Does dispensationalism lead to antinomianism?

[TooFastTurtle]

Calvinists are true monergists

monergistic: a work produced singly, by one person

synergistic: a work that involves cooperation between two or more persons or things

Calvinists teach that there is no synergistic work between people and their Creator. they will tell you that when a man or woman appears to cooperate with God, they are actually only doing what God predetermined they should do

in that very weak fashion, they determine to hang onto their monergistic beliefs at all costs, ignoring all scripture that teaches and clearly indicates that people can be unclear on the will of God and sometimes go down the wrong path

if God pretermines everything, then why on earth would anyone EVER go against His predetermined will?

did God predetermine that David should sin with Bathsheeba? that is not a god anyone should think actually loves them

that is a god who likes to toy with his creation and then condemn them for sinning and punish them

being somewhat familiar with Greek mythology, I can determine that that god, fits far better with the relationship between the gods of Mt Olympus than the God of the Bible

but then if you believe that God creates people to go to hell with no other purpose for their existance to show, then I guess you have no problem with laughing at the silly little creatures he created in order to torture them

The word for synergy is actually used in the Bible, the word for monergism is not, its actually a made up word if you look at its history, synergy is a real word.

Why I am not a monergist: Because the Bible tells me to do certain things. If monergism was true, which as you defined it means a work produced singly, by one person, then all the commandments and guidance from the Bible wouldn't be necessary, since God alone would be doing it, alone, no cooperation needed.

I can already here the calvinist say but God doesn't need help from puny humans! He is Sovereign! Amen to that, I believe it, but in His sovereignity this is how God decided to do it. God's grace has appeared unto all men, teaching us.... it says.

This grace that has been revealed to all men, like the Holy Spirit which is sent into the world is something men must take a hold of, embrace, humble ourselves in front of God, for we know God gives grace to the humble. God's grace is indeed available to all, appeared unto all, however if what it teaches is rejected, and we do not deny ungodliness and worldly lusts, we will perish, not because Jesus failed, or because God failed, but because we failed, and that is how God has chosen to do it. God is seeking for a man today, can He find him? God is seeking for a godly woman to stay strong in a tough family situation.

I just answered the question of unconditional election, does God give grace randomly? Jesus said God gives grace to the humble.

I believe dispensationalism is a good way to study the Bible, see where it all fits. If done in moderation and not over-divided, it can be helpful in weeding out heresies from the Church such as hebrew roots doctrine, I see nothing wrong with believing in a pre-trib rapture, imminent return. I have always believed in an imminent return but recently I have been convinced thoroughly that the pre-trib rapture position is the correct one, thanks again to brother @Ahwatukee

 

[7seasrekeyed]

The word for synergy is actually used in the Bible, the word for monergism is not, its actually a made up word if you look at its history, synergy is a real word.

Why I am not a monergist: Because the Bible tells me to do certain things. If monergism was true, which as you defined it means a work produced singly, by one person, then all the commandments and guidance from the Bible wouldn't be necessary, since God alone would be doing it, alone, no cooperation needed.

I can already here the calvinist say but God doesn't need help from puny humans! He is Sovereign! Amen to that, I believe it, but in His sovereignity this is how God decided to do it. God's grace has appeared unto all men, teaching us.... it says.

This grace that has been revealed to all men, like the Holy Spirit which is sent into the world is something men must take a hold of, embrace, humble ourselves in front of God, for we know God gives grace to the humble. God's grace is indeed available to all, appeared unto all, however if what it teaches is rejected, and we do not deny ungodliness and worldly lusts, we will perish, not because Jesus failed, or because God failed, but because we failed, and that is how God has chosen to do it. God is seeking for a man today, can He find him? God is seeking for a godly woman to stay strong in a tough family situation.

I just answered the question of unconditional election, does God give grace randomly? Jesus said God gives grace to the humble.

