On choosing Horton over theonomy

It’s a misleading statement since the only position that matters is the gospel, but since everyone thinks he is preaching the gospel, it’s time for specifics.  I’m finishing Horton’s Christless Christianity and while I don’t accuse theonomists of being Christless, I must say that when I was a theonomist, I spent more time sharpening my ethical debating skills than in learning what extra nos really meant.

“But,” someone might interject, “Horton’s ethical theory is incoherent.”

Who cares?  When you get gospel as extra-nos announcement correct, and make that the focus of the church, political ethics will take care of themselves (or at least the focus will shift and you will regain your priorities).


3 comments on “On choosing Horton over theonomy

  1. Colin says:


    Here is a extended review of Horton’s book. It is by John Frame.


    • Frame’s esentially saying that Horton isn’t being fair to generic American Christianity. I think it is an accurate proposal. At best he can say that Horton’s language is too alarming. Well, maybe, though it is a fair indictment of all mainline and many Evangelicals. Even the former president of NAE, Ted Haggard, admitted he wasn’t Christ-centered (and admitted he shouldn’t be).

      I am seeing Frame use hyper-logical analysis and over read Horton’s statements. He is dodging the main point.

  2. I’ve read most everything by Frame. He was my apologetic prof. I read it some years ago. I might look at it again.

Comments are closed.