowed by the 39 Articles:

It is important to note, however, that there is a third class of practices in particular: those about which Scripture does not speak and therefore about which it is perfectly appropriate for any fellowship of Christians to decide together (forms of church government, baptismal practices, etc.) In other words, this adherence to the priority biblical authority over ecclesiastical and institutional authority is not the same thing as the regulative principle of Presbyterianism: that only what is found in Scripture is permissible. It recognises more God-given freedom than that.

Some of the difficulty others have with the Anglican diocese of Sydney may well stem from a failure to appreciate this very deep conviction.

My response to Thompson here is that with "deep convictions" like those of Sydney who needs liberalism or theological enemies?  The Anglican tradition here in the United States and Canada is by and large Anglo-Catholic, which is not only not Reformed but also heretical in its soteriology and directly unconfessional in regards to the 39 Articles of Religion.  Anglican Evangelicals here are openly attacked and ostracized and even expelled from the The Episcopal Church.  They are treated the same way by the so-called "orthodox" Anglicans in the Anglican Church in North America and at the VirtueOnline website.

Although liberals have called Sydney puritanical, it simply is not true.  Sydney, like American Evangelicalism, is mostly pietistic semi-pelagianism at its best and outright pelagian at worst.  Phillip Jensen is  a regular speaker at the Gospel Coalition, a wimpy "Reformed" organization at best.  Phillip is the brother of Peter Jensen and an Amyraldian.  That in and of itself shows the Gospel Coalition is not Reformed.

If Sydney is "Evangelical" and "Reformed" first, then why is it that they still endorse the ACNA and participate in the Anglican Communion, which is mostly Anglo-Catholic even in the Global South?  These are hard questions to ask but questions that need to be asked of Mark Thompson and Sydney.

Logic requires consistency, congruency, and a lack of contradiction.  The article written by Dr. Thompson fails on all three points.  Perhaps it is possible to be both for Reformed theology and for Anglo-Catholicism at the same time?  Is this the result of Amyraldianism?  Compromise?  For the consistently Reformed, however, this would be impossible since the two religions teach contradictory doctrines and the Anglo-Catholics specifically deny the 39 Articles as even Thompson points out above.  It would appear that the Anglo-Papists do not have a monopoly on hypocrisy, duplicity and dissimulation.  J. I. Packer and the Sydney Anglicans speak with a forked tongue.

Charlie


Sydney Anglicans I. Biblically confessional : Anglican Church League, Sydney, Australia

Postmodernism Trumps Creation: Girl Scouts troops disband after chapter says it will allow transgendered 7-year-old - New York Daily News

Leaders of three troops of Girl Scouts quit their posts and disbanded the troops after the organization’s Colorado chapter said it would allow a transgendered 7-year-old to join.
The troop leaders, all affiliated with a Christian school in Louisiana, resigned in protest of the Colorado chapter’s decision to allow participation from any child who identifies as a girl, The Christian Post reported.

Controversy erupted when Felisha Archuleta tried to enroll her son, Bobby Montoya, who identifies as a girl, in a Girl Scouts troop in Denver.  Click here to read the story:  Troops Disband

Is it a surprise to anyone who is a Bible believing Christian that modern man thinks everything is optional, including a person's biological and physical body?  The post-Enlightenment rebellion against reason has reached a new low where nothing is certain, not even one's gender.  Gender, like reality, is merely an illusion of the mind to be changed at will or molded like a ball of wax.  After all, it is feelings that really matter, not facts.

It is this same sort of thinking that guides modern theology, which essentially denies that special revelation can exist except in subjective analogies and relativistic "factual" myths.  Michael Horton's new systematic theology is proof enough of that.  For Horton the Bible is not doctrinal or propositional unless it happens to be convenient for whatever point he wants to make.  Not even the Reformed confessions are about propositional truth for Horton.  Rather it's all an inspiring drama where the believer "feels" God analogically, though nothing univocally true exists.  Truth is ultimately relative and the God who reveals Himself remains hidden.  (See Part One:  Review of The Christian Faith.  See addendum below).

Carried over into the main culture not even science can determine what is obvious to the rest of us.  A baby born with certain biological and physical characteristics, including chromosomes, is not the test of gender.  Rather gender is simply a matter of psychological predetermination.  Or is it?  Now, it would seem, gender is more a matter of choice on the part of a person rather than a matter of God's established creation.  In the beginning God created Adam and Eve as male and female, husband and wife (Genesis 1:1, 26, 27; 2:7, 20-25; 5:1; Matthew 19:4; Mark 10:6)  What we see being pushed as the politically correct propaganda of the day is that individual liberty trumps biblical truth, special revelation and even natural revelation.  Even empirical science must bow to the idol of psychological "feelings" and "emotions" rather than objective truth.

