English Latent Antinomianism

and it's effect on some churches

Introduction

In certain sections of the Dutch Session Churches in the North American context¹, there abides a deep love and esteem for the devotional writings of specific English, Strict and Particular Baptists. The most prominent being William Gadsby (1773–1844), Joseph Charles Philpot (1802 – 1869), and their theological mentor, William Huntington² (1745–1813). Much of what these men wrote were sermons and meditations pertaining to the daily struggles of the wounded and tried believer. To souls all over the globe, their words have become dearer than almost any other body of collected writings. We must be careful to give the Lord praise where praise is due; He has used these men's writings to help the bruised reed and smoking flax. The soul-searching and experiential words of comfort flowing from their pens have drawn out many a "dove in the cleft of the rock.” Much of their devotional and sermonic writings are to be lauded and read with profit, and we do not wish to take away anything good that the Lord has done by them.

Yet, Paul tells us in 1 Thessalonian 5:21 that we must "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good". The believer would fail to be Berean should he leave the strictures of the men we hold in such high esteem unexamined, especially since they do not come from our Reformed and Puritan tradition³. This paper will attempt to open the error of these men precisely at their point of danger, and remind the reader that "a little leaven, leaveneth the whole lump" (Galatians 5:9). It is no secret to most that the men we have mentioned have long been labeled antinomian. We will attempt to examine this charge by testing their own writings in light of the Word of God and the historic Reformed faith.

Definition

Antinomianism is a combination of two Greek words, ἀντί (Anti), meaning against, and νόμος (nomos), meaning law. Antinomianism denies the binding nature of the Law of God in its most comprehensive meaning, but also in more subtle nuances of the wider scriptures. The degree to which one agrees that the Law of God is no longer in force is the degree to which one is either antinomian or holds antinomian tenancies.

There are three basic kinds of Antinomianism historically.

(1) The Licentious Antinomian taught there is no law regarding human morality. Suppose one possessed inward purity, then external purity mattered little. Historically, Manichaean Gnosticism was this kind of Antinomianism. Followers of the heretic Manichaeus (216–276 AD) believed that the flesh was base, weak, and evil. And because the flesh was such, it didn't matter what the body did, as long as the spirit remained pure. St. Augustine was a notable convert from a life of revelry in Manichaean Gnosticism.

(2) The Practical Antinomian taught that since salvation is all of grace, the believer's security cannot be forfeited. Since Christ’s cross work secured salvation, and because He will lose none of His, there is no need for the believer to be concerned about sin. One may sin in whichever way he pleases because he is already forgiven. The Law then becomes, at best, a secondary thing and at worst, Old Testament bondage. Paul dealt extensively with this error in Romans 6, arguing against those who said they could sin "that grace may abound." The Practical Antinomian also believed that the more one sins, the more glorious grace becomes. The darker the heart is, the brighter the light of salvation shines. This thinking is obliquely connected to the "Lordship/Salvation" debate that raged in the late 1970s and early '80s.

(3) The Latent Antinomian is repulsed by both definitions. They passionately believe that the thought or act of willful and egregious sin, in light of Christ's sacrifice, is the devil’s work, and sins against love. The Latent Antinomian does believe in holiness. However, not by the Mosaic Law. He will argue that the only way one grows in conformity to Christ’s image is not by walking in the precepts of His Old Testament Law but by His New Testament Gospel. They teach that the believer, having entered salvation by the new and Living Way, is no longer bound to the Law of Moses but receives his direction from the Spirit, and example of the Gospel alone. Latent Antinomianism drives a sharp wedge between the Old and New Testaments, insisting that New Testament believers are under a new law called the "law of Christ."⁴ They entirely omit the Old Testament Law, and replace it with the New Testament Gospel. Therefore, the Gospel becomes the only standard for the believer.

