Mars Hill Church Public Relations Director Nick Bogardus interviews Michael S. Horton, the J. Gresham Machen Professor of Systematic Theology and Apologetics at Westminster Seminary California. Dr. Horton is the president of White Horse Media, for which he co-hosts the White Horse Inn, a nationally syndicated, weekly radio talk-show exploring issues of Reformation theology in American Christianity. He is also the editor-in-chief of Modern Reformation magazine.
What Is “Moralistic Therapeutic Deism”? (8 min)
Michael Horton explains moralistic therapeutic deism and how it shows up in our churches and literature.
Why You Can’t “Be” the Gospel (4 min)
Lots of pastors and teachers today agree with everything orthodox, but what plays on Sundays? Michael Horton says to get serious about knowing what you believe and why you believe it.
What We Should Learn from the Mainline Denominations (6 min)
Michael Horton says that “evangelicalism is out-liberaling liberalism.” In this clip, he explains why, and what we should learn from the mistakes and successes of mainline denominations.
Is the “New Perspective” on Paul Dangerous? (2 min)
The imputation of Adam’s guilt in the Fall and of Christ’s righteousness through justification by faith alone is essential to our faith. Michael Horton talks about how the new perspective on Paul risks losing the gospel to moralism.
March 25th, 2010 | 4:10 pm | #1
This is good stuff. I like reminders of why I’m not a Calvinist/Christian gnostic.
March 25th, 2010 | 5:33 pm | #2
What Horton is essentially saying is that the term “orthodoxy” really means Calvinism. Listen to plainly. He says that unless you hold to the solas of the Reformation, you believe in a “therapeutic model” of the Gospel. So, Orthodoxy, Catholicism, and ALL non-Calvinist Protestants are not “orthodox”. Nice.
March 25th, 2010 | 6:27 pm | #3
OK, I’m sorry Mr. Benson, but I did have to laugh when I read Orthodoxdj’s first post. And this is coming from someone who just received one of Mr. McCain’s “tongue lashings.” What can we do but laugh at ourselves and others.
Believe me, Pentecostalism has more than its share of craziness to laugh at.
On Horton, having only read a little of what he has written, he strikes me as being of a narrow strain of Reformed thought. It’s the Old Princeton–Westminster strain. This is the strain that I have the most problems with since it is the strain out of which cessationism is normally defended (Warfield, Richard Gaffin, and O. Palmer Robertson). It is also the strain that is most critical of Wesleyanism as a “legitimate” expression of Christianity. So think of Warfield’s critique of perfectionism in which he tries to take almost the entire holiness movement to task.
It’s also the strain that seems, at times, to still be fighting the fundamentalist/modernist controversy as the “moderating” voice a la Machen.
So, when Horton talks about this therapeutic approach, he seems not to realize that all of the Wesleyan-Holiness folks hold to that model, and that it is not simply a contemporary phenomenon. This, to my mind, is one of the reasons why he comes across as unless you’re Reformed, you’re not following the gospel as you should be.
I prefer the Dutch Reformed tradition, or even the Puritan tradition as viewed through the congregationalism of a Jonathan Edwards, who truly believed in revival, miracles, etc. I also like the first generation of Reformed thinkers, as I have mentioned before.
But this Old Princeton–Westminster mode, with its reliance on the Protestant scholasticism of Francis Turrentin and his interpreter, Charles Hodge, well, its another animal that sometimes gives the Reformed camp at bad name, and it causes people like Orthodoxdj to have a bad taste in their mouth about a tradition that is really rich.
March 25th, 2010 | 6:35 pm | #4
I am one hundred percent certain that Michael Horton knows about the Wesleyan-Holiness movement. In fact, with about ten seconds on Google, you might discover an interview where he contrasts that exact stream of theology with that of Old Princeton, albeit in a slightly different, but related, context. (http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=20-09-016-o)
March 25th, 2010 | 6:45 pm | #5
Jared,
Thanks for the link to the article. I am happy to be corrected about Michael Horton’s knowledge of the Wesleyan-Holiness movement.
Unfortunately, the article convinced me that he is not quite fully informed. Take this quotation, for instance:
“From my perspective, while pietism may have enriched the Reformation churches to some extent, the heritage of revivalism represents a counter-Reformation that in many respects went even further than Trent in the direction of Pelagianism. Hence, on his American visit, Dietrich Bonhoeffer could refer to the religious scene as “Protestantism without the Reformation.” In both faith and practice, Reformation Christianity differs from the sort of Evangelicalism represented, for example, by Charles Finney, more radically than it does with Rome or Orthodoxy.
