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
Mar 28, 2016
15,954
1,528
113
#41
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.
I would agree. Not force but as a loving authority. . . . longingly drawing a willing creation. Warning mankind not to obey the voice of the another. Another anointing spirit "anti- christ" another "gospel" .. . ."You shall surely not die".

Mankind gave over their will to the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eye, the false pride under the father of lies.

1 John 2:16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.

Calvinism to some I believe is a vague way of saying "we are not robots". Saying it from a earthly perspective.

I would think that would not be wise. As sons of God we are not what we will be when we shed these earthen bodies of death. I would think the perspective would change. Christian should stop murmuring. . longing to be clothed in the incorruptible .

It would seem like two kinds of mercy in the bible . Mercy that ends in death. . . . or mercy when a person is graciously, freely given a new born again spirit in a living hope of receiving a new body . Mercy seasoned with grace. God is not merciless.

Philippians 2:15That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world;

1 John 3:1Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.
 

UnitedWithChrist

Well-known member
Aug 12, 2019
3,739
1,928
113
#42
I found a very good set of audios on dispensationalism describing it in detail.

Did you know that many dispensationalists don't even believe the New Covenant is in effect?

Some, called progressive dispensationalists, believe it is in effect IN PART but not in full.

Anyways, this set of audios is really good.

Rob McKenzie is the main speaker, and he is explaining dispensational theology to his pastor. Rob is a former dispensationalist. He has studied this topic in depth, and has listened to thousands of sermons and read lots of books by dispensationalists from different eras.

https://reformedforum.org/tsp22/
https://reformedforum.org/tsp24/
https://reformedforum.org/tsp25/
https://reformedforum.org/tsp26/
https://reformedforum.org/tsp27/
https://reformedforum.org/tsp29/
https://reformedforum.org/tsp31/
https://reformedforum.org/tsp32/
https://reformedforum.org/tsp33/
https://reformedforum.org/tsp34/
https://reformedforum.org/tsp35/
https://reformedforum.org/tsp36/
https://reformedforum.org/tsp37/

Some follow up discussions:
https://reformedforum.org/tsp54/
https://reformedforum.org/tsp55/
https://reformedforum.org/tsp144/
https://reformedforum.org/tsp127/
https://reformedforum.org/tsp128/


As I have indicated, I don't believe dispensationalism. The above series indicates some of the problems with it, in a respectful manner. After listening to the audios, I can see better why dispensationalists believe their theology, though. Rob is very respectful toward dispensationalists in this series.

Realize that dispensationalism affects a lot of evangelical churches. In fact, I'd say about 80 percent of all evangelical churches are dispensational, and pastors are speaking from this perspective without their congregations being aware of it. So it is a pertinent topic and is something I am studying this year as part of my studies in hermeneutics.

Rob has written a book on this topic called Identifying the Seed.

https://smile.amazon.com/Identifyin...g+the+seed+rob+mckenzie&qid=1578305015&sr=8-1
 

UnitedWithChrist

Well-known member
Aug 12, 2019
3,739
1,928
113
#43
One of the things that I found shocking is that the ordinary teaching of dispensationalism says that the Church is not under the New Covenant.

Some progressives don't believe this, but it is the normal teaching.

This is because the New Covenant, if read in a literalistic fashion, is with Israel and Judah, and not with the Church.

That's an unacceptable position.
It was mentioned first on the set of audios I posted. I did some other searches, though, and found out that it is a common position.
The author of this blog by Wheatland Bible Chapel advises not telling the normal laymen about this teaching.


http://www.wheatlandbiblechapel.org...qSQZmA3WLzflWwabCaGRtZjlsw_ubUcux6xnvzUD5pkv8
 

Blade

Well-known member
Nov 19, 2019
1,777
624
113
#44
Well to many "camps" for me. Church.. we go for HIM not man. Our free choice. Yet hard to grow alone. And much will not grow. Its always about others. I can find truth in all you gave. Never understood...well its like "here this is your seat". "Huh? But I don't want to sit there". Lol

Now if Christ is the head and we are the body. I see MANY tents. A.. one body period. I get no say. I can try but.. Hes the head. in all you said I question "MOST". Yeah 34 million Churches in the world. Most? :)
 

UnitedWithChrist

Well-known member
Aug 12, 2019
3,739
1,928
113
#45
Dispensationalism is the most popular method of interpretation in the U.S. evangelical church. Chances are your pastor believes in dispensationalism if you are attending a conservative, non-Reformed church, especially Baptist or Pentecostal/charismatic churches.

Dispensationalism was made popular by J.N. Darby, CI Scofield, Lewis Sperry Chafer, Charles Ryrie, Dwight Pentecost, and Robert Saucy, among others.