Gordon H. Clark was prophetic when he said that science is only trustworthy in what it can produce practically.  Basically, empirical science is influenced by the subjective presuppositions of those who practice it.  Combine that with postmodernism and it is not hard to see why a postmodern culture defines reality via psychology and sociological presuppositions.  Empiricism, psychology, sociology and every other modern "science" basically sees what it has presupposed it wants to find.  This is why Clark began with Scripture as the ultimate basis for absolute truth in every other area of life.  With the special revelation of God in Holy Scripture all other "sciences" devolve into irrationalism--including Cornelius Van Til's theology of analogy.  Michael Horton's irrational tome, The Christian Faith is just more evidence that theology has become identical with existentialism and psychological feelings rather than propositional truth or absolute truth.  It's all relative.  Or is it?

The culture war is not over.  In fact, it has expanded.  The liberal left and the socialist agenda has taken the game to a new level.  Apparently the game plan is to divide and conquer, take no prisoners.  Sadly even so-called Christian churches, seminaries and leaders have sold out to this same agenda.  It seems to me that Mike Horton is more on the side of the enemy than defending the truth of Scripture, the law/gospel distinction, and propositional truth.


 Girl Scouts troops disband after chapter says it will allow transgendered 7-year-old  - New York Daily News

Addendum:  Horton reveals his prejudice in the postmodernism direction with statements that are explicitly Barthian:

As with all of the divine attributes, it is crucial to avoid two extremes, both of which presuppose a univocal rather than an analogical view of the relation in comparisons between God and human beings.  On one hand, the biblical testimony to a living history with a living God in a covenant with genuine interaction resists all Stoic and Platonic conceptions of a nonrelational and nonpersonal One.  In the unfolding drama there are suits and countersuits, witnesses and counterwitnesses, and God is presented as repenting, relenting, and responding to creatures.  On the other hand, we must always bear in mind that in revealing himself God hides himself.  God explicitly forbids univocal comparisons (Numbers 23:19; 1 Samuel 15:29; Isaiah 44:8, 9; 46:4; Hosea 11:9).   Michael Horton. The Christian Faith: A Systematic Theology for Pilgrims On the Way. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011), p. 240.

The idea that God "hides" himself even in special revelation comes from the theology of the neo-orthodox theologian, Karl Barth, and not from confessional and Reformed theology.  If there is no univocal truth but only analogies and comparisons that at no point coincide with God's words, thoughts, or absolute truth then the door is wide open to the sort of equivocation we see in the transgender movement.

Charlie

Carl F. H. Henry and Kenneth Kantzer Lectures on Evangelicalism

Dr. Carl F. H. Henry

The following links are at the Henry Center website of Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.  Please click on these links to see the videos of the lectures:

Know Your Roots:  Part 1:  Kenneth Kantzer

Know Your Roots:  Part 2:  Carl F. H. Henry

Know Your Roots:  Part 3:  D. A. Carson:  Q & A

Know Your Roots:  Part 4:  Discussion Continued


Unfortunately, the lecture of Kenneth Kantzer is overly optimistic about Neo-Evangelicalism and centers on a doctrinal minimalism that reduces Evangelicalism to an ecumenical unity that even includes Roman Catholics as having "Evangelicals" in the ranks of the Roman Catholic Church.  Unfortunately, the Roman Catholic Church still officially condemns the Gospel in the canons of the Council of Trent. 

Kantzer also confuses civil religion with biblical Christianity as if being a Christian is more about opposing abortion and pornography and homosexual marriage than promoting the law/gospel distinstinction and the ordinary means of grace.  Kantzer's lecture is typical of the theology of glory and social transformation rather than the eternal consequences for souls who reject the theology of the cross.

Carl F. H. Henry, a student of Gordon H. Clark believed that the Bible is literally the Word of God and consists of binding propositional truth claims in logical form.  Carl Henry's critique of Evangelicalism is much more pointed and biblical and Reformed in nature.  He does not give a blanket endorsement to any and every claim to be "Evangelical" but focuses on the doctrinal issues at stake.  See lecture number 2.  Yet, even Carl Henry was a bit too optimistic.  Cultural involvement is not necessarily a sure way to transform society. Henry himself overlooked the dangers of the Neo-Evangelical ecumenicalism that reduced the distinctions between Arminianism and Calvinism, Reformed and classical Protestant theology and the neo-paganism of the Pentecostal/Charismatic movement, and the differences between Rome and Geneva to merely issues of degree rather than absolute differences that separate true Christianity from false Christianity.

