Sources refuting Dispensational Antinomianism

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

monoergon

Puritan Board Freshman
Hello,
In this thread I would like to ask for sources (articles, preferably) that specifically refute dispensational antinomianism. I personally know Christians that believe the law has been abrogated since we live under the dispensation of grace. As far as I understand, such is a clear example of dispensatinoal antinomianism.

(On earlier threads, I had asked for resources refuting dispensationalism in general and the Scofield's sevens dispensations; this time, I'm preferably looking for free resources refuting dispenational antinomianism).

Thanks
 
You'd have to attack both sides. However, I would go for Ridderbos, and his Pauline Theology to refute certain statements that are used for antinomianism.

Have you tried Wrongly Dividing the the Word of Truth? I have not read it so I am not sure if it attacks the older forms of dispnsationalism.
 
Currently, I won't be spending any money on books; further on I'll buy those books. However, free articles that refute dispensational antinomianism will be of benefit to me. As Jimmy mentioned above, there are different types of antinomianisms, but I'm looking forward to studying articles that specifically refute it in its dispensational type.
 
The Poythress work is a solid introduction to the issues regarding Covenant theology and traditional dispensationalism, but contains very little in the way of strident critique of specific Dispensa/tional positions due to it's introductory/irenic tone. This recent article on the issue at Pulpit and Pen may be found meaningful. http://pulpitandpen.org/2015/07/09/...why-the-tripartite-divide-is-for-baptists-too

There is also a podcast touching on the content of the post. http://pulpitandpen.org/2015/07/10/podcast-shell-fish-and-sodomites/
 
Thank you Captain Picard for the Pulpit and Pen article. It touches on some of the antinomian arguments I am looking forward to refuting.
 
I am also very interested in this issue. Not simply antinomianism, but Dispensational antinomianism. I know John Murray and Oswald T. Allis (Old Testament professor at Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia) both were concerned about this problem. At a library, perhaps you can check out Professor Murray's Principles of Conduct (See Law and Gospel chapter 8 and comments in the Appendix that Dispensational view of the covenants leads to antinomianism) and also see O.T. Allis' book "Prophecy and the Church" which addresses differences in law and gospel.

Additionally, "Leaky Dispensationalist" John MacArthur wrote "The Gospel According to Jesus" against what he believed was the Dispensational antinomianism of Zane Hodges and company. Though many appreciate and agree with his critiques of Hodges etc, many have also critiqued Pastor MacArthur for having made his own "errors of legalism" (which Hodges points out). MacArthur is critiqued for making a "commitment of obedience" a prerequisite for justification and therefore, he is charged with making works a requirement in order to be saved. This view is commonly called "Lordship Salvation." If you google key words, you are sure to find plenty on "the Lordship salvation debates."
 
Last edited:
Thank you psychieves and Ask Mr. Religion. I didn't know John Murray wrote against dispensationalism. Thanks!
 
Last edited:
psycheives said:
I am also very interested in this issue. Not simply antinomianism, but Dispensational antinomianism. I know John Murray and Oswald T. Allis (Old Testament professor at Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia) both were concerned about this problem. At a library, perhaps you can check out Professor Murray's Principles of Conduct (See Law and Gospel chapter 8 and comments in the Appendix that Dispensational view of the covenants leads to antinomianism) and also see O.T. Allis' book "Prophecy and the Church" which addresses differences in law and gospel.

Additionally, "Leaky Dispensationalist" John MacArthur wrote "The Gospel According to Jesus" against what he believed was the Dispensational antinomianism of Zane Hodges and company. Though many appreciate and agree with his critiques of Hodges etc, many have also critiqued Pastor MacArthur for having made his own "errors of legalism" (which Hodges points out). MacArthur is critiqued for making a "commitment of obedience" a prerequisite for justification and therefore, he is charged with making works a requirement in order to be saved. This view is commonly called "Lordship Salvation." If you google key words, you are sure to find plenty on "the Lordship salvation debates."
Click to expand...

I found the John Murray's chapter on Law and Grace: http://www.the-highway.com/lawgrace.html
 
Definitely the Poythress work is solid. I wouldn't imply otherwise. I sort of learned about dispensationalism firsthand, my folks were plunged neck deep in it by some adult Sunday school teachers of theirs. The problem with the system, especially on things like it's "antinomianism" is that the average lay-person will only get, or emphasize, certain elements of it, so I know Dispensationalists who are close to full on "free grace" heresy and others who border on legalism.
 
