Does dispensationalism lead to antinomianism?
- Thread starter UnitedWithChrist
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
One of the issues with dispensationalism is that it often leads to antinomianism....how?
They chop up the Bible into dispensations (and this is their interpretation of the KJV phrase "rightly dividing the word of truth), and define much of the NT as being irrelevant to them.
So, this would give the dispensationalist the idea that the Sermon on the Mount doesn't apply..
My position regarding the Sermon on the Mount is that it was meant to show the Jews their sinfulness, especially those with a superficial adherence to the Law. However, it still shows kingdom values, which Christians are to apply to their lives.
So, it can't be relegated to "just the Jews" or an alleged millennial kingdom, as it shows the expectations of God regarding his Law in the lives of the believer.
By the way, I understand that dispensationalist churches avoid discussing certain passages of the Gospels because of their dispensationalism.
And, like I've mentioned, many dispensationalists don't even believe that Christians are under the New Covenant, because in their mind, that is only for Israel and Judah.
This is a point that deserves to be hammered in.
They chop up the Bible into dispensations (and this is their interpretation of the KJV phrase "rightly dividing the word of truth), and define much of the NT as being irrelevant to them.
So, this would give the dispensationalist the idea that the Sermon on the Mount doesn't apply..
My position regarding the Sermon on the Mount is that it was meant to show the Jews their sinfulness, especially those with a superficial adherence to the Law. However, it still shows kingdom values, which Christians are to apply to their lives.
So, it can't be relegated to "just the Jews" or an alleged millennial kingdom, as it shows the expectations of God regarding his Law in the lives of the believer.
By the way, I understand that dispensationalist churches avoid discussing certain passages of the Gospels because of their dispensationalism.
And, like I've mentioned, many dispensationalists don't even believe that Christians are under the New Covenant, because in their mind, that is only for Israel and Judah.
This is a point that deserves to be hammered in.
-
1
- Show all
I would recommend this book, Identifying the Seed, by Rob McKenzie regarding the problems with dispensationalism. It describes both dispensationalism and covenant theology and discusses where the two differ. Rob is an ex-dispensationalist and has listened to hundreds of messages, and read many books, by each side.
It sounds like it's a difficult academic book, by the title, but it is really good and fairly easy reading for a knowledgeable layman:
https://smile.amazon.com/Identifyin...1?keywords=rob+mckenzie&qid=1580046223&sr=8-1
Here's some audio recordings by Rob that would cover some of the same topics:
https://www.monergism.com/dispensationalism-13-part-mp3-discussion-series
It sounds like it's a difficult academic book, by the title, but it is really good and fairly easy reading for a knowledgeable layman:
https://smile.amazon.com/Identifyin...1?keywords=rob+mckenzie&qid=1580046223&sr=8-1
Here's some audio recordings by Rob that would cover some of the same topics:
https://www.monergism.com/dispensationalism-13-part-mp3-discussion-series
-
1
- Show all
I guess both the Lord and the Apostle Paul is in hell because both called others fools.
Matthew 5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
We don’t have alters today. And yet...
23 Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee;
24 Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.
Do you practice the following? Is self defense a sin?
39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
If anyone asks to borrow your car, you cannot say no, neither ask for it back. Do you practice this?
42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
Matthew 5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
We don’t have alters today. And yet...
23 Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee;
24 Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.
Do you practice the following? Is self defense a sin?
39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
If anyone asks to borrow your car, you cannot say no, neither ask for it back. Do you practice this?
42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
This is talking about the needy and not everyone in all cases. The Mosaic Covenant had laws stipulating provision for the landless, in particular. If someone truly needed a ride, and you had a vehicle, then I would suppose it's your obligation, assuming they were safe.
There's nothing in Matthew 5,6,7 that doesn't apply to believers if they have the spiritual heart to see the intention being conveyed.
However, now I see that the charge of anti-nomianism can apply to dispensationalists. It looks like some of them are using their theology to get out of the works that accompany salvation.
There's nothing in Matthew 5,6,7 that doesn't apply to believers if they have the spiritual heart to see the intention being conveyed.
However, now I see that the charge of anti-nomianism can apply to dispensationalists. It looks like some of them are using their theology to get out of the works that accompany salvation.
Romans 4 says the entire world is given to the spiritual offspring of Abraham, which includes converted Jews and Gentiles.