Henry's warning at the end of the lecture concerning the postmodernist view is applicable to Michael Horton's new systematic theology, which in my opinion gives away the bank to the postmodernists and the neo-orthodox view.

In Christ,

Charlie

Addendum:  After carefully listening to all four of these sessions, I have to say the entire thing is overly optimistic, particularly in light of the open hostility between Arminians and Calvinists and particularly the open hostility between Pentecostal/Charismatics and the Reformed side of things.  Evangelicalism is indeed a meaningless term and so is the term "Calvinist" these days.  The internecine theological and cultural wars within the Reformed traditon between the Clarkians and the Van Tilians, between the Federal Visionists and the more traditional Calvinists, and even the hostility between Lutherans and Calvinists all points to what is basically a facade of "unity" in Evangelicalism.  Basically, the only unity that exists is on the political front, a unity which is in name only as well.  As Westminster Seminary California likes to point out, any secularization of the church and accommodation to the culture is in the end detrimental to the Gospel.

I was particularly amused when Carl Henry called Jimmy Carter an "Evangelical".  If Carter is an Evangelical, then so is Barack Obama!  Carter was part of the "moderate" wing of the Southern Baptist Convention, which then left and started another denomination.  Basically, Kenneth Kantzer wound up being more honest in saying there is no real unity.  I think Carl Henry wound up being a Baptist and not a confessional Reformed theologian.  In the end his Baptist theology led him in the direction of a facade we call "broad Evangelicalism".  It is indeed 3,000 miles long and 1/4 inch deep.

Charlie

The Two Kingdoms Theology and Ecumenical Contradictions

Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here." (John 18:36 NKJV)

The Two Kingdoms Theology and Ecumenical Contradictions

At the risk of being considered an isolationist, a fundamentalist, and a divisionist I have decided to write this article to discuss what I consider to be self-contradictory in regards to the two kingdoms theology of Michael Horton and others. While these theologians make strong statements about the separation of church and state and the two kingdoms, namely the kingdom of God and the kingdom of the world, these same men continually make ambiguous statements about what the kingdom of God actually is and who belongs to that kingdom.

The real issue comes down to this: who is in and who is out? Mike Horton did an entire campaign a couple of years ago about Christless Christianity and said that much of Evangelicalism is essentially pelagian due to the influence of Charles Finney. I applauded his efforts. But when Horton came under fire for his views by the wider Evangelical community he backed off that statement and said that Arminians are not really semi-pelagians or pelagian. In fact, Horton has had William Willimon, an Arminian, on the White Horse Inn and he has had David Virtue of VirtueOnline on the program as well. Virtue is an open advocate for Anglo-Catholicism, though he pretends to be an “Evangelical”. If Evangelicalism includes Anglo-Papists, the Eastern Orthodox, and Roman Catholics in addition to the semi-pelagian Arminians, then for all practical purposes the term “Evangelical” is meaningless. The great Anglican Reformed minister, Augustus Toplady called Arminianism, The Road to Rome. If the syncretism of the Pentecostal/Charismatic movement with Christian Science, the prosperity gospel, Word of Faith movement, oneness Pentecostalism, and charismatic Roman Catholicism is part of Evangelicalism, then we are in a world of trouble (2 Corinthians 4:4). Some theologians in the Reformed tradition claim to be non-cessationists. Unfortunately most of them compromise with the errors mentioned above in some way or another. (See Mike Horton: Reformed and Charismatic?).

In light of what I just pointed out above, I am wondering how Horton could appeal to a village green or a big tent if he really believes in the two kingdoms theology? Who actually belongs to the kingdom of God? According to Horton to belong to the village green or the big tent all you need to believe is that the Bible is inspired of God and that it is inerrant and that God is three persons in one divine nature, the statement of faith of the Evangelical Theological Society. (See Doctrinal Basis). Is Horton equating Evangelicalism, the village green, and the big tent with “the kingdom of God”? If so, what is his justification for universalizing what should be particularized by a systematic confessional theology based on a wholistic biblical theology? If all “Evangelical” religion leads to God and Evangelicalism is so heterodox as a whole, then how can it be anything other than a secularizing movement in the church, as Edmund P. Clowney put it in his article, The Politics of the Kingdom?