Church history has taught us that there is a form of Antinomianism that parallels the Gospel wherever it is found. According to our last definition, Antinomianism's error is not as easy to spot as we might think. This is because certain kinds of antinomianism often borrow Reformed language, quote faithful authors, and appear to draw their argument from Scripture. It appears to stand on the finished work of Christ and teaches conformity to His image. We must also admit, it does not argue for any kind of licentiousness at all. Quite the opposite. But here we have a more incipient form of Antinomianism that reveals itself, only when it must. Further, we will discover that from the foundation of the first principles of Antinomianism, several other significant errors emerge. As we will see with Latent Antinomianism (also called English Antinomianism), not only is the abiding nature of the Law of God for the believer rejected, but they hold corollary dogmas that are equally dangerous.

A Brief History of Antinomianism

Antinomian was a term coined by Martin Luther while debating a fellow German by the name of Johannes Agricola (1492? -1566).⁵ Agricola came to Wittenberg to study under Luther in 1516. Luther's doctrine of justification by faith alone was liberating for Agricola, as it was for countless others. He heartily embraced Luther's tenants with all his being. To be fair, much of Luther's early writings about the believer's freedom from the condemnation of the Law would serve as a launching pad for Agricola's own error. In his earliest writings Luther, in opposition to the Roman Catholic system of salvation by works, rightly emphasized (overemphasized?), salvation apart from any duty or works of the law on the part of the sinner. People, being who they are, took this truth and abused it, teaching that the law of God was now defunct. Later, Luther would identify the danger that manifested and correct his emphasis. Mid and later, Luther preached what has come to be known as the first two uses of the Law of God: 1) the necessity of the Law of God in the conviction of sin, and 2) its moral force in restraining the evils of society. Luther never embraced what Calvin taught was the third use of the law. Calvin⁶,

The third use of the Law (being also the principal use, and more closely connected with its proper end) has respect to believers in whose hearts the Spirit of God already flourishes and reigns. For although the Law is written and engraven on their hearts by the finger of God, that is, although they are so influenced and actuated by the Spirit, that they desire to obey God, there are two ways in which they still profit in the Law. For it is the best instrument for enabling them daily to learn with greater truth and certainty what that will of the Lord is which they aspire to follow, and to confirm them in this knowledge; just as a servant who desires with all his soul to approve himself to his master, must still observe, and be careful to ascertain his master's dispositions, that he may comport himself in accommodation to them. Let none of us deem ourselves exempt from this necessity, for none have as yet attained to such a degree of wisdom, as that they may not, by the daily instruction of the Law, advance to a purer knowledge of the Divine will. Then, because we need not doctrine merely, but exhortation also, the servant of God will derive this further advantage from the Law: by frequently meditating upon it, he will be excited to obedience, and confirmed in it, and so drawn away from the slippery paths of sin. In this way must the saints press onward . . .

This is where a doctrine of imbalance began to manifest powerfully in Agricola's preaching and writings.⁷ Agricola rejected all three uses of the Law of God, but most empathetically, the third use.

In 1537 the first antinomian controversy broke out. Agricola began using Luther's early writings to teach that God's Law had no role to play in either the sinner's conversion or the believer's sanctification. He eclipsed Luther's language by insisting that the Law was no longer to be preached at all but was only for Israel, God’s people of old. All the sinner needed was the message of salvation that Christ had died for sinners. Grace was the principle in all his preaching, to the reprobate and believer alike. To Agricola, the Law had vanished.

During Agricola's ascendancy, Luther and the other Wittenberg professors increasingly opposed his antinomian teachings. Luther began to write and preach the abiding usefulness of the Law of God. At the same time, several private and public debates fleshed out Agricola's belief regarding the place of the Law in the Church. Agricola taught the Law of God was bondage to the believer. During these years, Agricola was privately and publicly admonished and urged to retract his errors. He claimed he had repeatedly done so, yet he always returned to his antinomian ideas.⁸ As official charges mounted against Agricola, he secretly fled Wittenberg in 1540 and became a court preacher in Berlin. On September 22, 1566, he died in Berlin during an epidemic of plague.

Over the next several hundred years, Antinomianism resurfaced in different forms, names, and places. Calvin did battle with Antinomianism through the Libertines (a far more egregious form of Antinomianism), and the Westminster era Divines waged war on Antinomianism as personified in the writings of Tobias Crisp, William Dell, John Eaton, and John Saltmarsh. The New England Puritans contended with it in the teachings of Ann Hutchinson. Finally, the faithful church in England waged war against Antinomianism through the writings of William Huntington and his theological disciples, William Gadsby, John Charles Philpot, and other Gospel Standard Magazine⁹ adherents.