Any land promises made to Israel have been expanded to all the earth and all of Abraham's descendants. Abraham is the real person they were given to anyways..the Mosaic Covenant doesn't convey anything to Israel, as they were not obedient to the covenant, and according to Exodus 19, that disqualified them.
The Abrahamic and Davidic Covenant are not affected by the Mosaic Covenant, though.
Any land promises made to Israel have been expanded to all the earth and all of Abraham's descendants. Abraham is the real person they were given to anyways..the Mosaic Covenant doesn't convey anything to Israel, as they were not obedient to the covenant, and according to Exodus 19, that disqualified them.
The Abrahamic and Davidic Covenant are not affected by the Mosaic Covenant, though.
-
1
- Show all
If you mean that there is a spiritual intention to the Law, and the believer is bound to follow the spiritual intention of the Law, then you are right...
Romans 7:4-6 4 Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God. 5 For while we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death. 6 But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code.
(ESV)
Romans 2:25-29 25 For circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the law, but if you break the law, your circumcision becomes uncircumcision. 26 So, if a man who is uncircumcised keeps the precepts of the law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? 27 Then he who is physically uncircumcised but keeps the law will condemn you who have the written code and circumcision but break the law. 28 For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. 29 But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God.
(ESV)
God gives the believer a heart of flesh, to replace his heart of stone, and this heart generates good works of service toward others. That is precisely what Christ is describing. It issues from the new heart that the Holy Spirit gives to the believer.
No matter of dispensational mumbo-jumbo is going to replace this.
And, now I know that dispensationalism leads to antinomianism in some.
Romans 7:4-6 4 Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God. 5 For while we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death. 6 But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code.
(ESV)
Romans 2:25-29 25 For circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the law, but if you break the law, your circumcision becomes uncircumcision. 26 So, if a man who is uncircumcised keeps the precepts of the law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? 27 Then he who is physically uncircumcised but keeps the law will condemn you who have the written code and circumcision but break the law. 28 For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. 29 But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God.
(ESV)
God gives the believer a heart of flesh, to replace his heart of stone, and this heart generates good works of service toward others. That is precisely what Christ is describing. It issues from the new heart that the Holy Spirit gives to the believer.
No matter of dispensational mumbo-jumbo is going to replace this.
And, now I know that dispensationalism leads to antinomianism in some.
this is an important point that there seems to be a lack of acknowledgement about.
whenever we start talking about how we are not under the law -- which is scripturally indisputable, though some persist in disputing it -- the argument will be made that 'if we are not under ((a greatly redacted version of)) the law we have no way of knowing right from wrong, what is sinful and what is good' -- someone will say, if you are not under the ((greatly redacted version of)) the Torah, you will do things like steal and murder and commit adultery because you do not have the decalogue to tell you these are sins.
this argument relies on a tacit assumption that the only way man knows evil from righteousness is by reading the letter of the law
now, this immediately falls apart when it's pointed out that righteous men & women existed before Moses, so obviously there is a source of moral comprehension outside of the written code. it will be counter-argued then, that the law, usually but not always limited to the 10 commandments in particular, must have been given as far back as Adam, just not written down, or not preserved, or something. this counter-argument is made under the persistent assumption that the law is the only possible source of knowledge of morality & righteousness; that mankind must be instructed by commandments in order to know good. this is contrary to what's written in Galatians 3:17 - the law came 430 years after Abraham. i've found however that pointing this out falls on deaf ears, and it does so because that one presumption about the source of knowledge of morality and righteousness being the law, and the law only, is sacred to them.
another point the same 'camp' will contend is that when God says through Ezekiel & Jeremiah that in the new covenant He will write His law on our hearts, this means effectively that the law of Moses will be 'memorized' instead of being written: they say, it is the same law, just internalized, not read from a scroll. here again, we see that same tacit belief at work: the belief that knowledge of the holy is contained and transmitted through only one thing: the law
i do not agree with that belief.