I believe dispensationalism is a good way to study the Bible, see where it all fits. If done in moderation and not over-divided, it can be helpful in weeding out heresies from the Church such as hebrew roots doctrine, I see nothing wrong with believing in a pre-trib rapture, imminent return. I have always believed in an imminent return but recently I have been convinced thoroughly that the pre-trib rapture position is the correct one, thanks again to brother @Ahwatukee

well I certainly agree that the grace of God is available to all as I have expressed mulitple times in this forum and certainly in this thread and the other shameless promotions of the impossible doctrine of Calvinism

 

[7seasrekeyed]

This is simply more trolling to no profit. This is how the devil works to disturb the faith of some. Perhaps a report might be in order.

well report it then but it will most likely be considered only a difference of interpretations

look, if this I am not a fan of the imaginary, emasculated god of free-willers. is allowed to go unchecked, how is anything else going to become problamatical?

you would certainly have a sympathetic ear from many in this forum but you see for yourself what is apparently being allowed

differences are not what is uncommon, but the language of these Calvinists is beyond the pale

 

[TooFastTurtle]

well report it then but it will most likely be considered only a difference of interpretations

look, if this I am not a fan of the imaginary, emasculated god of free-willers. is allowed to go unchecked, how is anything else going to become problamatical?

you would certainly have a sympathetic ear from many in this forum but you see for yourself what is apparently being allowed

differences are not what is uncommon, but the language of these Calvinists is beyond the pale

I hope its ok I will tag you again.

Did you know that Calvin admits he gets much of his material from Augustine, and Augustine believed in free will. Did Augustine also believe in an emasculated god?

This is why I try to distance myself from many of the "isms" in Christianity.

 

[notuptome]

Biblical truth dies in the heart that fails to honor Christ. As some have pointed out time and time again against their adversaries in the forums the natural man receives not the greater truth of Gods word. Many are simply babes and not properly grounded in the word of God. Unable to receive meat and stuck on milk.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[7seasrekeyed]

I hope its ok I will tag you again.

Did you know that Calvin admits he gets much of his material from Augustine, and Augustine believed in free will. Did Augustine also believe in an emasculated god?

This is why I try to distance myself from many of the "isms" in Christianity.

actually, I just read about that today

plus, when he conceived of his 'notions' he was not long in his belief and so went at the Bible from a legalistic stance since that was his forte...hence the terminology and the intolerance of anything but his own opinion, so sadly reflected in his adherents

How does Augustine’s Catholicism qualify as an enigma? Calvinist Protestants, those who protest against the Church of Rome including John Calvin himself, held and?continue to hold Augustine in a reverence bordering on idolatry. Calvin referred to him as “holy father” in his Institutes of the Christian Religion and cites him more than 400 times. Calvinist Francois Wendel acknowledges that “Upon points of doctrine [Calvin] borrows from Augustine with both hands” (TBC 7/12). Dave Hunt points out in What Love Is This? the great praise of Augustine by leading Calvinists: “One of the greatest theological and philosophical minds that God has ever so seen fit to give to His church” (Talbot and Crampton, cited in Dave Hunt, What Love Is This? [Bend, OR: The Berean Call, 2006], 56). “The greatest Christian since New Testament times...greatest man that ever wrote Latin” (Souter, cited in Hunt, What Love?, 56). “[His] labors and writings, more than those of any other man in the age in which he lived, contributed to the promotion of sound doctrine and the revival of true religion” (Rice, Ibid.). This is from those who represent a religious system that has historically opposed the Roman Catholic Church—at least, that’s the general perception.

 

[NayborBear]

too bad you are stuck with a god who promise retribution rather than salvation

I honestly do not consider what you have to say as anything to note seriously as you are all over the place and choose sides like a squirrel trying to decide if it wants to be in the middle of the road or on a side of the road

further, this is nothing but an ad hominim attack...personal with no substance other than your little feelings which are of not substance to me

etc

“A god who is all love, all grace, all mercy, no sovereignty, no justice, no holiness, and no wrath is an idol.”

 

[NayborBear]

Do you think that Foxe's Book of Martyrs was invulnerable from inaccuracies?

I've read some accounts of martyrs in the past. While I think the stories were largely based on truth, I believe they were sort of like "fan fiction". I'm pretty sure they were embellished, as I doubt the martyrs had time to give convicting, long speeches to their enemies.

I also doubt that witnesses recorded their words in detail.

Oh ya mean like "I heard it from a friend.....Who heard it from a friend. Who heard it from a reliable source?"
There was "quid pro quo?"

Something like that?

Oh yeah! I don't doubt it. But, I also believe there was bitter persecution of Christians "pre-Constantine", and afterwards.

T'wasn't til after Christians were forced into "accepting the pagans", that the "eroding of Christendom", devolved much like what we see today. For the sake of Peace?...There ain't no stinking peace!

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

Oh ya mean like "I heard it from a friend.....Who heard it from a friend. Who heard it from a reliable source?"
There was "quid pro quo?"