The Piety of the English Latent Antinomian

The preachers of whom we speak taught that the Law of God was not given to be obeyed, but to awaken to sin. That’s the law’s only use. To awaken the sinner from their sleep of sin by its awful and dreaded curse. They taught that fallen man could not fulfill the Law's demands, and therefore, the Law has no element in it besides vengeful justice. Rightly, they insist that eternal death is unalterably attached to the law's breaking. Therefore, since justice must fall on someone, and for reasons hidden in the Divine Mind, Christ took the sinner's place as his substitute. So far, so good. But the Latent Antinomian goes further. Since Jesus bore the eternal wrath of the law, and freed the believer from its curse, ergo, by doing so, He freed the elect from any attachment to it whatsoever. The Law of God is dead for the believer. However, a new problem filled the void. The question arose; by what standard shall the New Testament believer walk? What will be his guide? The antinomian insists on a new inward principle of obedience implanted by the Spirit's work, the dictates of which are only found in the Gospel.

This contradicts the teaching of the Word of God and the Reformed tradition. In the line of the Reformed, the Puritan Samuel Bolton in, The True Bounds of Christian Freedom rightly said,¹⁰

We cry down the law in respect of justification, but we set it up as a rule of sanctification. The law sends us to the Gospel that we may be justified; and the Gospel sends us to the law again to inquire what is our duty as those who are justified." 

However, to the English Latent Antinomian, the law was and will always be contrary to the life of New Testament sanctification. They heavily criticize any preacher or teacher who would think like Bolton as being a legalist or a "letter-man."

We readily admit that many who teach this scheme are sincere Christians. As we have already pointed out, along with what is questionable in their teachings, many Gospel truths shine brightly from their writings in several other ways. This makes it difficult to criticize these men without appearing to oppose everything they wrote. We must not do so. These men, with good intentions, earnestly desired to point sinners to Christ. Yet, true Christian charity does not require us to endorse teaching that we believe to be false, or silent be silent concerning interpretations of Scripture that are misleading and even dangerous. A teacher's beautiful writing, or his ability to describe the soul, should not lead us to ignore errors, especially on vital subjects such as these. Paul says to the Galatians in 1:8, "Though we, or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you, than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed."

Reactionary Theology and the English Latent Antinomian

Doctrines of imbalance have always troubled the Church. Such errors begin when one truth shines too brightly above other equally important truths. Latent Antinomianism does just that. Here is a chart that shows the gradation of misconception about the Gospel of salvation in the Church. The darker the shade, the more dangerous the error. What has been nicknamed Calvinism is the Gospel line represented in white.

A balanced presentation of the Word of God respects all doctrines that speak to a particular subject. One example is Romans 11, where Paul highlights God's immutable character by opening both His saving and condemning acts, "Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God" (Roman 11:22). There has always been a natural human tendency to diminish one aspect of God's character and magnify another. For instance, some tend to sentimentalize God's love and overlook His absolute holiness. Others emphasize God's righteousness to such an extent that His grace and compassion are obliterated. Doing so makes it entirely possible to portray God as relentlessly threatening, and forget He is also tender and merciful. Or portray Him as so merciful that He is never just. As Paul points out in this passage, the Gospel line is to understand God in both attributes of goodness and severity. Why? His anger alerts the sinner, and His mercy draws the sinner. Both contribute to true repentance, sincere faith, or, sadly, righteous condemnation. This same eclipsing effect can be traced in the preaching and teaching of Gadsby, Philpot, Huntington, and the Gospel Standard Magazine regarding the Law, justification, and the appropriation of grace. There is such an emphasis placed on the sovereignty of God that there is a complete exclusion of human responsibility.

The Parts of English Latent Antinomianism

There are several components to English Latent Antinomianism. The first is denying the eternal nature of the Law of God and its usefulness. Beyond its condemning power. Several related subcategories of error also identify English Latent Antinomianism. They are: Justification from Eternity, a denial of Duty-Faith, and a rejection of the Free Offer of the Gospel. The next section will look at each of these errors in more detail.

The Law of God as a Rule for the Believer

A new believer, now freed from the curse of the Law by faith, begins to learn the impulses of the Spirit's work in the soul. He becomes caught between two bleedings of the heart toward God and His Law: one fear, the other love. When one is born again, there is no immediate, total sanctification in the soul. The Old Man is dying a sure death, and the New Man is rising in newness of life. Because of this, there is now a need for direction in those things that are pleasing to the Lord, and those things destructive to the soul. This is how David, the Sweet Psalmist of Israel, sings in Psalm 119:29, "Remove from me the way of lying: and grant me thy law graciously." As a child of God, David spends 176 verses extolling the law of God as love, light, and fellowship. The Latent Antinomian wipes it all away. But if all uses of the Law are removed for the new believer, as the Latent Antinomian insists, he runs the risk of crashing into sin like a freight train freed from its rails. The Ten Commandments are not ten arbitrary rules for righteousness. The Ten Commandments are ten perfect representations of Jehovah's eternal Character. As rails give direction to the train, so the Law of God is designed to direct the believer's conformity to the immutable and eternal nature of God Himself.¹¹ Because disobedience derails and destroys, it becomes clear that the Law is a blessing of immense value. That is why David could sing. The soul that despises the law is in immediate danger, and the theology which teaches it is a runaway train. Jesus is a Redeemer to save but also a Lawgiver to guide. "If ye love me, keep my commandments" (John 14:15).

It would go beyond the purview of this paper to trace the connection between the roots of antinomianism in Luther's debates with Agricola, Calvin's debates with the Libertines, Rutherford's battle with Saltmarsh and Crisp, then finally come down to John Huntington, William Gadsby, and J.C. Philpot. However, there is a clear connection between Huntington and the Gospel Standard men to Latent Antinomianism that needs a brief explanation, especially as it pertains to the Law of God in the life of the believer.

The Congregationalist Nonconformist John Saltmarsh (born Yorkshire, died 1647) significantly influenced John Huntington,¹² who republished and prefaced, after almost 200 years of obscurity, Saltmarsh's thoroughly antinomian work titled, Free Grace; or The Flowing of Christ's Blood Freely to Sinners. Huntington, who lavishly praised this work, was a major influence on the thinking, writing, and preaching of William Gadsby (1773–1844), editor of the Gospel Standard from 1835 - 1840, and J.C. Philpot, the editor from 1849 - 1869.13 Both of these men, while Baptists (Huntington was a pedobaptist), learned much from the written sermons and letters of the old English Latent Antinomian.

William Huntington S.S (1745 – 1813)

William Huntington was a nonconformist coalheaver and preacher in England. He was an intelligent, highly gifted man who often preached before thousands, comprised of nobility and commoners alike.

Philpot, after confessing that the best men he ever knew were "Huntingtonians" writes,¹³

His views of the Law, at that time novel, his bold declaration that it was not a rule of life to believers, his strong and stern denunciation of the legal preachers of his day, the keen way in which he ripped up their arguments in his controversial writings, and the uncompromising language in which he laid bare their erroneous views, unmasking at the same time their profession and showing how ignorant they were not only of the truth of God but of any saving light in their own souls, provoked their wrath, and goaded them almost to madness. Knowing nothing for themselves of the sweet liberty of the Gospel, of a revelation of Christ, of a living faith in his Person and work, or of any union or communion with him, and resting all their hopes, if not professedly, yet really on a broken Law, or at the utmost on the bare letter of the word, they were naturally stung to the quick to see all their religion brushed away by him as a spider's web. He took away their gods, and what had they more? He broke up their idol, and with it fell both their countenance and their hope.

Though Huntington was called a "High Calvinist"¹⁴ many became concerned that he was, in fact, an antinomian. Huntington often tried to defect the antinomian charges, usually by redefining it. Notice his definition,¹⁵

A real Antinomian, in the sight of God, is one who "holds the truth in unrighteousness;" who has gospel notions in his head, but no grace in his heart. He is one that makes a profession of Christ Jesus, but was never purged by his blood, renewed by his Spirit, nor saved by his power. With him carnal ease passes for gospel peace; a natural assent of the mind for faith; insensibility for liberty; and daring presumption for the grace of assurance. He is alive without the law, the sentence of the 'moral law' having never been sent home to him. The 'law of faith' was never sealed on him, the 'law of truth' was never received by him, nor the 'law of liberty' proclaimed to him. He was never arraigned at, nor taken from, the 'throne of judgment'. He was never justified at the 'throne of grace', nor acquitted at the 'bar of equity'. The tremendous attribute of righteousness was never seen or felt by him. The righteousness of the law was never fulfilled by him; the righteousness of faith was never imputed to him; nor the fruits of righteousness brought forth by him. He is an enemy to the power of God, to the experience of the just, and to every minister of the Spirit; and is in union with none but hypocrites, whose uniting ties are 'the gall of bitterness and the bonds of iniquity'. He is one that often changes his opinion, but was never changed in heart. He turns to many sects and parties, but never turns to God. In word he is false to Satan, in heart he is false to God; false to Satan by uttering truth, and false to God by a false profession. He is a false reprover in the world, and in the household of faith a false brother. He is a child of Satan in the congregation of dissemblers, and a bastard in the congregation of the righteous. By mouth he contends for a covenant that cannot save him, and in heart he hates the covenant that can. His head is at Mount Calvary, his heart and soul at Mount Sinai. he is a Pharisee at Horeb, and a hypocrite in Zion. He is a transgressor of the law of works, and a rebel to the law of faith; a sinner by the ministry of the letter, and an unbeliever by the ministry of the Spirit. As a wicked servant, he is cursed by the eternal law; and, as an infidel, he is damned by the everlasting Gospel. And this is a real Antinomian in the sight of God.    

Huntington's definition is not the historical understanding of Antinomianism, defined by Luther and agreed upon by countless others throughout history. This self-serving definition is better suited for the criticism of Sandemanianism.¹⁶ According to Luther, Antinomianism is setting aside the binding obligation of the Law of God. Huntington sets aside the binging obligation of the Law of God. Huntington is an Antinomian.

Here is Huntington again:¹⁷

And you say the law is binding, and that the believer is under the law as his rule of life; you might just as well have stuck to the old text, for it amounts exactly to the same, nor doth your different way of expression alter the matter. Their need of keeping the law of Moses is your binding law as a rule of life; it is the spirit of legal bondage that obliges and binds you; and it was the same that influenced those who made it needful; different names make no alteration in the things.

He goes on to say, ¹⁸

[A]nd they do no less than tempt God and subvert the souls of believers, who tell them the law is binding, and that they are under it as a rule of life, for God has given them no such commandment. Nor can men expect that the broad seal of heaven should attend a ministry that tempts God and subverts the souls of His saints, when it is expressly said that it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to the apostles, to lay on them no such burden. However, this is the way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death, Prov. 14:12; it is turning people from grace to works; from the liberty of the Spirit to the bondage of the law; from the law of the Spirit of life to the law of death. Liberty and bondage, grace and works, Christ's yoke and the yoke of Moses, the true light and the old veil, death and life, can never stand together, one must give way; grace shall reign, and Moses must be subject.

Finally, Huntington says,¹⁹

He knows the law is the snare of death, that has entangled all the prey which that artful fowler has caught. This law is the sinner's adversary that entangles him in his sin, and delivers him to the judge; and the just judge delivers him by the law to the tormentors.

William Gadsby agrees with Huntington when he writes in a letter of correspondence to an inquirer,²⁰

Dear Sir, Friend G. informs me you wish me to write to you, and inform you what law it is that I say the believer is in no sense under. I therefore write to say (though I cannot help thinking you must know) that it is the law given to Moses on Mount Sinai, commonly called the moral law, or ten commandments, recorded in Exodus 20, and hinted at, with its curses annexed to it, in Deut 27. This is the law I intend, and do venture to say that the believer in Christ is in no sense whatever under it; so that it is not a rule of life to that man who is led by the Spirit.