But this sort of reductionism on the part of Horton and other advocates of the 2k view is troubling. If he thinks that there are two kingdoms, would not the kingdom of God be defined by a systematic confession of what Scripture teaches as a whole? Horton's view of the village green reminds me of the Lambeth Quadrilateral of 1888. That statement was drafted by the Anglo-Catholics and reduced essential doctrine to four main points:

1. The Holy Scriptures, as containing all things necessary to salvation;

2. The Creeds (specifically, the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds), as the sufficient statement of Christian faith;

3. The Sacraments of Baptism and Holy Communion;

4. The historic episcopate, locally adapted.

Obviously the Protestant Reformers, being committed to the Scriptures as the final authority in all matters of faith and practice, would not have reduced the principle for fellowship and communion to the two utilized by Horton and the Evangelical Theological Society. Most Evangelicals reject apostolic succession and any sacerdotal interpretation of the two Gospel sacraments. The Tractarians, however, accept all seven of the papist sacraments whole hog. Evangelical and Reformed Anglicans totally reject the Anglo-Catholic interpretation of the 39 Articles of Religion, the sacraments or any other Papist spin put on the English Reformation.

Even the National Association of Evangelicals has for all practical purposes become just another liberal ecumenical organization and is dominated by Pentecostals and Charismatics. Practically all the Reformed churches immediately after the separation from Rome formulated detailed confessions of faith, not short, pithy reductions to minimalist requirements. If the Scriptures contain everything a Christian is required to believe, then obviously reducing it all down to “Jesus wept” is unconscionable. (John 11:35).

Some Evangelicals and some Reformed pastors and teachers say that the basis for fellowship should be the ecumenical creeds. But this is simply a reduction of the Lambeth Quadrilateral into a more tolerable form. Although the ecumenical or catholic creeds are essential to saving faith, they are not the only essentials for saving faith. Additionally, a proper understanding of the five solas of the Reformation and the Law/Gospel distinction are absolutely necessary to a proper understanding of soteriology. Calvinism and Arminianism are mutually exclusive of one another and cannot be teaching the same Gospel message since for Arminians man saves himself ultimately by his own efforts to cooperate with God.

It seems to me that the only true basis for fellowship is to adhere to one of the Reformed standards consistently and along with that to affirm the catholic creeds. Everything else leads to either liberalism or to Rome or worse. (Anglican Formularies; Three Forms of Unity; Westminster Standards).

--

Reasonable Christian Blog Glory be to the Father, and to the Son : and to the Holy Ghost; Answer. As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be : world without end. Amen. 1662 Book of Common Prayer

Fwd: New Book by Dr. John Frame "A Reformed Response to Escondido Theology"

Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here." (John 18:36 NKJ)

(See the ad from TheNiceneCouncil.Com which inspired this article here:  The Escondido Theology, by John Frame.  Charlie).


It looks like the neo-legalist Van Tilians and theonomists are up to more contumelious attacks against the doctrines of grace and the Gospel promises.  Legalists, being obsessed with their own ability to transform themselves and society, seem to think that only their efforts and thoughts and logic can possibly be correct.  I got a huge chuckle out of the following ad I received by e-mail from The NiceneCouncil.Com site concerning the new book by the multiperspectivalist "Reformed" writer, John Frame, The Escondido Theology.  We are told in the ad that, "Dr. Frame's insight and analysis clearly represents the Reformed Christian World and Life View because it is historically rooted in Calvinistic theology."

What is amusing about this bare assertion is that it makes a fallacious argument.  Simply asserting the conclusion that Frame's view "represents the Reformed Christian World . . . View" does not make it so.  If the premise is wrong then the conclusion is wrong as well.  First of all, the premise is that Frame's view "is historically rooted in Calvinistic theology."  But what does this mean?  Even the imminent church historian Carl Trueman of Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia has acknowledged that there is no reified "Reformed tradition".  So how can Frame represent the entire Reformed Christian worldview if there is no such thing?  The fact is the Reformed tradition has from the beginning had competing factions and taken as a whole the movement is diverse and often at odds, including the divisions between modernists and traditionalists, between theonomists and two kingdoms theology, between confessional Reformed theology and the Federal Visionist/Auburn Avenue theology, between the advocates of neo-Kuyperian common grace and those who uphold classical Calvinist theology, and between the followers of Cornelius Van Til and the followers of Gordon H. Clark's Scripturalist presuppositional apologetics.