So there is the Reformation stream, which has always had an influence beyond its numbers, particularly through immigration of confessional Protestants and the legacy of Old Princeton, and then there is the revivalist stream, which feeds into the vast ocean of Wesleyan, Holiness, and Pentecostal Christianity. When you add the growing popularity of Anabaptist, Roman Catholic, and Orthodox traditions, as well as fresh appreciation for the heritage of Protestant liberalism among some younger theologians, Evangelicalism may increasingly be incapable of theological definition.”
Note that he is clearly articulating that Old Princeton anti-Wesleyan-Holiness line. As I said, it does not help the Reformed cause for one of its primary spokespersons to dismiss pietist movements as worse than the Catholic Church in their embrace of Pelagianism.
March 25th, 2010 | 6:47 pm | #6
Since I have not met Michael Horton personally, I will take your word for it Mr. Benson. You are certainly charitable in your comments.
March 25th, 2010 | 7:25 pm | #7
Mr. Benson,
In fairness to Michael Horton, whom you admire I know, I am sure he is a wonderful person, and I think he is a good theologian on the whole. There are some issues that I would just quibble with him about here and there.
March 26th, 2010 | 12:36 am | #8
I think the bad taste in my mouth that Dale refers to comes from a lot of interaction with Calvinists. Two of the most die-hard Calvinists I knew have both now become Orthodox, but sadly it seems that their fundamentalist attitudes simply shifted camps. They once mocked all non-Calvinists, and now they find it easy to do the same towards non-Orthodox.
So, there are essentially two things that bother me a lot. The first is Calvinism itself. Just so all the Calvinists who happen to read this can understand, I feel towards Calvinism what they feel towards Pelagianism. The second thing that bugs me is smugness. The attitude that says, “I know something you don’t know!” It’s ridiculous, and I know that it is NOT unique to Calvinists, and I will never says that it is. I know Catholics who are like that. I know Orthodox people like that. It’s very annoying.
I know I am not God’s doctrine sheriff. I know there are good Christians of many stripes. From what I hear, the singer/songwriter Michael Card is a Calvinist. Nevertheless, I love his music and I admire him. He’s a true Christian. I also know that I was a Christian during my Calvinist phase.
My concern with Calvinism is that I think it seriously distorts that nature of God. From there the nature of the Gospel is distorted. I also believe it has some serious philosophical problems, not the least of which is an epistemology that ends up rendering knowledge meaningless.
That was a long post for an FYI.
March 26th, 2010 | 6:23 am | #9
Thanks for sharing Orthodoxdj. I really appreciate the personal reflections.
I’ve run into a few Reformed persons of the type you have described. They’re normally called TR’s (Truly Reformed), at least, that was the nomenclature to describe them when I was in seminary. I’m sure you’ve probably heard the tag before. They also seem to gravitate toward the PCA and OPC denominations. My guess is that this is because those denominations were both created by conservative splits and thus have a tradition of polemics within them. But that’s just a guess. And I don’t mean to suggest that all PCA or OPC folks are TR’s because that’s not true at all.
And yes, you are correct, such a mindset is not unique to Reformed folks.
March 26th, 2010 | 6:45 am | #10
I should hasten to add that a lot of Reformed folks I know don’t care for the TR types in their midst either. As you said, it’s a mindset that has little to do with the particular theological position.
March 26th, 2010 | 7:13 am | #11
Poor Calvinism — it’ll never stand a chance against criticism like this.
March 26th, 2010 | 9:36 am | #12
I think the bad taste in my mouth that Dale refers to comes from a lot of interaction with Calvinists..The attitude that says, “I know something you don’t know!” It’s ridiculous, and I know that it is NOT unique to Calvinists, and I will never says that it is. I know Catholics who are like that. I know Orthodox people like that. It’s very annoying.”
So help me out here. Your problem with Calvinism (not your only problem with it, I get that), is that many of them behave…like many people from every other stream of Christianity?
March 26th, 2010 | 10:24 am | #13
Good question, Daryl.
While there are many from across denominations who are like that, it is more likely that I find Calvinists to be that way.
March 26th, 2010 | 10:24 am | #14
Notice also what I said about what I believe about Calvinism itself.
