horton, hood, turk… law and gospel

Some of you may have been following the online debate  involving Michael Horton, Jason Hood, Frank Turk and others.  It is a debate about the relative weighting of indicatives and imperatives.  Some  concerned that the gospel is being turned into mere moralism (calls for holy living), a legitimate concern, stress vehemently the ‘done’ aspect of the gospel.   Indeed they go so far that they virtually deny ‘doing’ is gospel at all.  All ‘doing’ they say is ‘law’ and all gospel is ‘done’.

Michael Horton, an able biblical exegete, is the most able exponent of this position.  I enjoy much that Horton writes.  He recognises that Law and Gospel are firstly a salvation-history distinction.  That is they are covenants that are time-specific.  The Law is a covenant that operates from Sinai until Christ. With Christ Law came to and end.  It came to an end by being fulfilled in Christ, in gospel.   Horton recognises and argues well (which many Reformed writers don’t) that Law and gospel are not only different in period but are different in principle.; they differ in time and terms.  Law, Horton would argue is human works, while Gospel is God’s grace.  In this he is undoubtedly correct.

It is, however, just here that Horton makes his mistake.    Horton, in his eagerness to emphasize the ‘done’ side of the Gospel, does so by excluding from his definition of gospel all ‘doing’.  He describes all ‘doing’ as law and all ‘done’ as gospel.  Thus, all ‘works’ are law.  But this is not the biblical distinction and as soon as we start using biblical words in non-biblical ways we create confusion and eventually contort, conceal and change the gospel.

Law is a covenant of works.  It teaches ‘this do and live’.  It promises life through autonomous law-keeping.  If a person by their own strength and effort completely obeys the Sinai Law he will ‘live’.   Law demands obedience without any promise of divine help or enabling.  Righteousness, if attained by Law, is therefore ‘human righteousness’.  I think, with these observations, Horton would agree.  It is when he comes to gospel things get muddled.

Horton agrees that Gospel is grace.  For him this means ‘done’.  As a result he seems to exclude from Gospel all its demands.  Demands, for Horton, are always ‘law’.  But this is mistaken.  It is not ‘demands that are ‘law’ but unaided  ‘demands’.  ‘Works’ that are not ‘Spirit-driven’ are in principle  ‘law’.  However gospel commands/works/obligations are not ‘law’, they are gospel, and they are gospel because what God commands he confers, what he enjoins, he empowers.

We are right to distinguish between justification and sanctification.  We are right to draw the conclusions from these distinctions evangelicals normally do.  However, we are wrong to treat one as gospel and the other as law; both are gospel.   The gospel is the good news of new creation.  Gospel righteousness (that which the gospel realizes) is ultimately new creation; it is righteousness imputed and imparted to individuals upon faith and ultimately to the whole of creation.

In conclusion, while understanding the mere moralism that Horton and others wish to avoid, they do so by creating a truncated gospel.  The practical result is that ‘disciples’ begin to see justification as everything.  Expectations of real change in life is ‘legalism’ and a kind of vaunted practical antinomianism is the result.  This is the last thing Horton wants or approves.  It is however the danger of soundbite theology, where the soundbite  does not reflect the biblical balance.

Read and benefit from Horton.  But don’t buy into the mistaken extreme of his law/gospel divide.