Something like that?

Oh yeah! I don't doubt it. But, I also believe there was bitter persecution of Christians "pre-Constantine", and afterwards.

T'wasn't til after Christians were forced into "accepting the pagans", that the "eroding of Christendom", devolved much like what we see today. For the sake of Peace?...There ain't no stinking peace!

One of the reasons why the Reformers rejected the feast days of saints was due to the undependable nature of these sorts of legends.

I recently read a story about a Russian Christian called Vanya, who was persecuted in the Russian Army for his faith. The book was written by charismatics. I am pretty sure they embellished the story significantly, and this book was less than fifty years from the real events. Do I think Vanya was persecuted for his beliefs? Absolutely. Do I think all the stories were true? Absolutely not. I think charismatics used it to further their own teachings.

By the way, I do believe God enabled him to endure severe cold inflicted by his torturers. So, I am not denying some of the miracles. I just smell a charismatic embellishment in the book.

I believe Vanya was a Baptist so he may not have approved of the embellishments himself.

 

[NayborBear]

One of the reasons why the Reformers rejected the feast days of saints was due to the undependable nature of these sorts of legends.

I recently read a story about a Russian Christian called Vanya, who was persecuted in the Russian Army for his faith. The book was written by charismatics. I am pretty sure they embellished the story significantly, and this book was less than fifty years from the real events. Do I think Vanya was persecuted for his beliefs? Absolutely. Do I think all the stories were true? Absolutely not. I think charismatics used it to further their own teachings.

By the way, I do believe God enabled him to endure severe cold inflicted by his torturers. So, I am not denying some of the miracles. I just smell a charismatic embellishment in the book.

I believe Vanya was a Baptist so he may not have approved of the embellishments himself.

As I "suspect" that all denominations "inject" each their own "slants/embellishments/propaganda" onto their particular "membership."

 

[TooFastTurtle]

One of the reasons why the Reformers rejected the feast days of saints was due to the undependable nature of these sorts of legends.

I recently read a story about a Russian Christian called Vanya, who was persecuted in the Russian Army for his faith. The book was written by charismatics. I am pretty sure they embellished the story significantly, and this book was less than fifty years from the real events. Do I think Vanya was persecuted for his beliefs? Absolutely. Do I think all the stories were true? Absolutely not. I think charismatics used it to further their own teachings.

By the way, I do believe God enabled him to endure severe cold inflicted by his torturers. So, I am not denying some of the miracles. I just smell a charismatic embellishment in the book.

I believe Vanya was a Baptist so he may not have approved of the embellishments himself.

Many would say the Bible writers embellished the story significantly.

I do not know about this Vanya case, but many people writing literature about martyrs were devout men and I dare not question their sincerity.

 

[garee]

Most Christians probably don't realize the differences between covenant theology and dispensationalism. Additionally, they probably don't realize that if they are a non-Reformed evangelical, their pastors are educated in dispensationalism, and his teachings are based upon it.

Dispensationalism, in the most classic form, believes that God deals differently with individuals during seven epochs of human history. The period of the Mosaic Covenant is called the "age of law". The current period is called the "age of grace".

Covenant theology teaches both the Mosaic Covenant and the New Covenant are "covenants of grace", but under different administrations. Therefore, covenant theology would accentuate the continuity of the law, minus ceremonial and civil laws, into the New Covenant.

I am in neither camp. My position would be more closely represented by 1689 Federalism, but I won't explain this in detail because my main focus is whether dispensationalism leads to antinomianism.

Antinomianism is the teaching that God's law no longer applies.

My question is simple. Does dispensationalism lead to immorality, because dispensationalists believe that this is no longer the age of law, but is the age of grace?

Dispensationalists often focus on mere intellectual assent, with no fruit of salvation being necessary. Additionally, they often create a two-tier system of Christians. Some Christians are carnal, and never become spiritual. Other Christians are spiritual and produce good works as a fruit of their salvation.

Covenantalists believe that they are united with Christ upon salvation, and produce fruit as a result. Individuals differ in their fruit, but all produce fruit. They may go through long periods of backsliding, but eventually God will reconcile them to himself.

This argument was a big deal in the 1990's, due to some dispensationalists who were teaching it, including Zane Hodge at Dallas Theological Seminary and Robert Wilkin of Grace Evangelical Society.