March 26th, 2010 | 10:51 am | #15
And Frank, thanks for proving the rule.
March 26th, 2010 | 11:42 am | #16
Poor me — I don’t stand a chance with critics like this one.
March 26th, 2010 | 11:49 am | #17
The fanatical anti-Calvinist/Reformed folks are often just as cartoonish in their hostility towards Calvinism as the ‘Truly Reformed’ are in its defense. Might I suggest, as evidence, the first comment in this thread? So now we are at an impasse…
March 26th, 2010 | 12:34 pm | #18
I really shouldn’t have jumped into the conversation without watching all of the videos first. Had I done so, I think my response to the first few posts would have been ‘huh?’. Sorry, but where does Horton bring up anything specifically reformed in these videos. The first is a recap of Christian Smith’s thesis regarding the beliefs of young people raised in American evangelicalism. You might think Smith has no idea what he’s talking about, but how does drawing on his conclusions constitute Calvinism? The second is about how the term ‘gospel’ is defined. Again, what is specifically Calvinistic about arguing that the word gospel should be defined as the announcement of what Christ has done in dying for the unrighteous? The third is about the similarities between the mainline liberal churches and the evangelical churches. And the last is a very brief comment on the ‘New Perspective’. No mention anywhere of the ‘five solas’. (Perhaps if someone is going to assert that these videos contain some hidden message only discernible to them, they should be more circumspect about throwing out accusations of gnosticism.) Leaving aside what Horton has written elsewhere, what in these videos is specific to Calvinism? What does Horton affirm here that other protestants would deny? I’m asking because I honestly don’t know.
March 26th, 2010 | 12:45 pm | #19
Jared,
Horton does say the Gospel according to the Reformation is THE Gospel. He mentions that anything other than “grace alone”, “faith alone”, etc., is a drift into a therapeutic model.
March 26th, 2010 | 12:45 pm | #20
Frank,
Honestly…what’s wrong with you?
March 26th, 2010 | 1:01 pm | #21
To the best of my knowledge most branches of protestantism would affirm that we are saved by grace alone through faith alone. (Calvinists might say that Armenians implicitly deny that, but leave that alone for now. I think Armenians would affirm that they believe salvation is only by the grace of God, even if they disagree on how that works itself out.) Which do you deny? Paul is fairly emphatic that there is only one gospel. So I would think that any biblical Christian would reject multiple gospels. So you therefore, since you are an orthodox, bible-believing Christian, also believe that there is only one gospel. Which must mean that you think the ‘Gospel according to the Reformation’ is a problem. Where, specifically, do you believe the reformation got it wrong? (Not ‘where do you think Calvin is wrong?’)
March 26th, 2010 | 1:08 pm | #22
Suppose I agree with the phrasing, but not the substance of Calvinist theology. I affirm that I am saved by Christ, through faith, and I believe in synergism.
March 26th, 2010 | 1:36 pm | #23
Orthodj,
But even there, you haven’t agreed even with the phrasing. No mention of “alone”.
Even the Mormons would affirm what you said. Not saying you’re on par with a Mormon, but it does make one wonder how thick the ice is where you are standing.
Would you at least affirm (I assume you would), that you are saved by, and on account of, Christ alone?
March 26th, 2010 | 1:57 pm | #24
Jared,
Maybe I can answer your question with respect to the first video on a therapeutic model.
First, a little honesty about where I come from. As a Pentecostal, I place myself in a theological stream that runs back through the Wesleyan-Holiness movement of the 19th century to John Wesley in the 18th century, to the Caroline Divines of Anglicanism in the 17th century to the Reformation, the medieval church, and early church.
Within this theological line, therapeutic models that emphasize sanctification and salvation as transformation, or a reordering of human desire, dominate. I realize that Horton is drawing on a more contemporary idea of moral therapeutic deism, but based on what he has said elsewhere (see my quotation above) about the Wesleyan-Holiness tradition and Charles Finney, he seems to want to apply it to the form of Christianity where I locate myself. To my mind, this is a move peculiar to the Reformed Scholasticism of a Charles Hodge and B.B. Warfield. It does not represent the pietistic emphasis of Puritanism (remember that Baptists and Quakers came out of left-wing Puritanism and John Owen himself was a congregationalist). Nor does it represent the pneumatological perspective of a Martin Bucer, who, by the way, talked about a double justification (justification of the godly and a justification of the godly through works) with the regenerating and sanctifying activity of the Spirit central to them. Wesley picked up on this idea of a double justification and noted that what connected initial justification with final justification was sanctification.
