Gospel believers cannot be said to be Antinomians no matter how one spends it.

Since I received your unexpected letter, my thoughts have been led upon various accounts diligently to enquire wherein the radical difference between us lies. As for those charges frequently alleged against the Doctrine I preach, that it is Antinomian, derogatory from the work of the spirit, destroys the comfort of believers, and sets aside the use of exhortations both to believers and unbelievers, &c. These are particulars too BAD to be easily credited by those who know my general character and principles. And when such things as these are objected to me, I feel or am intimately conscious that the sentiments I espouse are not in the least degree chargeable with any such consequences. Every one that rightly understands them will presently perceive, that they cannot be Antinomian, because the truth appears to be of such a nature, that a person who believes can have no enjoyment of himself, but in loving and obeying it from the heart according to the precepts of the gospel. They cannot be said to derogate from the spirit' work, because 'tis all along aver'd that the gospel can take no saving effect but by the necessary, efficacious Almighty and sovereign agency of the divine Spirit. Neither do they destroy the comforts of a believer, because they continually present to him a compleat and free Saviour, for his immediate relief, and assert that the Spirit of God witnesses to the genuine effects of the gospel appearing in his experience and conduct. - Samuel Pike, Free grace indeed! Set forth in a Scriptural view of the principle of grace wrought in the heart by the Spirit, pg. 2

My sin is ever before me but I am saved by Grace alone in Christ alone

The lordshiper says if you're sinning then it must mean you are not actually saved. But, why such drastic assumptions? Why is it not because the Lordshiper has not himself submitted fully to his damnable doctrine? Why not say rather that a Christian is one who knows that they are sinners and because of that they turn to Christ in hope for salvation? Thereby why not address it at the heart of the matter, a Christian, one who accepts the gospel alone for life and sustenance, still sins the same sins that the non-elect sin and yet the cause of such horrible things is for us not to trust in ourselves but rather to turn to Christ and rest in him by faith aloneMy goal is to live honorably before the Lord. This might seem strange coming from someone who holds to the five points of grace and who is not a lordshiper. But, in reality I know I am a sinner and that I sin continually even when I am not thinking of it at the time my sinful thoughts are always before me but I know that the gospel only relieves me of the condemnation that my sins deserve. I try to stay out of trouble and try to live rightly and at peace with all men in so far as I can. Sometimes it doesn't help and so I say after I fall "glad that is over!"

No one deliberately encourage sinning

If an ethical theory without directions for daily conduct is at best an incomplete theory, further emphasis on Scriptural injunctions are to the point in contrast with tendencies now and then apparent in Christian Circles To belittle ethical precepts as legalistic and sub-christian. The reverse of the same coin is the disrepute into which jesuitical casuistry has so justly fallen. It is probably unnecessary here to undertake a refutation of that extreme for of antinomianism, which tells us to sin that grace may abound. However lax some Christians may be, and however easily they may succumb to temptation, there seems to be no large body of professing believers who deliberately encourage sin. - Gordon H. Clark, Philosophy of Gordon H. Clark

John Macarthur's False Gospel is no gospel at all Part 1

"First, Scripture teaches that the gospel calls sinners to faith joined in oneness with repentance (Acts 2:38; 17:30; 20:21; 2 Pet. 3:9). Repentance is a turning from sin (Acts 3:19; Luke 24:47) that consists not of a human work but of a divinely bestowed grace (Acts 11:18; 2 Tim. 2:25). It is a change of heart, but genuine repentance will effect a change of behavior as well (Luke 3:8; Acts 26:18-20). In contrast, easy-believism teaches that repentance is simply a synonym for faith and that no turning from sin is required for salvation."



John Macarthur is right about one thing that faith and repentance are basically the same acts. To repent is to believe. However, repentance from sin does not entail a change life-style from sin. John Macarthur verses do not say anything at all about repentance being something that entails our work. Repentance is just a change of mind about the Gospel of Christ Jesus where sinners who once hated the truth now believe the truth. Macarthur wrongly thinks by saying repentance, the way he understands it, 'is not a human work but a divinely bestowed grace' that this keeps his gospel from being false. No where does Luke 3:8 say that repentance is other than a change of mind. What is the fruit of repentance if it is only a change of mind? It is believing right doctrine. John Macarthur's last sentence is just begging the question and is just fillers; for none of the verses he quotes even remotely agrees with his point.

"Second, Scripture teaches that salvation is all God's work. Those who believe are saved utterly apart from any effort on their own (Titus 3:5). Even faith is a gift of God, not a work of man (Eph. 2:1-5,8). Real faith therefore cannot be defective or short-lived but endures forever (Phil. 1:6; cf. Heb. 11). In contrast, easy-believism teaches that faith might not last and that a true Christian can completely cease believing."

This is perhaps just besides the point. Yes salvation is wholly God's work alone. However, this does not mean that I believe that Macarthur is correct on the Lordship salvation heresy. Macarthur simply assumes that Faith is more than assent (he does not even prove his assumption either). I have not said that a Christian can lose his salvation. Of course a Christian can for a time be subjected to his or her own sin. However, this does not mean that faith is not intellectual assent to the Gospel proposition. Of course, I am not an Arminian and once you are saved you are eternally secured no matter what you do.

"Third, Scripture teaches that the object of faith is Christ Himself, not a creed or a promise (John 3:16). Faith therefore involves personal commitment to Christ (2 Cor. 5:15). In other words, all true believers follow Jesus (John 10:27-28). In contrast, easy-believism teaches that saving faith is simply being convinced or giving credence to the truth of the gospel and does not include a personal commitment to the person of Christ."

This makes absolutely no sense. Faith is grounded in Christ Himself? Has Macarthur actually seen Christ and heard directly from Christ? How does Macarthur know who Christ is? Even Geerhardus Vos whom I quoted in another post would disagree. You cannot distinguish between the person of Christ from the words he has spoken. Even if Faith is assent to the Gospel propositions (which it is) does not mean that it is any less personal than if we were to agree with Macarthur on this issue (which we do not).

http://www.gty.org/Resources/Articles/A114

Legalist are in fact Antinomians

"No man exercises evangelical repentance even in the smallest degree but he who repents of this diabolical enmity and opposition of his heart to 'the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.' And none has ever begun to mortify the members of the body of sin in his heart except he who is mortifying this self-righteous temper. Unbelief and a legal spirit, are the very soul or life of the body of sin. From 1 Corinthians 15:56, Mr. Ralph Erskine infers, 'The dangerous influences of legal doctrine tends to keep sinners under the law; for thus they are under the power of sin. The text says, 'The strength of sin is the law.' The legal strain, under covert of zeal for the law, has a native tendency to mar true holiness and all acceptable obedience to the law; insomuch that the greatest legalist is the greatest antinomian, or enemy to the law.' Unless the mortification of sin, therefore, begins in them, it cannot penetrate the whole body of sin." - John Colquhoun, A Treatise on the Law and the Gospel


That is right an antinomian is not only one who believes that the believer is not to obey the law as a rule of life in Christ but is one who believes that the law does not condemn and so he can live by its commands as a covenant of works without penalty.