Dispensationalism is full of misunderstandings and causes one to have a poor perception of the unity of Scripture. For example, many dispensational scholars and pastors question whether the Church is under the New Covenant.

Their main problem is that they radically separate Jews from Gentiles, and deny that there is one people of God. This is not consistent with Ephesians 2, which says that the Jew and Gentile are made "one man" in Christ.

For a good set of audios on the problems with dispensationalism, check out the thirteen-part audio series by Rob McKenzie, a former dispensationalist:

https://reformedforum.org/category/series/dispensationalism/

For a good set of audios on interpreting Scripture (hermeneutics), check out this series by Jonathan Landry Cruse on SermonAudio:

https://www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?sourceOnly=true&currSection=sermonssource&keyword=kalamazoocpc&subsetcat=series&subsetitem=Hermeneutics

A second view, in opposition to dispensationalism, is covenant theology. Those who believe in covenant theology are called covenantalists.

Here are some reasons why I am not a dispensationalist:

- Dispensationalism contains partial truths, and the worldview seems to be correct from a shallow level of study, but it has deeper, underlying presuppositions which are not true. For instance, the book of Revelation is not one sequential set of events, but is a series of visions that have overlapping content. Their understanding of end-time events relies on the "sequence of events" presupposition regarding Revelation. There are clearer Scriptures that refute their position within the Gospels and epistles, which portray a general judgment of all mankind occurring at Jesus' return. Interpretative gymnastics on clearer Scriptures are employed to insert a 1000 year period between the judgment at Jesus' return and the judgment at the end of the Millennium prescribed by their view of Revelation 20. An example is Matthew 25: 31-46, where Christ clearly portrayed the judgment of all nations to occur at his return.

- Dispensationalism assumes a period of time where the curse is partially, but not fully lifted, and that death continues to reign. Scripture teaches that at Christ's return, death is decisively defeated in the resurrection (1 Cor 15). Again, interpretative gymnastics are exercised in order to deny this truth.

- Dispensationalism is inconsistent with the concept of union with Christ. All believers, Jew and Gentile, are one in Christ, and are spiritual descendants of Abraham as a result. Christ was a physical descendant of Abraham, and the believer has been joined to him. As a result of this union, the believer becomes a descendant of Abraham, and inherits the blessings of Abraham in this way. See Ephesians 2, Romans 4, Galatians 3.

- Dispensationalists claim that covenantalists believe God doesn't keep his promises. This is a false claim. God keeps his promises. Period. End of sentence. One must ask these questions, though: 1) were these promises unconditional? 2) if the promises were conditional, did the person fulfill the conditions? 3) who were the promises actually made to; ancient Israel or one particular offspring of Abraham (Jesus)? 4) will these promises be fulfilled in some grander, spectacular way than originally given, and to an audience that is more universal than Abraham's physical descendants? 5) were these promises fulfilled at some point in ancient Israel's past, and does this fulfillment exhaust them? and 6) does the person understand the nature promises being discussed, or are they simply relying on what some other dispensationalist has taught them?

These would be the questions I ask myself as I am studying dispensationalist claims.

- Dispensationalism leads to a poor understanding of the unity of Scripture. The Old Testament can be properly characterized as "promise" and the New Testament can be properly characterized as "fulfillment". The Old Testament communicates and teaches about Christ and the New Covenant through shadows and types. Dispensationalism does not lend to a thorough Christocentric reading of the Old Testament. Instead, I believe their exegesis is Israel-centric.

- Dispensationalists tend to read the New Testament in light of the Old Testament, and this is backwards. The New Testament is the clearer revelation which explains the Old Testament shadows and types. Shadows and types are only "fuzzy pictures" and not the fulfillment. The fulfillment is the higher revelation, and should govern the interpretation of the shadows and types.

- Dispensationalists frequently claim covenantalists employ allegories in the sense of the Roman Catholic quadriga method of interpretation, such as Origen. This is a false claim, and demonstrates that they do not understand the hermeneutics employed by covenantalists. They fail to understand that recognizing symbols and typology in Scripture is not "allegorizing Scripture". Additionally, they are very hypocritical in this regard because they recognize some symbols and shadows/types in their own interpretation. They seem to be unable to realize their own hypocrisy and biases. Like many misled individuals, they seem to believe they are the impartial interpreters of Scripture and the valiant defenders of the true faith.

- Dispensationalists often claim covenantalists believe in "replacement theology", which they define as the belief that God replaced ancient Israel with the Church. This is a false claim. Covenant theology teaches that there is only one people of God, from Adam throughout all eternity, composed of all the people of God, whether Jew or Gentile. There was no "replacement"; true Israel has always been this one covenant people. Physical Israel was typological of Christ and the New Covenant, and in that sense, it is accurate that the Church fulfills the type of ancient Israel.

