A major challenge is to place Horton’s warnings in the correct context.

Theologian Benjamin Breckinrigde Warfield (1851-1921) addressed the idea of
Christless Christianity in the early 1900s; see The Harvard Theological Review, v. pp. 423-473; also, The Works of Benjamin Brenkinrigde Warfield 10 vols., BakerBooks, 1932; in vol. III, Christology and Criticism, Warfield’s article “Christless Christianity”. Warfield was responding to an attempt to make Christ some vague person, which people could never really know the truth about because of what was termed as the unreliability of “truths of history.” Warfield explained that what was at stake was the very nature of Christianity or the essence of Christianity (p. 349). “The Christ Myth” by Professor Arthur Drews was published in the early 1900s and used as anti-Christian propaganda. Warfield tells us, “There is asserted here something more than that religion is independent of Jesus. That was being vigorously asserted by the adherents of the Monistenbund; and as for Drews, his ‘Christ Myth’—like the ‘Christianity of the New Testament’ of his master, von Hartmann, before it—was written, he tells us, precisely in the interests of religion, and seeks to sweep Jesus out of the way that men may be truly religious” (p. 316) (The Works of Benjamin Brenkinrigde Warfield 10 vols., 1932; in vol. III, Christology and Criticism, article “Christless Christianity”).
.
Warfield quotes German philosopher, Rudolf Eucken, comments about Christ, “’We can honor him…as a leader, a hero, a martyr; but we cannot directly bind ourselves to him, or root ourselves in him: we cannot unconditionally submit to him…’ Eucken thus quite purely carries on the tradition of a non-historical, which is, of course, also in the nature of the case a Christless Christianity” (p. 323).

“The question” says Warfield, “thus concerns not Christianity in its historical sense, but ‘our religion,’ ‘of to-day’; and it might perhaps be better phrased, not, Is Christ essential to the Christian faith? but, Is the so-called Christianity of today to which Christ is not essential still Christian?” (pp. 349-350, My Emphasis). This is Horton’s point!

In his book, Christless Christianity: The Alternative Gospel of the American Church, Michael Horton argues that the American church is on its way to a Christless Christianity by presenting a message which “moralize, minimize, and trivialize Christ in different ways” but does not raise to the point of heresy, says Horton (p. 24 Grand Rapids, BakerBooks 2009). However, whether one reads Warfield’s description of Christless Christianity (pp. 313-367) or Horton’s description of Christless Christianity (pp. 1-270), both are appropriate polemics against a flawed view of Christianity. Horton says “…many Christian Leaders are converting sin—a condition from which we cannot liberate ourselves—into dysfunction and salvation into recovery.” For example, Horton notes that Reformed preacher, Robert Schuller encourages people not to use terms like sin and justification but “shame and [low] self-esteem” become the fundamental issues in life that need to be addressed. He says evangelical leader, Rick Warren informed a national TV audience that Jesus came into the world to give us a “’do-over,’” like in golf. “I realize” says Horton, “that a lot of people who might gravitate toward a more therapeutic approach to life, including their faith, would nevertheless balk at the accusation of works-righteousness. The key to my criticism, however, is that once you make your peace of mind rather than peace with God the main problem to be solved, the whole gospel becomes radically redefined….One may feel guilty, but no one actually is guilty before God.” Horton then rightly explains, “’How can I, a sinner, be right before a holy God?’” is simply off the radar in a therapeutic mind-set. Once the self is enthroned as the source, judge, and goal of all of life, the gospel need not be denied because it’s beside the point. But people need to see—for their own good—that self-realization, self-fulfillment, and self-help are all contemporary twists on an old heresy, which Paul indentified as works-righteousness” (pp.38-40).

Warfield appropriately ends his article on Christless Christianity with this quote, “’Christ is Christianity itself…without His name, person and work, there is no Christianity left. In a word, Christ does not point out the way to salvation; He is the Way itself’” (p. 367). “[T]here are people” says Lloyd-Jones, “that talk about Christianity without Christ…There is no Christianity without ‘the blood of Christ’….His atoning substitutionary sacrifice” (D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones God’s Ultimate Purpose, pp.17-18, 1978).

“Notice how far we have come. From “Christless Christianity” and “alternative gospel,” to “well on our way,” we are now exploring “subtle distortions and not-so-subtle distractions,” even “good things” that detract from Christ.”

“As we have seen, this talk of “focus” or “emphasis” is very vague, so these kinds of charges are very difficult to prove. And given the radical nature of Horton’s charges (or at least his language) we ought to demand a rigorous case.”

“If there are any actual statistics in this book, I must have missed them.”

“But he never presents their raw data or presents a critical analysis of the arguments from which these people reached their conclusions.”

“In the absence of serious argument, I default to my habitual skepticism toward critiques of evangelicalism by non-evangelicals.”