My advice to my readers is the same advice I received in college and seminary.  Do not trust secondary sources in forming your opinions about any position.  In other words, if you want to understand the two kingdoms theology then read the primary sources like Meredith Kline, Michael Horton, or R. Scott Clark.  Only after reading the primary sources can you then critically read the secondary source criticisms of the two kingdoms view.  I would say the same about Frame.  If you want to critique Frame, read Frame's works first and then read the criticisms made of Frame's work.  Unfortunately, John Frame's triperspectivalism or multiperspectivalism opens the door to subjectivism and relativism, which implies that Frame's views are less than biblically based propositional truth claims.  Although Frame places Scripture as the first premise of triperspectivalism, that is Scripture is the normative basis for the other two premises, the problem is that for Frame Scripture is not the final word on any matter at all. Obviously interpreting the Bible through the lens of triperspectivalist presuppositions like situational ethics and semi neo-orthodox existentialism as the the other two points of his theory makes Frame's presuppositional approach relativist and not Scripturalist. 

Gordon H. Clark's apologetics method is far superior since for Clark the logical propositions in Scripture are univocally God's thoughts on all matters of faith and practice.  Frame's approach, however, is inherently liberal since in the final analysis Frame makes the three branches of triperspectivalism equal in authority.  That is, for Frame Scripture is not the final authority but is simply one of three equals:  1) Scripture as the normative perspective, 2) Situational ethics as the situational perspective, and 3) Existential experience as the existential perspective.  It is this sort of thinking that has changed the focus of popular Reformed theology from the hereafter and transcendent theology to the here and now, this world, and transforming society.  Sound familiar? 


Yes, the social gospel, although on the left, had a similar emphasis on transforming society to make it more fair and equitable to the poor.  In doing so the doctrines of grace relating to the hereafter and where the soul would spend eternity were left by the wayside and a socialist, materialistic mentality took over to the point that Christianity for all practical purposes became simply an agnostic, atheist political organization rather than a metaphysical religion.

Although theonomists, reconstructionists, neo-legalists, and neo-Kuyperian Calvinists consider themselves as transforming society and fighting liberalism, they are in fact a right wing theocratic version of liberalism.  Ironically, the emphasis on the here and now, theology from below, and transforming society rather than preaching the Gospel and where the individual soul will spend eternity winds up leading in two undesirable directions.  On the one hand such thinking leads back to Rome and the papist mentality of ruling the world as vicars of Christ on earth.  On the other hand, theonomy, reconstruction, and neo-legalism leads to the very liberalism that theonomists "think" they are fighting against since ecumenicalism and co-belligerency in the political realm trumps the doctrines of grace (Galatians 1:6-9) and the promises of God (2 Corinthians 1:20).  These unforeseen consequences are indeed ironic. 

I would contend that transforming society has never been the focus of classical Reformed theology.  Jonathan Edwards' classic sermon, "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God," is evidence enough of that.  The real question is, "Where will you spend eternity?"  (Matthew 16:15, 16).  The attempt to marginalize classical Calvinists and the biblical focus on the promises of God and eternity is a telling indictment against theonomy/reconstruction and its theological offshoot, the Federal Vision/Auburn Avenue heresy.

WHI-1070 | Christianity & the New Liberalism - White Horse Inn Blog

Is Christianity primarily about what God is doing in your life right now, or what he did one afternoon two-thousand years ago? Is the idea of Jesus “in your heart” more important than Jesus “in the manger” or “on the cross”? Do you value your own personal experience of faith more than what God accomplishes externally through the proclamation of the gospel? In the not-too-distant past, theological liberals were the ones answering yes to questions like these, but increasingly American evangelicals are moving in this direction. On this program, the hosts discuss this troubling trend and offer some challenges to this “new liberalism” of our time (originally broadcast March 23, 2008).

Click here to listen to this episode of The White Horse Inn.

WHI-1070 | Christianity & the New Liberalism - White Horse Inn Blog

Don’t Like Labels…or Commitment? « Heidelblog

R. Scott Clark evaluates the modern church growth movement and its tendency to minimize doctrinal commitments:

Parallel to these socio-economic developments has been another, religious, aspect. Among American neo-evangelicals there has been a reluctance to embrace labels. There has been strong drive among [sic] to emphasize a personal relationship with the risen Christ but the list of Christian doctrines considered necessary for the faith has been gradually shrinking for decades. The doctrine of the church and identification with particular ecclesiastical and theological traditions rarely made the list. Evangelistic crusades were trans-denominational and personal, immediate, religious experience of the risen Christ was front and center.

To read the entire article, click here: Don’t Like Labels…or Commitment? « Heidelblog