- Dispensationalists often claim covenantalists are guilty of AntiSemitism. Since covenantalists believe that there is only one people of God, both Jew and Gentile, they have no rational basis for their Antisemitism claim.

- Dispensationalists often attempt to associate covenantalists with Roman Catholicism. Cults often use this technique to discredit evangelical Christians as a whole, and dispensationalists use it to discredit covenantalists in a similar manner. Cultic behavior amongst evangelicals, who claim to be brothers, is not ethical.

- Dispensationalists often claim that covenantalists live immoral lives, because they are not living in anticipation of the Rapture. The reality is that all Christians know that they are not guaranteed the next minute of life, so the timing of a Rapture is not relevant regardless of either position. In fact, I would argue that morality is more emphasized in the covenantalist camp than dispensationalism, due to antinomian tendencies. As an example, CI Scofield experienced extreme alcohol, marital, and childrearing problems.

Please note that I realize some dispensationalists do not agree with the misrepresentations of their colleagues. However, there is a strong tendency in the dispensationalist camp to make these sorts of claims.
 

UnitedWithChrist

Well-known member
Aug 12, 2019
3,739
1,928
113
#46
Sam Storms is an ex-dispensationalist, has written a very good book on why amillennialism is a better option than premillennialism, including dispensationalism, and here is an excerpt that gives some very good reasons:

Scriptural Challenges for Premillenialists

Sam Storms

If you are a premillennialist, whether dispensational or not, there are several things with which you must reckon:

• You must necessarily believe that physical death will continue to exist beyond the time of Christ’s second coming.

• You must necessarily believe that the natural creation will continue, beyond the time of Christ’s second coming, to be subjected to the curse imposed by the Fall of man.

• You must necessarily believe that the New Heavens and New Earth will not be introduced until 1,000 years subsequent to the return of Christ.

• You must necessarily believe that unbelieving men and women will still have the opportunity to come to saving faith in Christ for at least 1,000 years subsequent to his return.

• You must necessarily believe that unbelievers will not be finally resurrected until at least 1,000 years subsequent to the return of Christ.

• You must necessarily believe that unbelievers will not be finally judged and cast into eternal punishment until at least 1,000 years subsequent to the return of Christ.

So what’s wrong with believing these things, asks the premillennialist? What’s wrong is that these many things that premillennialists must believe (because of the way they interpret Scripture), the NT explicitly denies. In other words, in my study of the second coming of Christ I discovered that, contrary to what premillennialism requires us to believe, death is defeated and swallowed up in victory at the parousia, the natural creation is set free from its bondage to corruption at the parousia, the New Heavens and the New Earth are introduced immediately following the parousia, all opportunity to receive Christ as savior terminates at the parousia, and both the final resurrection and eternal judgment of unbelievers will occur at the time of the parousia. Simply put, the NT portrayals of the second coming of Christ forced me to conclude that a millennial age, subsequent to Christ’s return, of the sort proposed by premillennialism was impossible.

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/why-i-changed-my-mind-about-the-millennium/
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/...u-must-believe-if-you-are-a-premillennialist/
 
Jan 17, 2020
4,792
736
113
#47
Why Dispensationalists might not be saved. This includes Mid Acts Dispensationalists.

John says; “Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.” (2 John 9)

“And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, [the Sermon on the Mount] the people were astonished at his doctrine:” (Matthew 7:28)

The Sermon on the Mount Doctrine is the doctrine of Christ and it is for today. Dispensationalists think it is not for the Church, but for the Jews in the Millennium.
 

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
17,111
3,687
113
#48
Why Dispensationalists might not be saved. This includes Mid Acts Dispensationalists.

John says; “Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.” (2 John 9)

“And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, [the Sermon on the Mount] the people were astonished at his doctrine:” (Matthew 7:28)

The Sermon on the Mount Doctrine is the doctrine of Christ and it is for today. Dispensationalists think it is not for the Church, but for the Jews in the Millennium.
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.
 
Jan 17, 2020
4,792
736
113
#50
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.
Are you a Dispensationalist?
 

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
17,111
3,687
113
#51
Sam Storms is an ex-dispensationalist, has written a very good book on why amillennialism is a better option than premillennialism, including dispensationalism, and here is an excerpt that gives some very good reasons:

Scriptural Challenges for Premillenialists

Sam Storms

If you are a premillennialist, whether dispensational or not, there are several things with which you must reckon:

• You must necessarily believe that physical death will continue to exist beyond the time of Christ’s second coming.