Briefly, I attended a church which taught this belief system. It is associated with the "Free Grace Movement" and "Grace Evangelical Society".

As a disclaimer, I would not categorize some dispensationalists as antinomians. For instance, John MacArthur was the main individual within the dispensational camp that was engaged in refuting Zane Hodge and Robert Wilkin on these matters.

However, my question is whether there is a tendency within the dispensational camp to promote antinomianism and immoral behavior due to their age of law/age of grace distinction.

It is obvious that the Mosaic Law as a whole, including all the ceremonial aspects, has no authority over a believer, but at the same time, certain aspects of the Mosaic Law are based on God's moral character, and believers are being conformed to the image of Christ in sanctification, therefore real believers would not want to be involved in unholy living. They are being conformed to the image of Christ.

So, this question is an important one, and I believe that the radical disconnect that is proposed by some (including Andy Stanley, by the way) is a result of his understanding of dispensational theology.

By the way, this topic is very challenging, and I would not claim to have my theology regarding the law worked out entirely. But, my position would be that the Mosaic law was a vague reflection of the moral character of God as expressed in the realm of men. Certain aspects were moral, certain aspects were ceremonial/ritualistic, and certain aspects were civil.

If a believer is being conformed to the image of Christ, he would not want to be in violation of the laws that involved moral principles, although he may regrettably fall into such disobedience at times (and perhaps backslide for a longer period).

However, believers are not under uthe Mosaic Law in terms of condemnation. They are destined to eternal life. In the meantime, though, they are obligated to live holy lives, and those who claim otherwise are very immature spiritually or are false believers.

It has to do with how we view the word faith .Some say its not a work . The bible says the opposite.

The witness of God is greater than the witness of men . Abel the first recognized martyr .

The word martyr simply meaning witness .Death was added by those who seek after a sign and wonder gospel and venerate the flesh of those who did die.. Its a requirement to become a patron saints . looking to what the eyes see.(Charismatics) no faith needed.

The thing is we are getting away from talking about dispensations. (time periods )

How did the idea ever come about ?

This is seeing God works by his faith in every generation as he did with Abel. How would he put aside his one faith as a work hiding it from one generation to another?

Did some find the word dispensation and build a doctrine around the word which has nothing to do as to how it is used?

As you mentioned believers are not under the Mosaic Law in terms of condemnation. The law of faith pertaining to the work of His faith working in us as His labor of love releases as a perfect law or complete.

Two laws working together. The letter that kills, and the unseen law of faith in respect to the work Christ performed it creates giving a person a new born again spirit that could never die..

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

Many would say the Bible writers embellished the story significantly.

I do not know about this Vanya case, but many people writing literature about martyrs were devout men and I dare not question their sincerity.

I think that they embellished the stories significantly, but the core facts regarding many of the incidences Foxe described are undoubtedly true.

I doubt if he covered any Protestant actions against Roman Catholics, though...they are much fewer but still exist.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

As I "suspect" that all denominations "inject" each their own "slants/embellishments/propaganda" onto their particular "membership."

True..I think the core facts are correct though.

But Nicholas did not plunge down chimneys to deliver toys.

My understanding is that there is a legend he threw coins into a window that landed near the fireplace, to ransom three daughters of the homeowner from slavery, though.

 

[garee]

there is no mercy in Calvinism....commanding people to accept Christ and then forcing them to do so, is not mercy

Calvin is dead. We have the same word of God as those of the 15 century. The same final authority in matters of faith the labor of His love in us.

For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure. Do all things without murmurings and disputings: Philipians 2: 13-14

The loving commandment is. . Do all things without murmurings. Not why did you force me do it?

Sounds like the murmurers. He forced me. Rather than by a work of His faith he worked in all believers to both will and perform the good purpose he hoped. We are yoked with him.

He promises better things than being forced . Things that accompany salvation. He will not forget the good works we have offered towards his name. Unlike those in Mathew 7 who hoped to accredit the work of God to their own selves and call it free will . Jesus said to them I never knew you .

We must be careful on how we hear his will?

But, beloved, we are persuaded better things of you, and things that accompany salvation, though we thus speak. For God is not unrighteous to forget your work and labour of love, which ye have shewed toward his name, in that ye have ministered to the saints, and do minister. Hebrews 6: 8-10

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

Calvin is dead. We have the same word of God as those of the 15 century. The same final authority in matters of faith the labor of His love in us.

