Does dispensationalism lead to antinomianism?

  • 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.

Does dispensational theology promote antinomianism?

  • Yes

    Votes: 3 33.3%
  • No

    Votes: 4 44.4%
  • I don't know

    Votes: 2 22.2%

  • Total voters
    9

UnitedWithChrist

Well-known member
Aug 12, 2019
3,739
1,928
113
#1
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.
 

UnitedWithChrist

Well-known member
Aug 12, 2019
3,739
1,928
113
#2
I clarified a few remarks but was too late to change the original post:

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.

The views of some within dispensationalism came into a sharp conflict called the Lordship Salvation debate in the 1990's.

The No-Lordship group was led by Zane Hodge of Dallas Theological Seminary and the Lordship Salvation group was led by John MacArthur.

Zane Hodge believed it is possible to accept Jesus as Savior, but not Lord. Accepting him as Lord occurred amongst some mature Christians, but it was perfectly acceptable, for purposes of salvation alone, to accept him as Savior alone, and not Lord.

John MacArthur, a dispensationalist Reformed preacher, obviously disagreed. He understood that accepting Jesus as Savior, and not Lord, was not biblical. He denied that carnal Christianity was an option.

Briefly, I attended a church which taught this carnal Christian belief system. In more extreme form, it is associated with the "Free Grace Movement" and "Grace Evangelical Society". The reason why I attended was due to their position on eternal security, but their view of eternal security was far different than my own.

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.

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.
 

Nehemiah6

Senior Member
Jul 18, 2017
24,167
12,764
113
#3
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".
More trolling for Reformed Theology. Dispensationalism is simply a way to properly interpret Scripture. And it cannot possibly lead to Antinomianism since ALL BIBLE TRUTH is presented. Grace is not a license to sin:

TITUS 2 -- OPPOSES ANTINOMIANISM AS WELL AS TULIP
11 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,
12 Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world;
13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;
14 Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.
15 These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no man despise thee.
 

Ghoti2

Well-known member
Nov 8, 2019
469
283
63
#4
I am not a Dispensationalist; I probably lean more to Christian Reconstructionism. But, as much as CR looks to following many laws, I also believe that many laws have been fulfilled, and we needn't search for and ferret-out a list of laws to follow, hoping doing so will make us Holy.
 
7

7seasrekeyed

Guest
#5
this really is a hilarious thread presented by a 5 point Calvinator follower

of course you have to understand that under the U of this ideology, there are no conditions to be met for salvation and under the L, the atonement is limited anyway and you are predestined for salvation so you can't loose it even if you tried

this actually fits quite well with the thought of antinomianism as applied to Calvinists themselves

think about it

if you follow TULIP. you believe you are predestined for salvation, have no choice and nothing you do can remove you from the list of make believe salvation

so, actually funny that the op considers others what he is himself and accuses others of saying no moral law etc etc when he promotes a salvation with no choice and follows willy nilly an ideology that 3/4 of Christians eschew and is not taught in scritpure to begin with

in the economy of a TULIP grad, Jesus does everything and you do nothing

guess if you are soaked in the murky waters of Calvinism you can't see that though

so what we actually have here, is the LIE, that non-Calvinists have no morals and basically do whatever they want
 

UnitedWithChrist

Well-known member
Aug 12, 2019
3,739
1,928
113
#6
I am not a Dispensationalist; I probably lean more to Christian Reconstructionism. But, as much as CR looks to following many laws, I also believe that many laws have been fulfilled, and we needn't search for and ferret-out a list of laws to follow, hoping doing so will make us Holy.
Specifically the issue I'm concerned with is this view that there are two different tiers of Christians; the carnal ones and the spiritual ones, and that it is acceptable for a believer to remain in carnality.

I don't deny that newer believers or even older believers have periods of disobedience, but due to their vital union with Christ, they are being changed.

Actually, union with Christ is the real issue, I believe. Some in the dispensationalist camp seem to be fixated on legal, imputed, forensic righteousness without realizing it is only one aspect of union with Christ..that there is a vital, transforming aspect to union with Christ. Jesus indwells the believer through the mediation of the Holy Spirit and progressively changes them.

Instead, these individuals think it's all about the legal aspect, and imputed righteousness, which is a glorious truth but it is an incomplete truth. Without the transformative aspect, it's like biting into a half-baked cake.
 

Ghoti2

Well-known member
Nov 8, 2019
469
283
63
#7
Specifically the issue I'm concerned with is this view that there are two different tiers of Christians; the carnal ones and the spiritual ones, and that it is acceptable for a believer to remain in carnality.

I don't deny that newer believers or even older believers have periods of disobedience, but due to their vital union with Christ, they are being changed.

Actually, union with Christ is the real issue, I believe. Some in the dispensationalist camp seem to be fixated on legal, imputed, forensic righteousness without realizing it is only one aspect of union with Christ..that there is a vital, transforming aspect to union with Christ. Jesus indwells the believer through the mediation of the Holy Spirit and progressively changes them.

Instead, these individuals think it's all about the legal aspect, and imputed righteousness, which is a glorious truth but it is an incomplete truth. Without the transformative aspect, it's like biting into a half-baked cake.
OK.
 
7

7seasrekeyed

Guest
#8
I clarified a few remarks but was too late to change the original post:

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.

The views of some within dispensationalism came into a sharp conflict called the Lordship Salvation debate in the 1990's.

The No-Lordship group was led by Zane Hodge of Dallas Theological Seminary and the Lordship Salvation group was led by John MacArthur.

Zane Hodge believed it is possible to accept Jesus as Savior, but not Lord. Accepting him as Lord occurred amongst some mature Christians, but it was perfectly acceptable, for purposes of salvation alone, to accept him as Savior alone, and not Lord.

John MacArthur, a dispensationalist Reformed preacher, obviously disagreed. He understood that accepting Jesus as Savior, and not Lord, was not biblical. He denied that carnal Christianity was an option.

Briefly, I attended a church which taught this carnal Christian belief system. In more extreme form, it is associated with the "Free Grace Movement" and "Grace Evangelical Society". The reason why I attended was due to their position on eternal security, but their view of eternal security was far different than my own.

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.

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.

lie: the above is not a true representation of what most people believe. it is a handy dandy nonsensical so called rebuttal of those who refute and many who have left, the lies of Calvinism

Christians by and large, do not believe any of the nonsense such as we do whatever we want and no longer follow any laws or think we don't have to do so

the truth, the ACTUAL TRUTH, is that we believe there is nothing we can do to earn salvation as we cannot keep the law...
I am learning as we go along, that Calvinists think nothing of violating truth and believe propaganda is a fair fight...reminds me of communism actually

the actual arguement is that Calvinists wish to present themselves as chosen and mock Christians who believe we choose to accept God's gift, rather than are compelled to do so by a monster god who mocks his own creation by sending them to hell and not only that, has predestined them for hell

never mind that God Himself states the lake of fire was made for the devil and the devil's angels

never mind that God Himself is not willing that any perish

but the Calvinist will tell you that you have no choice and has to twist alot of scripture and ignore a whole bunch more, to try to make that false belief stick. it's deception

most Christains I know...and kindly note I do believe there is a difference between following Calvin and following the actual gospel as presented by Jesus in scripture...strive to please God, want to please God and seek after truth. you can find that right here in the forums even if you do not agree completely with what they say regarding scripture interpretation

we understand that our life in Christ, while postionally IN Christ, we will not be sinless in this world. it seems that the op does not understand the ongoing work of sanctification in the life of a Christian....of course there is no need for that since there is nothing they can do because they are helpless and predestined to be saved no matter how immoral

further, there are no actual questions being asked here. don't be fooled. the entire series is nothing but the teaching of one Calvin and is not anything else but propaganda and the efforts of those who follow this ideology, to do what they do best...make alot of noise and boast of their helpless 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.
LOL! the monergistic belief of Calvinism does not believe the Holy Spirit is God's teacher within us and since they believe God does everything, well where would they ever go off track?

have you ever heard such nonsense? and all this while saying Christians believe they can sin and have no problem doing so

the ironic thing is that they would further believe we must be destined for hell so why even bother to create these threads?

the actual stupidity of Calvin's teaching is more than apparent if comprehension within the individual is not blinded by the spurious and deceptive ideology of the man
 
7

7seasrekeyed

Guest
#9
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
 

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
16,540
3,503
113
#10
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.
I believe in dispensations, besides, it is a biblical term. In the dispensation of the Church, the law is no longer used for righteousness sake as it once was used.
 

NayborBear

Banned Serpent Seed Heresy
#11
this really is a hilarious thread presented by a 5 point Calvinator follower

of course you have to understand that under the U of this ideology, there are no conditions to be met for salvation and under the L, the atonement is limited anyway and you are predestined for salvation so you can't loose it even if you tried

this actually fits quite well with the thought of antinomianism as applied to Calvinists themselves

think about it

if you follow TULIP. you believe you are predestined for salvation, have no choice and nothing you do can remove you from the list of make believe salvation

so, actually funny that the op considers others what he is himself and accuses others of saying no moral law etc etc when he promotes a salvation with no choice and follows willy nilly an ideology that 3/4 of Christians eschew and is not taught in scritpure to begin with

in the economy of a TULIP grad, Jesus does everything and you do nothing

guess if you are soaked in the murky waters of Calvinism you can't see that though

so what we actually have here, is the LIE, that non-Calvinists have no morals and basically do whatever they want
To me? All your posts scream out: "I'm not/We're not one/s who Jesus is going to deny!"

It's like y'all are trying to justify y'alls being saved from whichever "delusion" whichever group has the most members of! And, the "other" group are the ones believing a lie!

News flash! The "Rod of Iron?"
Spares NONE! :p Not even me! ;)
That's what's hilarious now!

Wanna read what "real" Christian lives were like?
Take a gander at this:
https://www.biblestudytools.com/history/foxs-book-of-martyrs/
 

UnitedWithChrist

Well-known member
Aug 12, 2019
3,739
1,928
113
#12
I believe in dispensations, besides, it is a biblical term. In the dispensation of the Church, the law is no longer used for righteousness sake as it once was used.
Correct, in some sense everyone believes in dispensations, but not premillennial dispensationalism.

And I agree that it isn't used for justification.

However, I would maintain that the law does give us some idea of God's nature, and the believer is supposed to be conformed to the image of Jesus, who was the image of God expressed in humanity.

Additionally, there are some dispensationalists who focus on holiness.

It seems like the antinomian sector is mostly the Free Grace Movement, Grace Evangelical types, and the non-Reformed Baptists such as this sector of the SBC and some of the Independent Fundamentalist Baptists...the ones who focus on getting their spiritual tickets punched, and not a holy lifestyle afterwards.
 

UnitedWithChrist

Well-known member
Aug 12, 2019
3,739
1,928
113
#13
To me? All your posts scream out: "I'm not/We're not one/s who Jesus is going to deny!"

It's like y'all are trying to justify y'alls being saved from whichever "delusion" whichever group has the most members of! And, the "other" group are the ones believing a lie!

News flash! The "Rod of Iron?"
Spares NONE! :p Not even me! ;)
That's what's hilarious now!

Wanna read what "real" Christian lives were like?
Take a gander at this:
https://www.biblestudytools.com/history/foxs-book-of-martyrs/
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.
 
7

7seasrekeyed

Guest
#14
To me? All your posts scream out: "I'm not/We're not one/s who Jesus is going to deny!"

It's like y'all are trying to justify y'alls being saved from whichever "delusion" whichever group has the most members of! And, the "other" group are the ones believing a lie!

News flash! The "Rod of Iron?"
Spares NONE! :p Not even me! ;)
That's what's hilarious now!

Wanna read what "real" Christian lives were like?
Take a gander at this:
https://www.biblestudytools.com/history/foxs-book-of-martyrs/

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
 

UnitedWithChrist

Well-known member
Aug 12, 2019
3,739
1,928
113
#15
Antinomianism: We are Not Set Free to Sin

BY J. I. PACKER

Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray. He who does what is right is righteous, just as he [Christ] is righteous. - 1 JOHN 3:7

Antinomianism, which means being “anti-law,” is a name for several views that have denied that God’s law in Scripture should directly control the Christian’s life.

Dualistic antinomianism appears in the Gnostic heretics against whom Jude and Peter wrote (Jude 4-19; 2 Pet. 2). This view sees salvation as for the soul only, and bodily behavior as irrelevant both to God’s interest and to the soul’s health, so one may behave riotously and it will not matter.

Spirit-centered antinomianism puts such trust in the Holy Spirit’s inward prompting as to deny any need to be taught by the law how to live. Freedom from the law as a way of salvation is assumed to bring with it freedom from the law as a guide to conduct. In the first 150 years of the Reformation era this kind of antinomianism often threatened, and Paul’s insistence that a truly spiritual person acknowledges the authority of God’s Word through Christ’s apostles (1 Cor. 14:37; cf. 7:40) suggests that the Spirit-obsessed Corinthian church was in the grip of the same mind-set.

Christ-centered antinomianism argues that God sees no sin in believers, because they are in Christ, who kept the law for them, and therefore what they actually do makes no difference, provided that they keep believing. But 1 John 1:8–2:1 (expounding 1:7) and 3:4-10 point in a different direction, showing that it is not possible to be in Christ and at the same time to embrace sin as a way of life.

Dispensational antinomianism holds that keeping the moral law is at no stage necessary for Christians, since we live under a dispensation of grace, not of law. Romans 3:31 and 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 clearly show, however, that law-keeping is a continuing obligation for Christians. “I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law,” says Paul (1 Cor. 9:21).

Dialectical antinomianism, as in Barth and Brunner, denies that biblical law is God’s direct command and affirms that the Bible’s imperative statements trigger the Word of the Spirit, which when it comes may or may not correspond exactly to what is written. The inadequacy of the neo-orthodox view of biblical authority, which explains the inspiration of Scripture in terms of the Bible’s instrumentality as a channel for God’s present-day utterances to his people, is evident here.

Situationist antinomianism says that a motive and intention of love is all that God now requires of Christians, and the commands of the Decalogue and other ethical parts of Scripture, for all that they are ascribed to God directly, are mere rules of thumb for loving, rules that love may at any time disregard. But Romans 13:8-10, to which this view appeals, teaches that without love as a motive these specific commands cannot be fulfilled. Once more an unacceptably weak view of Scripture surfaces.

It must be stressed that the moral law, as crystallized in the Decalogue and opened up in the ethical teaching of both Testaments, is one coherent law, given to be a code of practice for God’s people in every age. In addition, repentance means resolving henceforth to seek God’s help in keeping that law. The Spirit is given to empower law-keeping and make us more and more like Christ, the archetypal law-keeper (Matt. 5:17). This law-keeping is in fact the fulfilling of our human nature, and Scripture holds out no hope of salvation for any who, whatever their profession of faith, do not seek to turn from sin to righteousness (1 Cor. 6:9-11; Rev. 21:8).

Article above adapted from J.I. Packer. Concise Theology. Wheaton: Tyndale, 1993, pp. 178-180.
 
7

7seasrekeyed

Guest
#16
in the years I have been on this forum, not one single contributor has ever said we are free to sin

however I have seen the monergists, aka Calvinists, claim we believe that and it appears they have little use for the truth especially when it puts the lie to their dogma

I also fail to see these same people speak of actual salvation rather than the diatribes and nonsense of Calvinism

it should be noted that Calvinism does not save

anyone
 
7

7seasrekeyed

Guest
#17
“Most of those today, including evangelical leaders, who hold Calvin in great esteem, are not aware that they have been captivated by the writings of a devout Roman Catholic newly converted to Luther’s Protestantism only two years previously (in the early part of 1533). Oddly, in spite of its paramount importance and his voluminous writings, we have no clear testimony in Calvin’s own words concerning his salvation. He refers only to ‘a sudden conversion’ which subdued his ‘over-much hardened’ heart, but gives no description of how or what happened. … By any standard, this young man, though unusually bright, was far from mature in the Christian faith. … Unquestionably, his Institutes could not possibly have come from a deep and fully developed evangelical understanding of Scripture. Instead, they came from the energetic enthusiasm of a recent law graduate and fervent student of philosophy and religion, a young genius devoted to Augustine and a newly adopted cause. … At the time of writing his Institutes Calvin, far from being an apostle like Paul, was a brand-new convert to the faith who had scarcely begun to walk with the Lord. Therefore, it could not have been spiritual maturity under the guidance of the Holy Spirit that brought forth the Institutes, but the power of Calvin’s brilliant legal mind.”


“Calvinism offers a special definition of human depravity: that depravity equals inability -- and this special definition necessitates both Unconditional Election and Irresistible Grace. … There is not a verse in the Bible, however, which presents Calvinism’s radical idea that the sinner is incapable of believing the very gospel which offers him forgiveness and salvation and yet he is condemned by God for failing to believe. … To say that God commands men to do what they cannot do without His grace, then withholds the grace they need and punishes them eternally for failing to obey, is to make a mockery of God’s Word, of His mercy and love, and is to libel His character.”


“Why does God waste His time and effort and the time and effort of His many prophets pleading with those who, allegedly, cannot hear Him and who, even if they could, being totally depraved, would never respond to His appeal by believing and obeying Him? Why create this elaborate fiction of mourning and weeping over multitudes who God knows will not only refuse to repent but who, unless He regenerates them, cannot repent because of their total inability to do so?”
Dave Hunt, Berean Call Ministries

I have no expectations of any sort of a reasonable response from a 5 pointer, but Calvinism is grossly misrepresented here and is not the actual gospel

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

mercy is available to all who accept Christ and the difference is very serious and needs to be considered

it is also noteable that a person can believe in OSAS but certainly does not have to adhere to the ideology of Calvin or his followers who seem more militant than merciful
 

tourist

Senior Member
Mar 13, 2014
41,243
16,252
113
69
Tennessee
#18
Antinomianism sounds like an immune system disorder of some sort.
 

TooFastTurtle

Active member
Apr 10, 2019
460
247
43
#19
I fail to see how eschatology and how the Church looks at the distinction between Israel and the Church has anything to do with antinomianism or any behavior in general?
 

Nehemiah6

Senior Member
Jul 18, 2017
24,167
12,764
113
#20
so what we actually have here, is the LIE, that non-Calvinists have no morals and basically do whatever they want
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.