The thing that scares me is that as much as I've like and learned from Dr. Horton, if these two teachings are indeed false, then almost everything I read/listen to is misleading me.
I have enjoyed Dr. Horton's teachings for several years now and have benefited greatly in my walk with Christ on account of it. But I'm not totally convinced by some of the critiques offered above...
It seems to me that
some of these comments regarding Dr. Horton and his colleagues both at WSC and WHI/MR have been too prejudicial. The term "antinomianism" teaches that Christians are in no way obliged to obedience to the moral law. Such charges have been slung around far too carelessly since the time of the Reformation and historically by those outside of the Reformed tradition who almost seem to be taking great care to misunderstand the Reformed formula for relating the doctrines of justification by faith alone and the subsequent work of sanctification--in both acts of God's grace the Spirit uses the Law according to several important functions. Also, as an expression of God's impeccable moral character and the rule governing the obedience of all men, the moral Law has the function of curbing and restraining evil in the world when enacted and enforced in civil law (according the general equity thereof as determined from the moral law, WCF 19.4,5) and also serves to expose human sinfulness. Do these men repudiate these things?
Can someone please produce some evidence that these men actually deny the Law its proper place in the faith and practice of the Christian life?
It is my assessment that the charge of "antinomianism" against these men is not warranted. What I sense from some of these posts, is that
some of you seem to be concerned that these men are distorting the gospel and further that you are annoyed with their method of relating "the Law of God" to the civil realm. The first concern, I simply just don't see. If what these men taught was truly a distortion of the gospel, then one ought to oppose them vigorously. With respect to the second concern, I'd say there's much room for a charitable debate, but again it goes too far, in my judgment, to label these men "Antinomian". Incidently, a recent issue of Modern Reformation takes up the topic of Antinomianism:
Modern Reformation - Issue
Furthermore,
from what I have read or listened to, WHI/MR does not seem to be at variance with the confessions of the Reformed churches or in substantial disagreement with the historical witness of the reformers. Last night, I revisited some of the following highlights from Calvin's Institutes. I was intrigued by his method of framing these issues and wondered if we would be so quick to brand him as an Antinomian for suggesting that 'different laws' might regulate our activities in the civil and spiritual kingdoms:
Book III, Ch. 19, Section 15: Therefore, lest this prove a stumbling-block to any, let us observe that in man government is twofold: the one spiritual, by which the conscience is trained to piety and divine worship; the other civil, by which the individual is instructed in those duties which, as men and citizens, we are bold to perform. To these two forms are commonly given the not inappropriate names of spiritual and temporal jurisdiction, intimating that the former species has reference to the life of the soul, while the latter relates to matters of the present life, not only to food and clothing, but to the enacting of laws which require a man to live among his fellows purely honorably, and modestly. The former has its seat within the soul, the latter only regulates the external conduct. We may call the one the spiritual, the other the civil kingdom. Now, these two, as we have divided them, are always to be viewed apart from each other. When the one is considered, we should call off our minds, and not allow them to think of the other. For there exists in man a kind of two worlds, over which different kings and different laws can preside.
Book IV, Ch. 20, Section 16; All laws should be just. Civil law of Moses; how far in force, and how far abrogated. What I have said will become plain if we attend, as we ought, to two things connected with all laws, viz., the enactment of the law, and the equity on which the enactment is founded and rests. Equity, as it is natural, cannot but be the same in all, and therefore ought to be proposed by all laws, according to the nature of the thing enacted. As constitutions have some circumstances on which they partly depend, there is nothing to prevent their diversity, provided they all alike aim at equity as their end. Now, as it is evident that the law of God which we call moral, is nothing else than the testimony of natural law, and of that conscience which God has engraven on the minds of men, the whole of this equity of which we now speak is prescribed in it. Hence it alone ought to be the aim, the rule, and the end of all laws. Wherever laws are formed after this rule, directed to this aim, and restricted to this end, there is no reason why they should be disapproved by us, however much they may differ from the Jewish law, or from each other, (August. de Civil. Dei, Lib. 19 c. 17).
In terms of the fist table of the Law, Calvin admittedly does also enjoin upon the civil magistrate the duty protect and guard the Church, and I think that the moral principles therein contained can be enacted in a equitable way in our present American context while still respecting the fact that the civil activity of the state is distinct from the redemptive activity of the Church. This is where the 2K framework offers an alternative approach to cultural engagement. In 2K theology,
Christ is still Lord of both, but He simply relates to each kingdom in distinct ways. How could it be any other way? Christ is the head of the church, the bridegroom, the firstborn son of a new creation, etc. Should not he stand in a different relationship to the body, his bride and the new creation, than he does to nations, the spiritually adulterous and the present evil age which is passing away?
Obedience in gospel is the stage for our sanctification, and we are each called to obedience in all things to Christ, our Savior, this includes submitting to authorities over us as far as the Law of God permits and, where it does not permit, resisting evil. Our participation in the civil realm is motivate by love for neighbor, in obedience to Christ's command, not being on a mission to 'redeem' the culture or to 'Christianize' it in some way
In oder to give Dr. Horton a fair hearing, I have included the following links for the forum's consideration.
The Fear of Antinomianism --M. Horton
The Fear of Antinomianism - White Horse Inn Blog
Holiness Wars: The Antinomian Debate --M. Horton
Modern Reformation - Articles
The Antinomianism Debate --M. Horton
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJp5m2cEMO0
Antinomianism and Christian Liberty --M.l Horton
Dr. Michael Horton - Antinomianism & Christian Liberty - YouTube
What is the Gospel? --M. Horton
What is the Gospel - Dr. Michael Horton - YouTube
I'll attempt to be more disciplined in the future. 