• You must necessarily believe that the natural creation will continue, beyond the time of Christ’s second coming, to be subjected to the curse imposed by the Fall of man.

• You must necessarily believe that the New Heavens and New Earth will not be introduced until 1,000 years subsequent to the return of Christ.

• You must necessarily believe that unbelieving men and women will still have the opportunity to come to saving faith in Christ for at least 1,000 years subsequent to his return.

• You must necessarily believe that unbelievers will not be finally resurrected until at least 1,000 years subsequent to the return of Christ.

• You must necessarily believe that unbelievers will not be finally judged and cast into eternal punishment until at least 1,000 years subsequent to the return of Christ.

So what’s wrong with believing these things, asks the premillennialist? What’s wrong is that these many things that premillennialists must believe (because of the way they interpret Scripture), the NT explicitly denies. In other words, in my study of the second coming of Christ I discovered that, contrary to what premillennialism requires us to believe, death is defeated and swallowed up in victory at the parousia, the natural creation is set free from its bondage to corruption at the parousia, the New Heavens and the New Earth are introduced immediately following the parousia, all opportunity to receive Christ as savior terminates at the parousia, and both the final resurrection and eternal judgment of unbelievers will occur at the time of the parousia. Simply put, the NT portrayals of the second coming of Christ forced me to conclude that a millennial age, subsequent to Christ’s return, of the sort proposed by premillennialism was impossible.

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/why-i-changed-my-mind-about-the-millennium/
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/...u-must-believe-if-you-are-a-premillennialist/
You claim it was your own study time that led you to believe this, and then you post websites...🤔
 
Jan 17, 2020
4,792
736
113
#53
Absolutely! I bet you are too, to a certain degree.
I came out of Dispensationalism and found my place in Amillennialism minus the visible institutional church.
 

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
17,111
3,687
113
#54
I came out of Dispensationalism and found my place in Amillennialism minus the visible institutional church.
Are you building your ark like God commanded? Make any animal sacrifices lately? Why not? Do you recognize that God deals with man differently through time? That dispensations at it’s core.
 
L

Locoponydirtman

Guest
#55
Is this type of discussion not what this forum is for?
There are folks who fall into neither camp. We believe in aspects of both because there is scripture that validates some of the positions of both.
I myself find that the human will has no appreciable role in salvation, but the contrary, which defies Calvin resists and rejects Grace. That conviction by the Holy Spirit is the only means by which to break the human will. That article 2 of the book of Concord (see the epitome) describes the human will as accurately as humanly possible. (Understanding that the book of Concord is not scripture, and thusly not infallible, but rather a work of a man).
 

UnitedWithChrist

Well-known member
Aug 12, 2019
3,739
1,928
113
#56
You claim it was your own study time that led you to believe this, and then you post websites...🤔
I’ve never claimed that my own study time led me to believe Amillennialism, if you mean by that I relied strictly on my own bible reading. For one thing I never believed dispensationalism. I was more indoctrinated into historical premillennialism.

The biggest factor was that a postmillennial friend told me some of the problems with premillennialism and they checked out.

The biggest factor was noticing the two similar battles, one before the Millennium and one after. Plus noticing that events pertaining to Christ’s return are scattered throughout Revelation in a manner that is inconsistent with the premillennialism reading of Revelation.
 

UnitedWithChrist

Well-known member
Aug 12, 2019
3,739
1,928
113
#57
You claim it was your own study time that led you to believe this, and then you post websites...🤔
By the way, I think you guys dislike me posting great presentations against dispensationalism because you are accustomed to beating your chests and proclaiming your doctrinal superiority.

To be honest I think it’s garbage theology and my contempt for it escalated once I realized that they typically deny the reality of the New Covenant for believers.
 
Jan 17, 2020
4,792
736
113
#58
Are you building your ark like God commanded? Make any animal sacrifices lately? Why not? Do you recognize that God deals with man differently through time? That dispensations at it’s core.
You do not understand the Sermon or its central role in the New Covenant = big problem.
 

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
17,111
3,687
113
#59
You do not understand the Sermon or its central role in the New Covenant = big problem.
The sermon on the mount is basically the constitution for living in the Lord’s earthly kingdom prepared for the Jews. It’s known in Scripture as the kingdom of heaven.

The New Testament was not in force yet.
 
Jan 17, 2020
4,792
736
113
#60
The sermon on the mount is basically the constitution for living in the Lord’s earthly kingdom prepared for the Jews. It’s known in Scripture as the kingdom of heaven.

The New Testament was not in force yet.
But, John says if you do not have this doctrine of Christ, you aren't saved. You need to spend some time on it. I made a career out of living it (Matthew 6:24-34) and it is the backbone of NT ethics.