For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure. Do all things without murmurings and disputings: Philipians 2: 13-14

The loving commandment is. . Do all things without murmurings. Not why did you force me do it?

Sounds like the murmurers. He forced me. Rather than by a work of His faith he worked in all believers to both will and perform the good purpose he hoped. We are yoked with him.

He promises better things than being forced . Things that accompany salvation. He will not forget the good works we have offered towards his name. Unlike those in Mathew 7 who hoped to accredit the work of God to their own selves and call it free will . Jesus said to them I never knew you .

We must be careful on how we hear his will?

But, beloved, we are persuaded better things of you, and things that accompany salvation, though we thus speak. For God is not unrighteous to forget your work and labour of love, which ye have shewed toward his name, in that ye have ministered to the saints, and do minister. Hebrews 6: 8-10

I am not sure who claimed "there is no mercy in Calvinism" but here's the problems with this view:

1) God owes no one salvation or a chance at salvation. The fact that he gives it to anyone is an act of mercy.
2) The opportunity for salvation is not an entitlement. This is Western entitlement mentality coming into play. Read Romans 9.
3) God doesn't "force" anyone to accept salvation. He change the nature of the person, giving him a heart of flesh, and this causes
the person to express faith and repentance freely. The free-willer claim is that man is capable of faith and repentance with his
heart of stone, and that God changing the heart is "spiritual rape". The person who believes these things has bought into
non-biblical free-willer claims.

In fact, free-willers don't glorify God as they should because their salvation is all about them and their decision, rather than an act of God rescuing them from darkness, when they didn't even know they were in darkness....assuming they've been delivered from it.

It could be that they are still in the Matrix.

You know, that film couldn't be a work of Christians, due to the directors and their perversion of transexualism, but the Matrix has some parallel with the state of unsaved mankind.

 

[7seasrekeyed]

.In fact, free-willers don't glorify God as they should because their salvation is all about them and their decision

why do Calvinists place themselves in the judgement seat of Christ?

your concern with how others worship their Creator would not be so consuming if in fact you actually worshiped Him rather than Calvin

 

[NayborBear]

True..I think the core facts are correct though.

But Nicholas did not plunge down chimneys to deliver toys.

My understanding is that there is a legend he threw coins into a window that landed near the fireplace, to ransom three daughters of the homeowner from slavery, though.

Nor do I think the Disciples, and Apostles of Jesus, walked around helping people color easter eggs, either.
Nor, help people in building "May Poles."
Nor, taught stone masons how to build "columns." And place their "idols" on Churches and public buildings either.
For the sake of "Piece, Piece, (for) Peace?
There ain't no stinking Peace!

Modern Christendom, has no idea how long, and how far and how often, they've been "bent over the tank, Frank!" "In the interest of what they viewed as "peace!" But, more for a "lack of being persecuted" for the "Faith!"

At what price? The "price" of making the "Word of God" null and void!

But, the times? They are (hopefully, for their sakes) a changin'!"

 

[Nehemiah6]

In fact, free-willers don't glorify God as they should because their salvation is all about them and their decision, rather than an act of God rescuing them from darkness, when they didn't even know they were in darkness....assuming they've been delivered from it.

You continue to INSULT Non-Calvinists and display the arrogance of those who think they are the elect. Well I will be reporting you to the mods for (1) trolling for Calvin, and (2) reviling Non-Calvinists. We have seen enough of your garbage.

 

[NayborBear]

You continue to INSULT Non-Calvinists and display the arrogance of those who think they are the elect. Well I will be reporting you to the mods for (1) trolling for Calvin, and (2) reviling Non-Calvinists. We have seen enough of your garbage.

C'mon man!
I'm not a "dyed in the wool" calvinist myself.
The 5 points of "tulip", however have much more deeper spiritual meanings and impact, then the "undermined" church denominations, by means of "infiltration" from the forced acceptance of pagans into their midst. Thank you Constantine. Which, over the course of many centuries, has made "void" much of the word of God.

I could tell ya the "why" this is. It's got everything to do with the "dilemma" Enoch found himself confronting, concerning some "members of the attempted overthrow!" And their continual/relentless petitioning to God using Enoch as their "liaison", in their seeking of forgiveness!
This? Hasn't ceased!
Now though, they use "mankind in general", and Christians in particular, as their "liaisons!"

Of course it's going to "come across" as arrogant, to some! Because the enemies of God, and Christ are happy campers, in what they have achieved over the centuries.