“For what it is worth, my own perception of American evangelicalism is very different from Horton’s. My observation is anecdotal (just like his, in the final analysis), but based on around 55 years of adult observation in many different kinds of churches including the much maligned mega-churches.” <>

It would seem the Mr. Frame unwaveringly demands proof. In response, I would submit excerpts (sections 3 & 4) from the Second Church Study along with Recommendations for Action sent to Timothy.

“But understand this, that in the last days there will come times of difficulty. For people will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not loving good, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power…
(You, however, have followed my teaching, my conduct, my aim in life, my faith, my patience, my love, my steadfastness, my persecutions and sufferings that happened to me at Antioch, at Iconium, and at Lystra—which persecutions I endured; yet from them all the Lord rescued me. Indeed, all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted)… evil people and impostors will go on from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived….Preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching. For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths. As for you, always be sober-minded, endure suffering, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry.”

(It is rather a shame that Timothy’s response to Apostolic Church Consultants has been lost. One can imagine his skepticism towards a study than doesn’t even quote primary sources or statistics. Surely, Timothy must have thought Paul to be an alarmist.)

Despite Paul’s lack of empirical evidence, I’m sure Mr. Frame doesn’t doubt the validity and weight of Paul’s warnings. Perhaps he has merely become distracted from them.

For forty-plus years I attended self-described conservative, Bible-believing, Evangelical churches (six different states) none (to my memory) of which ever seriously considered personally the warnings and instructions given by Paul to Timothy; they saw these warnings as largely against liberal mainline denominations. While the churches considered these warnings well-heeded, they (1) failed to preach the Gospel as clearly presented in Scripture; (2) did not properly administer baptism and the Lord’s Supper; (3) lacked all manner of church discipline; (4) perceived the Gospel to be for unbelievers only; (5) regularly, officially, and ignorantly engaged in various forms and degrees of legalism and self-righteousness; and, (not exhaustively) (6) arrogantly and condescendingly viewed themselves as better than the world because of their personal piety including their “decision to accept Jesus”. In these churches, the Gospel, as they perceived it, was included only as an appendage to the “service” after preaching “try harder” law; now (in most) even that deformed appendage has been removed and the law has become friendlier and therapeutic.

A lengthy study in Romans that for the first time properly revealed to me both Law and Gospel brought a Neo-like change in my perception of reality; the churches that I thought had been properly “observing all things” commanded had in fact been operating with their own “playbook” all along.

Yes, I know that my report is anecdotal, too. But my point is that my perception of my observations (now filtered through eyeglasses of sound teaching), in no way changed the reality within the churches I attended; it only made me aware of the true reality. The existence of what Paul was warning against was always there. But without sound teaching, my observations merely returned illusions of goodness. I didn’t need empirical studies; I needed sound teaching with illumination.

While there is no denying an appropriate time for studies (and anecdotal sources), do we really presume that they are needed to verify what we (should) know in Scripture to be true? Does Mr. Frame (or anyone else) presume that the *starting* point for arriving at truth in this matter is sources and studies which he personally might find convincing? Or did Dr. Horton simply provide observable occurrences (some anecdotal and some not) of what the Scriptures told us would be so common in the last days? We shouldn’t need the equivalent of a double-blind study to verify what God has already said to be true. If we don’t see the pandemic (see Calvin’s take on 2 Tim 3-4) that Paul warned us about, (especially when it’s pointed out in light of Scripture) shouldn’t we be asking ourselves “why”? Armed with sound teaching, are we not to constantly examine teachers and their teachings to “see if these things are so”; not as a mob of self-righteous witch-hunters, but as dutiful heralds and guardians of the Gospel of Truth, defending and preserving its purity in a spirit of love and thanksgiving. The latter is what I see in Dr. Horton.)

I submit that Mr. Frame is simply barking up the wrong tree (Mike Horton). He might be better served to take up this issue with the CEO of Apostolic Church Consultants and its Founder.

Could it be a liturgical Pentecostal is a hispanic Roman Catholic?

So to answer your question again it’s a no! But that maybe the obvious problem though, because if they are only limiting the presents of the third person in the Trinity to the Sacraments then it’s something that the New Testament doesn’t recognize and the confessions don’t recognize that either.

Evangelicals do? What would you call a Liturgical Pentecostal then? Does that put your theology on it’s head? I’m not one of them, but they are out there in growing numbers and are correcting Pentecostal Spirituality with the help of Calvin and others in Reformed theology.

Can you tease out a little bit more what generally distinguishes Horton from Dennisonians as it would play out in preaching? I was profoundly shaped by Dr. Horton during my WSC days, and I sat under the preaching of Rev. Keele, whom I believe preached Horton’s confessional theology. So, how generally, would Dennisonians depart from the preaching of Rev. Keele (who I know you sat under for a time)?

I am also not sure I understand the Lutheran accusation either – where does this put Dennisonians on justification, and law/gospel?

Please feel free to e-mail me if more appropriate.