Good observation, James. It is interesting that Dispensationalists fall into both errors - Legalism and Antinomianism. I wonder what exactly causes these differences? One's law/grace and sanctification beliefs?

I notice that many Dispensationalists hold to Wesleyan/Methodist Perfectionist views of sanctification so are often called "Legalists" because it seems to be believed that this sanctification view is "inherently legalistic." I also notice that those who hold to "Lordship Salvation" are accused of being "Legalists" because this view is also considered "inherently legalistic."

I would assume that the 5 different types of Dispensationalists [Ultra, Classical, Revised, Leaky and Progressives (2 original variations)] would have slightly different views on law/grace and so come out either Antinomian or Legalistic. These 5 views "cut" or divide the Bible in half at different places (or perhaps attempt to not cut it). On one extreme, if you believe ONLY Paul's prison epistles are for Christians and everything else in the Bible is for Jews, I would think that you would tend to ignore a lot of "law." If you believe the 4 Gospels are "Law" belonging to the Jews and NOT for Christians, you will also eliminate a lot of "law" from your living. But if you believe the entire NT is for Christians as Leaky and Progressives do, you will do less of this "the law was for Moses and the Jews" and not for Christians. As time has gone by, Dispensationalists have heard the criticisms of Covenant Theologians and have also worked to correct many of these errors. Thus, Progressives are the closest version of Dispensationalism to Covenant Theology.

(Moderators, I wasn't sure if I can mention the name or give an link of a theologian who is unorthodox, so I hope quoting him for his value and insight and leaving the name off is ok?) So I noticed that our Reformed brothers (Princeton and WTS professors between about 1850-1950) and one unorthodox theologian dealing with the Ultra and Classical Dispendationalism varieties all agreed that these two Dispensational views were inherently antinomian because of how these 2 views divine law and grace. One theologian wrote:

"Every believer in the Scofield dispensational-ism holds that there was no grace before Sinai and no law after Calvary. "Law without grace" and "grace without law" are carried so far by this false teaching that even the sermon on the Mount is taken away from the church and made a part of the dispensation of law."
Click to expand...

and

"Let us not forget that the primary purpose of the Scofield dispensationalism is to set at naught the law of God. The Scofield notes say: "The law is ministry of condemnation, death, and the divine curse." According to the blessed Bible "the law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul," and "the commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes." The law was God's love gift to His people. (Deut. 33 :3, 4.) "That ye may live" was the purpose of God's gift of His law. The plan of God was that His law might be the life and the wisdom and the understanding of His people. There were many to whom the law of God became a "ministration of condemnation," but these were the sinners in Israel, not the saints. "His commandments are not grievous" now, and they never have been grievous to any but sinners."
Click to expand...
 
The "leakys" (MacArthur and Co.) to be honest remind me a lot of the progressives, in that both seem to eliminate core portions of what would to Ryrie et. all would be the distinctives of the system. Some stuff I've read by MacArthur or the big names in DTS progressivism just seems like an attempt to take the eschatology of the system and jam it onto covenant theology. Not all of it, but some. This is especially true of the monergist guys. Classicals, in the sense of having the exact beliefs of Darby and Schofield, I don't think exist any longer. Or if they do, are a tiny fringe scattered across the American landscape. Which as far as I'm concerned is good, some of Schofield's original study bible notes reflected total heresy.

I'd subdivide it, if I were being quick as possible, into "traditionalists" and "progressives", folding the leaky's into the progressives and defining trads largely by the views of Ryrie, Walvoord and Ironside. The ultras (Mid-acts, no baptism etc) would be closer to trads on most things but are an outlier. Ironside himself called the ultras (Bullingerites) unsaved for denying things like the ordinances.

Typically the progressives will have a view of law and gospel that bears a lot of similarities to the NCT position, as in Gary Long's work on the subject, and will ultimately be accused by the trads of being "Lordship salvation men". MacArthur is obviously the classic example for the aforementioned "Gospel according to Jesus".

The ultras, and many of the trads, will either a) fully accept the Zane Hodges, GES "free grace" position (what a blasphemous name for it btw) or, like Ryrie and Walvoord, have a via media on soteriology. Ryrie sometimes sounded Reformed, sometimes Hodges-like. I've read that his main work touching on soteriology could be described as almost Amyraldian. A lot of this comes from the necessity of creating distinctions in salvation (the means of testing mankind) in the New Covenant and Sinaitic dispensations. Some are more committed to this, some less, with the GES position reflecting an extreme (men are "saved" in a totally different way post-resurrection than they were before, which is a position Schofield and Darby shared, but not in quite the same way as Hodges.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top