So, to my mind, a therapeutic model of salvation grounds it in the sanctifying work of the Spirit who reorders human loves as divine love poured out. This compliments quite nicely a modified Christus victor model of the atonement in which Christ “in the power of the Spirit” renders satisfaction by reordering the universe through his death and thereby overcoming all the “powers.”
So, I guess when Horton talks about the emphasis on moralism within evangelicalism, I think he’s talking about my theological home, which has always emphasized sanctification and holiness. If he’s just talking about seeker sensitive churches, then fine, I agree about that kind of watered-down Christianity.
Having said all of this, I am prepared to be wrong and stand corrected about all of this. Mr. Benson’s portrayal of Michael Horton has caused me to decide to look more deeply into it. I could easily be over-reading it because of my experiences with RC Sproul, who I did have as a professor at RTS in Orlando.
March 26th, 2010 | 2:18 pm | #25
[...] Michael Horton, Darryl Hart on “Church Parents,” and the Death of Private Practice Jump to Comments If you haven’t read recent texts by Westminster West professor Michael Horton, you should. He’s a cultural critic of evangelicalism and has much good to say. Here are some videos to check out. [...]
March 26th, 2010 | 3:07 pm | #26
Daryl,
I believe that salvation is accomplished by God working in and through me and never against my will. I believe that I have a choice to be damned or saved. I believe that salvation is a participation in the divine life of God. I believe the Cross was necessary, as was the Resurrection. How it all works is beyond me, and I believe it is beyond all of us. That’s why salvation is a mystery. I no longer use terms like “faith alone” and “Christ alone” because as you pointed out, the terms have very little meaning if we use only the phrases but have a different construct.
The argument that I’ve heard made on here many times, “A Mormon would say that, too”, is really a bad way of arguing. I can say to a Calvinist, “You say God determines salvation for individuals. A Moslem would say that, too!” Where does that get us? I believe that Christ transforms sinners. I believe that faith in Him and participation in the Sacraments are His means of making me into what He wants.
March 26th, 2010 | 3:32 pm | #27
Ortho,
See, I find that interesting because, with the exception of your second sentence (about choice, and even that would take a little bit of explanation to see where we differ) and your avoidance of the word “alone”, I see nothing there that is inherently non-Calvinistic.
I would say that your uneasiness with the word “alone” betrays more than just a different meaning. “Alone” is pretty clear I think.
I would take exception with your bit about the Sacraments, but that’s not particularly a Calvinist issue, many Calvinists have a similar view of the Sacraments. I reject that as unbiblical, but, TR’s excepted, my view is certainly not a Calvinist distinctive.
I agree with your last paragraph as well. I don’t think it’s quite that simple, but this is a blog, not a term paper…
It’s funny, your comments, where Calvinism in concerned, show two things.
One – (and I know you deny this, but I’m just sayin’) a huge lack of understanding of Calvinism.
Two – An admission that your real issue with Calvinism is simply that you don’t get the final say.
None of those are particularly novel, nor are they settleable in this setting. But that’s what I see.
Oh, and I think you’re misusing the word “mystery”. As I understand it, when referring to salvation as a mystery, the Bible means “a mystery now revealed”.
Romans spells it all out pretty well I think.
I’m not convincing you…I get that…just thought I should respond to your response.
Later.
March 26th, 2010 | 4:47 pm | #28
Daryl said:
“Two – An admission that your real issue with Calvinism is simply that you don’t get the final say.”
You’re right and wrong. You’re right in that I believe a theological system that says that people do not have libertarian free will with regard to their ultimate destiny is BOTH unbiblical AND philosophically untenable. You are wrong in what I think another meaning you are intending, which is the idea that you I believe I am my own god, or that I am the captain of my fate in some sense that makes me in control of God.
I believe that loving intimacy is only meaningful when each party has a genuine will in the matter. I think Calvinism takes that element away. My for love God depends on God’s initiating love for me since I am a contingent being, but His love for me is not sufficient for me to love Him. I am not an extension of Him. Therefore, there is a real me that chooses. I know Calvinists call that anthropocentric, but that’s a misunderstanding. God has set up the system, so He respects His own design. Free will is an inherent quality of personhood.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact