'MacArthur's Millennial Manifesto' - 5

We close our review with a few observations about other parts of Waldron's book.

Waldron shows that, despite the protestations of MacArthur to be speaking as a simple pre-mil, in fact Dr. MacArthur’s sermon presents a form of Dispensationalism, so that the sermon ought to have been entitled ‘Why Every Self-Respecting Calvinist is a Dispensational Premillennialist’. This is not to accuse Dr. MacArthur of dishonesty, it is to note that he has unconsciously confused Dispensationalism with historic premillennialism (unless he has, like Barry Horner, defined historic premillennialism with almost sole reference to Horatius Bonar). Church history, Waldron points out, shows that Calvinism and premillennialism have historically NOT been closely related. While J.N. Darby and other early Brethren leaders were Calvinistic, those who have come after (for example C.A. Coates) moved to a more Arminian position, making the claim that Dispensationalism is the natural Calvinistic position rather tenuous to say the least. To give one prominent example, C.I. Scofield in his ‘Reference Bible‘, P. 1203 refers Romans 9.11 to corporate election, not personal. This is really quite logical if you believe that the purpose of the Dispensation of grace is to test men in respect to obedience to the command to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. While Dr. MacArthur insists (rightly) that Dispensationalism teaches God’s gracious election of Israel, he fails to point out that even the most rabid Arminians teach corporate election. The thing is, that’s the only election that they DO teach.

Dr. Waldron points out that Dr. MacArthur and other Dispensationalists assume in their criticism of the non-Dispensational position the Dispensational distinction between Israel and the Church, namely that the Church began at Pentecost and is an essentially Gentile institution, while those they criticise hold that there is a continuity between Israel and the Church, so that the Church does not replace Israel but is Israel reformed and expanded to embrace Gentiles who are engrafted into Israel by faith. Thus it is inaccurate to describe this alone as replacement theology. The trouble is that Dr. MacArthur is assuming that we agree with him on the nature of the Church and the relation between the Church and Israel. WE DON’T!!! This is one of the points at issue, not a point of agreement between us!

We teach, following what we understand the Bible to teach, that Christians are members by faith of a Jewish Church with a Jewish head and founded by Jewish Apostles, based on a Bible written by Jewish men (though some think that Luke was a Gentile, we tend to agree with those who think that he was a Jewish man like the other Biblical writers). In this book Dr. Waldron exegetes the key passages showing that the Apostle Paul identifies the Church and Israel. He points out that MacArthur is erroneous in supposing that non-Dispensationalists teach that God cast out Israel for disobedience and made a new people out of the Gentiles. No, He engrafted the elect Gentiles into the olive tree of Israel.

Other chapters deal with such important issues as “Must Israelites be ethnic Jews’ (No. By accepting circumcision those who were born Gentiles could become Israelites by law) and ‘If the Church is Israel, why doesn’t it inherit Israel’s curses?’ (because the true Church is made up of faithful people. As Cranmer put it, it is "the blessed company of all faithful people". The true Church can‘t apostatize, so it cannot receive the curses for disobedience).

This is an excellent response to Dr. MacArthur, presented in a loving, straightforward way. Waldron corrects from the Bible and does his utmost to present MacArthur’s true position. The whole of MacArthur’s offending message is printed as an appendix, allowing the reader to check Waldron’s use of MacArthur in the work. Like all works by men, it ought to be read with discernment, but it will be profitable for anyone who wants to understand more about the ongoing debates over eschatology and Dispensationalism.

'MacArthur's Millennial Manifesto' - 4

Last time we referred further to the common Dispensationalist argument that non-dispensationalistsinterpret the Bible 'allegorically' and showed it to be false. This argument is often stated as 'if you interpreted Genesis the way you interpret Revelation, you'd all be theistic evolutionists', or in the still more sweeping accusation 'if you interpreted the rest of the Bible the way you interpret Revelation, you'd all be raving liberals'. Unfortunately both of these accusations proceed on the mistaken assumption of a SINGLE, simple hermeneutic, which whist it is often assumed by Dispensationalists, is in fact one of the very things we deny. Instead we hold that each book of the Bible is to be interpreted according to its genre. Thus we CANNOT interpret Revelation (apocalypse) as if it were Genesis (history).

As a six-day, young-earth creationist, Dr. Waldron takes Chapter 14 to show that slippery-slope arguments about non-Dispensational hermeneutics leading to theistic evolution and ultimately liberalism are false, using exactly this argument, one which even Dr. MacArthur actually understands. Dr. MacArthur’s contention is further falsified by the difficult fact that it is not only a-millennialists and post-millennialists who hold and have held the various old-earth and theistic evolutionist positions. The 1917 Scofield Bible, the touchstone of early Dispensationalists (we have in our possession one that was literally read to pieces by an old Brethren lady) taught the Gap Theory, which is a form of old-earth creationism. Here is the quotation:

“The first creative act refers to the dateless past, and gives scope for all the geological ages.” (Scofield Reference Bible [Oxford University Press, 1917] P. 3, note 2, emphasis ours)

John Rendle-Short in his book Green Eye of the Storm (Edinburgh, Banner of Truth, 1998) documents how his father, Arthur Rendle-Short, was a devoted member of the Brethren nevertheless embraced a form of theistic evolution (P. 133; 135). So far from this leading to his being put under discipline by the Fellowship, Dr. Rendle-Short was a popular Brethren preacher! The Brethren (we refer to the old Brethren, obviously) do not have a full-time ministry, and so a Brethren preacher cannot rest on his official position. If his theology is suspect he will simply not be invited to preach. The Brethren of Dr. Arthur Rendle-Short’s day did not HAVE liberals, they were thoroughly evangelical and Dispensationalist (we have met many of them, and our Scofield Bible comes from a member of the same Brethren grouping as Dr. Rendle-Short). Thus we must conclude that the Open Brethren of that age found theistic evolution to be within the pale of orthodoxy. We could add that Scofield’s embrace of the Gap Theory opened up the way for this, and we will. After all, the Bible says that God made the sun on the fourth day of creation (Genesis 1.16: “and God made two great lights…” emphasis ours), yet Scofield says of the light of Genesis 3:

“The ‘light’ of course came from the sun.” (SRB P. 3)

And we would ask in passing, what happened to the literal reading of the Bible? Surely ‘if the plain sense makes sense, seek no other sense’. But the plain sense is that God created the sun on the fourth day! That makes sense, so why insert the idea of a pre-existing sun? Answer: because Scofield wants to fit long ages into the Bible!

No doubt there have been many other Dispensationalists who have embraced a form of Theistic Evolution, and many more who have held a form of the gap theory that requires the sort of hermeneutical wriggling that Scofield was forced to use. I might say that this was the inevitable result of a hermeneutic that imposed from without certain conclusions such as the pre-tribulation rapture, and therefore allowed its adherents to impose long ages and evolution on Genesis. But that would be unfair and silly. The fact of the matter is that men on both sides come to the Bible with our presuppositions and cultural influences. The Victorian age with its commitment to the dogma of development has affected us all, either positively or negatively. So men’s reasons for embracing the error of theistic evolution or long-age creationism are not related to their hermeneutic in Revelation, but to the influence of secular science. While we understand the reasons for Dr. MacArthur’s mistake, we wish that this misrepresentation would cease. For further study on this matter we strongly recommend the 2007 James Begg Society lecture.

We have spent so much time on this point because we hold it to be important. Just as the old Brethren idea of a ‘law of first use’ (namely that the meaning of a word in Scripture is to be defined by its meaning the first time that it is used) was an exegetical fallacy, so is this idea of a single ‘normal hermeneutic’. Now this is not (as some may think) to shut up the Bible to scholars alone, for we further maintain that the genres of Biblical literature are apparent to the ordinary reader on their face. Only a fool would mistake the Psalms for history, and as we have noted the Revelation carries in its first verse the declaration that it is a symbolical book. Furthermore, a man does not need to take some commentary to understand the meaning of the symbols of Revelation mean, but only to search the Scriptures diligently.

God willing, we shall conclude next time with some random observations on other parts of the book.

'MacArthur's Millennial Manifesto' - 3

Last time we made some remarks on what is and is not allegorical interpretation. Whilst we hold strongly that the Medieval method of finding symbolism everywhere and claiming that this symbolism was the true meaning of historical texts such as Genesis is utterly illegitimate, having no basis in the text, obviously there are times when a symbolical interpretation of Scripture is appropriate, for example in the book of Revelation. In Revelation 1.1 we read that the Revelation was ‘sent and signified’ to John. This word ‘signified’ is the Greek ‘eshmenon’ which is a form of shmeion, meaning (according to Thayer’, a sign or mark’. John Wesley says on this word (Notes on the New Testament),

“Sent and signified them - Showed them by signs or emblems; so the Greek word properly means.”

The brilliant Dr. Gill agrees with Mr. Wesley on this point (surely one of very few on which they did!!!) explaining the word as meaning:

“By various emblems, signs and visions, represented and set before John.” An Exposition of the New Testament [London, William Hill Collingridge, 1853] Vol. 2, P. 931).

To the testimony of these two great Englishmen we add that of the American Presbyterian commentator, Albert Barnes:

“Eshmanen. He indicated it by signs and symbols. The word occurs in the New Testament only in Jn. Xii.33; xviii.32; xxi.19; Ac. Xi.28; xxv.27, and in the passage before us, in all which places it is rendered signify, signifying, or signified. It properly refers to some sign, signal or token by which anything is made known, and is a word most happily chosen to denote the manner in which the events referred to were to be communicated to John, for nearly the whole book is made up of signs and symbols.” (‘Notes on the Revelation’ [London, Blackie, 1951] Pp.35-6)

Waldron quotes one of MacArthur’s associates, Michael Vlach, as saying

“The presence of symbols does not mean that symbolical or allegorical interpretation in necessary.” (P. 76).

As Waldron notes:

“One would have thought the presence of symbols would have exactly meant that some symbolical interpretation is necessary.” (P. 77)

Conversely the absence of symbols precludes the possibility of symbolic interpretation! Poetical books require a poetical hermeneutic, historical books an historical and symbolical a symbolical. This is the contention of the non-Dispensational teachers. Different genres of literature require different hermeneutics. In practice we all recognise this. Let us take up the writings of John Bunyan. Do we approach the Pilgrim’s Progress the same way that we approach Grace Abounding to the Chief of Sinners? No! We recognise that the one is an allegory, the other a spiritual autobiography. One is to have an allegorical hermeneutic applied, the other an historical.

The idea of a single simple hermeneutic for every part of the Bible is actually so blatantly wrong that dispensationalists don’t believe it. We take as an example the letters to the seven Churches in Revelation 2.1-3.22. Dr. John MacArthur, like all historic non-dispensational protestant theologians, holds these to be letters to seven literal historic Churches then existing in Asia Minor. But dispensational writers such as C.I. Scofield find a fourfold application to these letters:

“1. Local, to the churches actually addressed; (2) admonitory, to all churches in all time as tests by which they may discern their true spiritual state in the sight of God; (3) Personal, in the exhortations to him “that hath an ear”, and in the promises “to him that overcometh; (4) prophetic, as disclosing seven phases of the spiritual history of the Church from, say, AD 96 to the end. It is incredible that in a prophecy covering the Church period there be no such fore view. These messages must contain that for view if it is in the book at all, for the church does not appear after 3.22.” (SRB p. 1331 Note 3)

This is certainly spiritualizing if there is such a thing, and even Dr. MacArthur does not escape its influence, for he says of Revelation 3.10,

“this verse promises that the church will be delivered from the tribulation, thus supporting a pretribulation rapture.” (‘Because the Time is Near’, [Moody, 2007] P. 92)

. For Dr. MacArthur then to fault those with whom he disagrees for employing spiritualizing interpretation therefore reminds us of an old saying about pots and kettles. What Revelation 3.10 says is: “Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth.” It is directed to the Church at Philadelphia, which Dr. John MacArthur tells us,

“The Christians in Philadelphia stood firm even after the region was overrun by the Muslims, until finally disappearing sometime during the fourteenth century.” (P. 89).

Thus, even if we take the passage as applying to the Church at Philadelphia throughout its history, the stubborn fact remains that there is no church there, though there would have to be to support MacArthur’s interpretation unless he is in fact spiritualizing the passage, so that ‘Church at Philadelphia’ really means ‘faithful Christians alive at the time of the Great Tribulation’. Unless we come to this text with a pre-existing idea (like that to which Scofield confesses in the quotation above), we would suppose that the passage refers to a great empire-wide persecution in the first or second centuries. The phrase ‘the whole world’ is the same one found in Luke 2.1 and Acts 11.28, so unless you want to insist that Caesar Augustus wanted to tax the whole globe, and that the famine affected the whole globe, you have to admit that it means ‘the whole empire’ in those places, and therefore there is no reason to take it as meaning anything else here. The ’plain sense’ of Revelation 3.10 is that the church at Philadelphia would be kept from an imminent empire-wide persecution. This makes sense, so why must Scofield and MacArthur seek another sense? If you will pardon the pun, that does not make sense.

Mr. Andrew Fuller, in his commentary on Revelation, writes:

“Some have considered these churches as prophetically representing the different states of the Church at large under the Gospel dispensation. There is no doubt that analogies may be found between them, but it appears to me that the hypothesis is unfounded… Instead of considering the epistles to the seven churches either as prophetic or as descriptive of the church at large as it then was, I should rather consider them as descriptive of the state of those seven churches as they then were.” (Works of Andrew Fuller [Sprinkle, 1988] Vol. 3 P. 210)

. The Puritan Matthew Poole agrees:

“The epistles concerning matters of faith and manners are written plainly, not in mysterious expressions.” (Commentary on the Holy Bible [Banner of Truth, 1963] Vol. 3. P. 953)

. And Dr. Adam Clarke, the great Wesleyan commentator, is extremely strong in expressing his opinion of those who spiritualize the seven churches:

“I do not perceive any metaphorical or allegorical meaning in the epistles to these churches. I consider the churches as real; and that their spiritual state is here really and literally pointed out; and that they have no reference to the state of the church of Christ in all ages, as has been imagined, and that the notion… is unfounded, absurd and dangerous; and such expositions should not be entertained by any who wish to arrive at a sober and rational knowledge of the Holy Scriptures.” (Commentary on the Holy Bible [Thomas Tegg, 1837] P.2028)

All three of these commentators, following their insistence on a literal interpretation, take the view that we do, that the ‘hour of temptation’ was some empire-wide persecution in the immediate future when the Revelation was written. Let us repeat, ANY OTHER VIEW IS ILLEGITIMATE SPIRITUALIZATION. Now we would not be as pungent as Dr. Clarke, who effectively declares Scofield and MacArthur to be extravagant and irrational in their interpretations, but we agree with the good doctor’s point. In fact let us add that we find Dr. Clarke an excellent commentator except when he is blinded by his own Arminianism. He certainly has a horror of spiritualizing that would make Dr. MacArthur look like Origen’s second cousin!

So long as passages like the above quotations from MacArthur and Scofield exist in Dispensationalist writings, it is most unwise for them to accuse non-dispensational writers of spiritualizing. What they mean really is that they think that the non-dispensational writers spiritualize in the wrong places. They are at liberty to think that, but be it known that we think that they spiritualize in the wrong places!!! How is the above quote from MacArthur on Revelation 3.10 the ‘plain sense’ or ‘literal meaning’ of the passage? Scofield admits that the reason he must find a prophecy of the ‘Church Age’ in these two chapters is that “these messages must contain that’. It is not exegetical, it is in fact the eisegetical imposition of an a priori upon the text. We are so bold in fact as to say that no-one can find a pre-tribulation Rapture in any of MacArthur’s proof texts given on page 92 of Because the Time is Near who does not come looking for evidence of one. But we have written at great length on that subject elsewhere and would refer readers interested in the deficiencies to that.

God willing, we shall continue this series next time.

'MacArthur's Millennial Manifesto' - 2

Another dispensationalist error is identified by Waldron in MacArthur’s use of the common accusation of allegorical interpretation leveled against amillennial and postmillennial interpreters of the Revelation and the prophets. He points out that this is a mistake, and in fact the dispensationalist is guilty of an error himself in not acknowledging, though he does in practice recognise, the existence of different genres of literature in the Bible, which require to be interpreted in distinct ways. For example, no-one interprets the poetical language of the Psalms as they do the historical narratives found in, for example, the Former Prophets. Indeed, the error of true allegorists is that they DO interpret the Kings as though it were the same as Psalms. The dispensational statement that ‘if the plain sense makes sense, seek no other sense’ is quite inadequate and fails to take into account the analogy of faith. The old Brethren writers and preachers were certainly guilty of a large number of exegetical fallacies, and we think this idea of a single ‘normal hermeneutic’ for the whole Bible is one of them.

This is not to say that there is no such thing as allegorizing, plainly there is. We would however emphasise that there is a difference between those things that are expressly presented as signs and making historical passages into allegories. We have in our possession a copy of Emmanuel Swedenborg’s ‘Heaven and Hell’. Swedenborg was a genuine allegorizer. We give a random example:

“The members, organs and viscera of man, when mentioned in the Word, denote similar things, for every expression in the Word has a signification derived from correspondence; by the head, therefore, is signified intelligence and wisdom; by the breast, charity; by the loins, conjugal love; by the arms and hands, the power of truth; by the feet the natural [principle]; by the eyes, understanding; by the nostrils, perception; by the ears, obedience; by the kidneys, the purification of truth; and so forth.” (‘The Future Life’, [London, the Missionary and Tract Society of the New Church, 1879] P. 31)

This is true allegorizing, affixing a symbolic meaning to every word of Scripture and interpreting the Bible (especially the historical portions) according to these symbolic meanings. So, for example, taking Swedenborg for our example, we might say that when the Scripture says ‘Stretch out your hand’, what it really means is that we should exalt the power of Truth. That is allegory. But when The Apostle Paul speaks in Romans 11 of the one olive tree, that is symbolism, for he makes it clear that this olive tree is not a literal tree but a symbol of the people of God. So the ‘Beyond Creationism’ people who make the early chapters of Genesis a picture of Israel’s judgment are allegorizing, but those who say that the Harlot of the Revelation is symbolic of the antichristian apostate Church are simply seeking to understand a symbol. This loose use of the term ‘allegorical’ is something that we confess that we dislike. Particularly as it would be a brave man who compared William Hendriksen with Swedenborg!!! Allegorical is not a synonym for symbolic. The two are different, at least in modern English usage. We would prefer to reserve the term 'allegorical' interpretation for the illegitimate application of a symbolical hermeneutic. the book of Revelation is explicitly symbolic, and only makes sense interpreted in this way.


Of which more, God willing, next time.

Cornelius Van Til: Reformed Apologist and Churchman - Review

Cornelius Van Til:
Reformed Apologist and Churchman

John R. Muether

We were suprised to find that Muether's book is the first biography of Van Til since William White's 'authorized biography' of 1979. Cornelius Van Til, whilst never the easiest of men to read (he writes in Dutch American, which is equally difficult for those of us not used to it to follow when it is spoken), is by far the most influential Reformed apologist of the 20th century. Yet Muether has not simply taken that part of VAn Til, he has presented, as his subtitle shows, Van Til as both thinker and churchman. Indeed, as Muether contends, you cannot truly understand Van Til except in both of these capacities. We need, as it were, a stereoscopic picture of Van Til, the man in the Church as well as the professor in his study.

Muether has an obvious sympathy for his subject, always a good thing in a biographer. Whatever anyone else may think, we prefer our biographies to be written by those who actually like their subject. And Van Til, though inclined to fierce rhetoric, and the last man to back away from a fight, comes across as a genuinely likeable man, the man that we recognise from listening to recordings of his lectures (a word to those who find Van Til difficult to read, listen to him first. Sermonaudio.com has a number of excellent Van Til lectures). Here is Van Til in context, not some disembodied voice floating in the ether, but the Dutch Reformed man in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, the outsider trying to forge a place in America for his adopted denomination, and the champion of Reformed theology.

Like Dr. Van Til, we regard the Reformed Faith as simply Biblical Christianity in its purest form, and that theology needs a consistent defence. We believe that Van Til, both practically and in his writings, offered and still offers that defence. Meuther gives us food for thought, showing how Van Til was one of the first to raise concern about the direction of the New Evangelicalism, and how he was the strongest voice of warning when Karl Barth came on the scene. This is a gripping read. In one sitting it would probably take about three and a half hours to read properly. We read most of it on a three-hour coach journey, and it certainly shortened the journey time.

Highly, HIGHLY recommended to all who want to know something about the man whose apologetic methodology still casts a long shadow (and, we think, a welcome shadow) over the Church today.

'MacArthur's Millennial Manifesto' - 1

We have now read Samuel Waldron's book 'MacArthur's Millennial Manifesto'

Dr. John MacArthur is no stranger to controversy- quite the reverse, in fact. His works against modern-day antinomianism such as ‘The Gospel According to Jesus’ sparked a healthy debate about the connection of repentance and saving faith. And, on the whole, we have agreed with MacArthur in these controversies. Yet, as readers of this blog will know, we have been compelled to register our objections to the eschatology promoted by Dr. MacArthur.

Dr. MacArthur’s opening sermon at the 2007 Shepherds’ Conference, ‘Why Every Self-Respecting Calvinist is Premillennial’, sparked off quite a debate at the time, a debate that has finally reached the United Kingdom, if a recent letter in the British Church Newspaper is anything to go by. Therefore the appearance of Dr. Samuel E. Waldron’s book ‘MacArthur’s Millennial Manifesto’ is most welcome. This is, as the subtitle states, ‘A Friendly Response’, certainly its tone is far more irenic than that of MacArthur’s sermon that is herein critiqued.
We are not in total agreement with Dr. Waldron. He holds to a form of Augustinian amillennialism that sees no future conversion of the Jewish nation as a nation to Christ, we hold to a Puritan postmillennialism that sees, on the basis of Romans 11, a future restoration of the people of Israel to the Land and to faith in the true Messiah. Those wishing to read a commentary on Romans 11 from that perspective will find it in David Brown’s contribution to the Jamieson, Faussett and Brown Bible Commentary. We find David Brown’s writings on this point every bit as convincing as we find his book on the Second Advent of Christ.

Having made these necessary critical remarks, we find much to appreciate in Waldron’s book. He demonstrates that an unconscious dispensational tradition has distorted MacArthur’s understanding of Amillennialism, so that when MacArthur says that all Calvinists ought to be pre-mil, in fact what he is saying is that they ought to hold one particular brand of pre-mil teaching. Certainly he would not consider the teaching of Justin Martyr to be preferable to Amillennialism on this point. In fact, he would reject all the pre-mil teaching that existed before the Reformation, as there was a consensus at that time that the purpose of God for the Jewish nation had ceased. Those who wish to examine the veracity of this statement should consult David Brown’s ‘The Restoration of the Jews’, Iain Murray’s ‘The Puritan Hope’, and Peter Toon’s 1968 Puritan Conference paper ‘Puritan Eschatology: 1600 to 1648’. Unfortunately, like Dr. Barry Horner, MacArthur considers his brand of pre-millennial Dispensational teaching to be just ‘pre-mil’ on this point, when it is not. Waldron shows this clearly by appeals to history.

More, God willing, next time.

Dispensational Men of Straw Demolished: 4

We conclude our remarks with some little defence of what we have said.

The question will be asked “what then about Roman Catholic claims that they believe in salvation through grace? Do you believe them?” In one sense, yes. You see, the Reformers never claimed that Rome taught salvation apart from grace. The Council of Trent is explicit that men are never saved apart from grace. But there is a word missing from Rome that the Reformers affirmed: ALONE. Rome has never claimed to teach salvation by grace ALONE, or by faith ALONE. Rome is actually quite open and honest.

The ‘cults’ are another matter. They redefine words, and that is why they can make statements that sound quite protestant and sound, but are in fact anything but - because words like ‘grace’ and ‘works’ have been redefined.

Let us emphasise that we know it is very possible for a person to unconsciously deny that which they consciously affirm, but we are always very reluctant to consider this and to charge people with holding positions that they explicitly deny. We Particular Baptists are historically very reluctant to accept inferences from Scripture. WE are still more reluctant to accept inferences from people’s writings as definitions of what they believe, particularly inferences that they themselves would deny. This was an unwarranted and tyrannical procedure when the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland used it to condemn the Marrow of Modern Divinity for teaching antinomianism (it actually teaches against it), it is just as unwarranted today. Again, when men accused J.C. Philpot of antinomianism ’by inference’ though he preached against it, that was uncharitable. We believe that it is always uncharitable to accuse a man by inference alone, particularly when he denies the charge inferred. Let us give the example of the ‘Marrow’. A Moderate minister might say to Thomas Boston: “You high-flyers are antinomians! Look at that book, it teaches rank antinomianism.”
Boston: “Indeed, sir, it does not. Look, one of the characters in the book is an antinomian, and his views are roundly condemned.”
Moderate: “It may do so, but nevertheless, as I read it I find that throughout it tends towards the teaching that Christians are under no obligation to live a holy life.”
Boston: “I deny that inference. Antinomianism is a horrible doctrine that both I and that book stand against.”

Or Mr. Philpot:
A Wesleyan: “Mr. Philpot, you are an antinomian.”
Mr. Philpot: “No, sir, I am not. Indeed, I believe that should a man teach that a Christian may live as he will without reference to God’s demands, that man is a false teacher.”
Wesleyan: “You may say so, but by teaching that believers are not under the law, your teaching tends to antinomianism.”
Philpot: “I deny that inference, I think antinomianism to be the most pernicious of teaching, and have stood against it ever since I was called by God’s grace.”

There is a direct parallel, in our opinion, between the argument of our hypothetical Moderate and Wesleyan and that of Mr. Phillips. We think both are unfair and could be used in a devastating fashion against Mr. Phillips’ own side, just as Mr. Boston could have used it to argue that the Moderate was a legalist. But we prefer to act as Mr. Boston did and act according to that famous dictum:

“In all things Charity.”