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 the 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.
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 the 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.
Not even me! 