what UWC & John point out here is the answer to it: we are being conformed to the image of Christ. did Christ have no knowledge of righteousness until the law? is that how God learned of goodness? obviously not: He, the One Lawgiver, is the source and definer of righteousness. so, being conformed to Him, we find another source for our own souls to learn holiness: The Holy One Himself. in the law, it is written love your neighbor - and the law describes & delineates what actions are loving and what actions are hateful. but Christ says love one another as He has loved us -- and He calls this a "new" commandment. in the law, love for ones neighbor has the law itself as a guide & teacher. in Christ, God Himself is our teacher ((re: Isaiah 54:13, John 6:45))
God does not change. righteousness, as He defines it, does not change. if the source of the law was God, and it was to men under it a source of knowledge of righteousness, and if the source now of our righteousness is Christ, who is God, then ought not the same righteousness be comprehended, now apart from the law? i don't need a law to tell me do not murder; i have the mind of Christ, who gives life. so just because i don't look to the law for righteous instruction doesn't mean i have no Instructor: when i look to the law, i look for my Instructor, and i see Him testified of it within the Book. i look for a Person, not for a rule. have a look at Romans 8:1-4 --- isn't that what it is saying? and could it be any more clear than this:
whenever we start talking about how we are not under the law -- which is scripturally indisputable, though some persist in disputing it -- the argument will be made that 'if we are not under ((a greatly redacted version of)) the law we have no way of knowing right from wrong, what is sinful and what is good' -- someone will say, if you are not under the ((greatly redacted version of)) the Torah, you will do things like steal and murder and commit adultery because you do not have the decalogue to tell you these are sins.
this argument relies on a tacit assumption that the only way man knows evil from righteousness is by reading the letter of the law
now, this immediately falls apart when it's pointed out that righteous men & women existed before Moses, so obviously there is a source of moral comprehension outside of the written code. it will be counter-argued then, that the law, usually but not always limited to the 10 commandments in particular, must have been given as far back as Adam, just not written down, or not preserved, or something. this counter-argument is made under the persistent assumption that the law is the only possible source of knowledge of morality & righteousness; that mankind must be instructed by commandments in order to know good. this is contrary to what's written in Galatians 3:17 - the law came 430 years after Abraham. i've found however that pointing this out falls on deaf ears, and it does so because that one presumption about the source of knowledge of morality and righteousness being the law, and the law only, is sacred to them.
another point the same 'camp' will contend is that when God says through Ezekiel & Jeremiah that in the new covenant He will write His law on our hearts, this means effectively that the law of Moses will be 'memorized' instead of being written: they say, it is the same law, just internalized, not read from a scroll. here again, we see that same tacit belief at work: the belief that knowledge of the holy is contained and transmitted through only one thing: the law
i do not agree with that belief.
what UWC & John point out here is the answer to it: we are being conformed to the image of Christ. did Christ have no knowledge of righteousness until the law? is that how God learned of goodness? obviously not: He, the One Lawgiver, is the source and definer of righteousness. so, being conformed to Him, we find another source for our own souls to learn holiness: The Holy One Himself. in the law, it is written love your neighbor - and the law describes & delineates what actions are loving and what actions are hateful. but Christ says love one another as He has loved us -- and He calls this a "new" commandment. in the law, love for ones neighbor has the law itself as a guide & teacher. in Christ, God Himself is our teacher ((re: Isaiah 54:13, John 6:45))
God does not change. righteousness, as He defines it, does not change. if the source of the law was God, and it was to men under it a source of knowledge of righteousness, and if the source now of our righteousness is Christ, who is God, then ought not the same righteousness be comprehended, now apart from the law? i don't need a law to tell me do not murder; i have the mind of Christ, who gives life. so just because i don't look to the law for righteous instruction doesn't mean i have no Instructor: when i look to the law, i look for my Instructor, and i see Him testified of it within the Book. i look for a Person, not for a rule. have a look at Romans 8:1-4 --- isn't that what it is saying? and could it be any more clear than this:
But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed,
being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets
(Romans 3:21)
there is a righteousness apart from the law, and it is Christ, in us a righteousness by faith, not by works -- added to us by being conformed to His image, not by being conformed to the letters engraved in stone. there is another stone, and another engraving, to which we fix our eyes: Hear now, O Joshua the high priest, thou, and thy fellows that sit before thee: for they are men wondered at: for, behold! I will bring forth My servant THE BRANCH. For behold the stone that I have laid before Joshua! Upon one stone shall be seven eyes: behold! I will engrave the graving thereof, saith the LORD of Hosts, and I will remove the iniquity of that land in one day. In that day, saith the LORD of Hosts, shall ye call every man his neighbour under the vine and under the fig tree!
