Tags
R.C. Sproul: Dispensationalism Brought Us the ‘Carnal Christian’, the ‘Sinners Prayer’ and more Antinomianism
When you get the opportunity, I encourage you to listen and watch the video below featuring RC Sproul (and Jr.), Steve Lawson, Robert Godfrey and Sinclair Ferguson. While there is a discussion on various theological subjects, the heresies of dispensationalism is prominent, taking up the first 20 minutes of an 57 minute presentation.
Here is a partial transcription of RC Sproul Sr’s discussion on dispensationalism and its dangers.
RC. Sproul:
“They asked me, R.C., what’s your problem with dispensationalism? And I said, “You know, my biggest problem with dispensationalism is your historic doctrine of regeneration. And that was met with bewilderment. These professors said, “What are you talking about? What’s our problem with regeneration?”
I said, “Well, classic dispensationalism teaches that when the Holy Spirit regenerates a person, that person does not experience a change in their nature. So that you can have the Spirit in you, and you be in a state of salvation, without any change in your life whatsoever. And that was popularized by the picture books that were spread out by Campus Crusade, where, you had the circle with the chair, and you had the cross outside the circle, and ‘S’ the self, was on the chair, and that’s the picture of the unregenerate person, the pagan. But then you have the next stage of those who are regenerated, where now, Christ is inside the circle, but not on the throne. Self is still on the throne. You’re saved you’re in a state of grace, you’re regenerated, you’re justified – but you have absolutely no fruit whatsoever because your life hasn’t changed – and that gave rise to the development of this concept of the “Carnal Christian” where a person could be saved without any manifestation of any change, and, that’s what I said, I said for us, regeneration involves a foundational change in the disposition of the human heart where that fallen person prior to his regeneration had no inclination to the things of God, no love for Jesus, and once that heart has been changed, through the immediate, transcendent power of God the Holy Spirit in regeneration, now that person has Christ in his life, and Christ is now his Lord. He’s not perfected, not fully sanctified, but the process of sanctification has certainly begun. And if it hasn’t, you have a profession of faith with no faith.
And so what’s so serious about this is that it invites a false sense of security for people believing that they are saved, because they signed a card or raised their hand or walked an isle, and prayed a prayer, whatever, but have no evidence of the fruit of sanctification in their lives. Then their challenged and the whole thing about this antinomianism is the that Old Testament law has no bearing on the Christian life…that’s all future, and now comes the eschatology, where the kingdom of God is in no sense realized, it’s totally and completely future, now what do you do with that?”
Related articles
- Dispensationalism is Not New (Anybody Else? #1) (5ptsalt.com)
- How Dispensationalism Proclaims a False Gospel (#1) (5ptsalt.com)
- Signs You May Be In A New Calvinist ‘Church’ (5ptsalt.com)
5 Pt. Salt 
Did you hear that Billy Graham Ministries has abandoned the Sinner’s Prayer? It’s true. They wanted a “fresh” slogan to appeal to nonbelievers. Here is what they decided on:
“Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins.”
I personally don’t like it: too Lutheran.
It’s Acts 5. It’s not Lutheran but Catholic.
Well, at least they’re getting it partly right: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPhEEzjU8xQ
And Anglican…
Well, at least they’re getting it partly right: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPhEEzjU8xQ
“Too Lutheran” or too BIBLICAL?! How about Acts 22:16: And now why tarriest thou? Arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins.” Is that also “too Lutheran?”I have serious doubt that Graham & Company have actually adopted that new “slogan,” since the Billy Graham organization, as with all Southern Baptists, has consistently held that baptism is not necessary for salvation. They have bought into the false notion that baptism is a “work” and that since works do not merit salvation, baptism can not have any part in salvation. But baptism is NOT a work of merit; it is the place and event ordained by God where the lost sinner meets the death and the redeeming blood of Jesus. Anyone who reads Romans 6:1-9 and concludes that baptism is not essential to salvation is allowing his/her preconceived notions of salvation to cloud his/her reasoning.
You assume Romans 6:1-9 is talking about water. So it’s you who is allowing your preconceived notions to cloud your reasoning. There are other baptisms other than water and John the Baptist told us what those where and SPECIFICALLY distinguished it from water when he said:
“John answered them all, “I baptize you with water. But one who is more powerful than I will come, the straps of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.”
Luke 3:16
So you are right that a baptism is required, but that it is with water is not.
Amen, K L Hill. Well put.
Pingback: R.C. Sproul: Dispensationalism Brought Us The ‘Carnal Christian,’ The ‘Sinner’s Prayer, And More Antinomianism
It is Christ who does the justification, the sanctification and “righteous-fying.” (to coin a word) This is where many fall off the track when it comes to His indwelling Spirit. We are to rest from our works of self-righteousness, and rest in His righteousness, finished from the foundations of the worlds. The root of “sanctify” (`agios) is the same root for saint and the word holy. And this is where the reportive meaning misses the mark, or falls short. It simply means to be “given over to the exclusive use of” and in no way implies any type of “sinless” behavior or modification of our position before Christ, other than a recognition that we are all a bunch of dirty rotten sinners and a willingness to be given over to Him by faith. (Acts 26:18)
You’re wrong on one major point, it is not Christ who justifies. He was raised for our justification, yes indeed, and yet, justification is a declaration made by God the Father, not the Son, from the throne declaring us righteous. It happens once, is instantaneous, and is never repeated. Strict doctrine is required here.
Thumbs up, Joel. THANKS! 🙂
Dispensationalism is a doctrine of devils.
Not all dispensationalist think the same, and I assure you we all don’t condone doctrines from demons.
Please be careful of using blanket statements to describe fellow believers in our Lord, I’m sure He’s not pleased.
Why are we attacking our own family in Christ? Don’t you see, the enemy of our souls is upon us to destroy God’s children’s witness?
The world is watching the ‘church’ and most importantly the Lord is watching His Church, we as fellow believers should not bring shame upon the name of our Lord, we are attacking one another like an autoimmune disease is in the body to destroy it!
God help us!
Thanks, Flaming. But I am not attacking fellow believers, only those doctrines that actually divide the true body (which dispy-ism ironically does as it wrongly divides the people of God, as well as his word).
In saying that dispy-ism is devilish doesn’t mean all who follow its stygian teachings are damned (or even unregenerate), but that the errors are heinous and should be repented of. Many believers hold bad doctrines as “biblical truth,” b/c they’ve been misled.
I am attacking the doctrine, not the people, sir (or madam).
Dear Sword,
Read the short article by Gordon Clark, “Dispensationalism,” as well as A.W. Pink’s contemporary critique of same.
Thanks.
Are there any good teachings refuting claims that the Apostle Paul is a false prophet? I know it’s off topic, but I have been running into a lot of that lately, wanted to know if anyone has given good teachings on that.
Second Corinthians, Christine. And flee. They are in Isaiah 8:20.