(Zechariah 3:8-10)
my dear, that's what the Bible says. are you so bent on expressing hatred for Calvin with every breath that will you not hear it?
it is God who works in you to will and to act in order to fulfill his good purpose.
(Philippians 2:13)
(Philippians 2:13)
I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me.
(Galatians 2:20)
(Galatians 2:20)
by one sacrifice He has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.
(Hebrews 10:14)
He who calls you is faithful, who also will do it.
(1 Thessalonians 5:24)
(Hebrews 10:14)
He who calls you is faithful, who also will do it.
(1 Thessalonians 5:24)
being confident of this, that He who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus.
(Philippians 1:6)
Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me?
The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My own authority;
but the Father who dwells in Me does the works.
(John 14:10)
so that no one may boast. (Philippians 1:6)
Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me?
The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My own authority;
but the Father who dwells in Me does the works.
(John 14:10)
Being "under the law" implies that one is under the bondage of the Law, in that they are still subject to its penalty for disobedience. A real, regenerate believer isn't under the law in this manner. However, he has been regenerated, giving him new life, and uniting him with Christ through the agency of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit leads him and conforms him to the image of Christ.
The way that the law works itself out in the life of a believer is different than the man under the Mosaic Law, and I wouldn't even define his obligation as "just the ten commandments"...in fact I am not confident the Sabbath law applies anymore. But, he is supposed to serve according to the "spirit of the Law" which goes beyond the letter of the law in many cases.
In some cases you can find explicit statements in the New Testament defining the obligation of a believer in certain areas, but even if you can't, the Holy Spirit convicts your conscience regarding specific matters of morality that might not even be contained in Scripture.
Well, the only reason I am mentioning this is because I don't want people to think that when I say "antinomian" I mean specifically adherence to the Mosaic Law, or only the Ten Commandments, because actually what I'm talking about is the "spirit of the law" and I am talking about not being in rebellion to God. There is a Greek word, anomia, which was translated "transgression of the law" in 1 John 3:4...I believe the best translation is "rebellion" and it is much more than just breaking the Ten Commandments, the Mosaic Law, or whatever..it is a matter of "rebellion" and being hostile against God. The believer no longer practices his hostility, but that doesn't just work itself out by obedience to the Ten Commandments or the Mosaic Law. It is a matter of being yielded to the Holy Spirit and his leading at any point, and allowing God to shape the believer. This can be done because the believer has been united to Christ, and Christ's holiness, through his indwelling presence mediated by the Holy Spirit, permeates the person over time.
The way that the law works itself out in the life of a believer is different than the man under the Mosaic Law, and I wouldn't even define his obligation as "just the ten commandments"...in fact I am not confident the Sabbath law applies anymore. But, he is supposed to serve according to the "spirit of the Law" which goes beyond the letter of the law in many cases.
In some cases you can find explicit statements in the New Testament defining the obligation of a believer in certain areas, but even if you can't, the Holy Spirit convicts your conscience regarding specific matters of morality that might not even be contained in Scripture.
Well, the only reason I am mentioning this is because I don't want people to think that when I say "antinomian" I mean specifically adherence to the Mosaic Law, or only the Ten Commandments, because actually what I'm talking about is the "spirit of the law" and I am talking about not being in rebellion to God. There is a Greek word, anomia, which was translated "transgression of the law" in 1 John 3:4...I believe the best translation is "rebellion" and it is much more than just breaking the Ten Commandments, the Mosaic Law, or whatever..it is a matter of "rebellion" and being hostile against God. The believer no longer practices his hostility, but that doesn't just work itself out by obedience to the Ten Commandments or the Mosaic Law. It is a matter of being yielded to the Holy Spirit and his leading at any point, and allowing God to shape the believer. This can be done because the believer has been united to Christ, and Christ's holiness, through his indwelling presence mediated by the Holy Spirit, permeates the person over time.
-
1
- Show all
Brothers are not supposed to sue brothers. The principle is to give up personal rights.
By the way, all you're really saying is that you don't want to live by kingdom values.
And, whether I do something or not is not the measure. The issue is whether God gave these high standards to us, whether we fail to live up to them or not.
By the way, all you're really saying is that you don't want to live by kingdom values.
And, whether I do something or not is not the measure. The issue is whether God gave these high standards to us, whether we fail to live up to them or not.