Gadsby has some harsh things to say regarding the pedagogue of the Law that Paul mentions in Galatians 3:24. Notice he does not comment on the word παιδαγωγό (which was a dearly loved person to the Jewish household) but rushed to the italics. He ventures to undo the natural sense of the text for his purpose.²¹

“The law is our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ." So it reads; but if you will refer to your Bibles you will see the words "to bring us" are in italics, showing that they are not in the original. "The law worketh wrath," therefore cannot bring us to Christ. It rushes up to a man, if I may so speak, takes him by the throat, and says, "Pay me what thou owest".

How contrary that is to Calvin, who commented on the same verse,²²

But here the question is again put, Is the law so abolished that we have nothing to do with it? I answer, the law, so far as it is a rule of life, a bridle to keep us in the fear of the Lord, a spur to correct the sluggishness of our flesh, -- so far, in short, as it is "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that believers may be instructed in every good work," (2 Timothy 3:16, 17,)-- is as much in force as ever, and remains untouched.

Joseph Charles Philpot (1802 – 1869)

The English Latent Antinomian fortifies his position through claiming that Scripture teaches a more ancient Royal Law which predates the Law of Moses. The Lord is King and issues commands outside the Decalogue. (See 1 Co 4:20; 6:9-10; 15:24; 15:50; Gal 5:21; Eph 5:5; 1 Thess 2:12; 2 Thess 1:5; 2 Tim 4:1, 18; Col 1:13, 4;11; 2 Tim 4:1, 18; Heb 1:8; 11:33; 12:25, 28; Jas 2:5; 2 Pt 1:11).

There are several examples of the English Latent Antinomian's understanding that the Gospel replaces the Law as the standard for the believer. Read how J.C. Philpot interprets Psalm 119:32, where David proclaims, "I will run the way of thy commandments, when thou shalt enlarge my heart". In this sermon, Philpot says that "David was no legalist--he was no Arminian perfectionist", hinting that those that use the Law of God as the standard of holiness are such. He then goes on to inform the reader how the believer "runs the way of God's commandments":²³

1. The Lord commands us to BELIEVE in the name of His dear Son...2. Another commandment is, to REPENT...3. God commands us "to LOVE one another"...4. The Lord commands us to DENY OURSELVES, take up the cross, put off the old man, and walk as becomes the Gospel... 5. So with the ORDINANCES, the ordinances of the Lord's house– baptism and the Lord's supper...6. So with respect to EVERY PRECEPT of the Gospel.

Philpot's new interpretation of "running the way of God's commandments" is contrary to all Reformed teachings.²⁴ He concludes this section of his sermon by saying,²⁵

"There is no running in any other way. All other service is mere legalism; all other obedience is but the froth and spawn of free-will, nothing but the 'mere natural obedience' of the creature, not the 'spiritual obedience' of the child of God."

Another example of Philpot's clear antinomian exegesis is found in a sermon preached at Gower Street Chapel, London, on Lord's Day Evening, June 21, 1868, titled, Pilgrim's Hunger and Pilgrim's Food.²⁶ The text was Deuteronomy 8:2,3:

And thou shalt remember all the way which the Lord thy God led thee these forty years in the wilderness, to humble thee, and to prove thee, to know what was in thine heart, whether thou wouldest keep his commandments, or no. And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the Lord doth man live.

Exegetically,²⁷ three pericopes confront the reader in this passage:

1. Remembering God, 2. Remembering His Commandments. 3. Remembering His Manna.

Much of what Philpot has to say in this sermon regarding "Remembering" and "The Manna" is praiseworthy and rich. The subtlety of the error will go almost undetected by the reader because of the rich experiential truth in the sermon. But Philpot's error is remarkable, if not breathtaking. If we keep in mind that when Israel heard "keep his commandments, or no," it echoed the thunderous Voice of Sinai's peeling warning, to keep Jehovah's law. (Deuteronomy 5:23; 11:13,14). Yet here, Philpot sets forth a novel interpretation, eisegetically²⁸ applying an understanding that suits his antinomian presuppositions. Instead of reminding the reader that it is the Spirit alone that can cause the believer to walk in the way of God's commandments (not as a means to salvation, but as evidence of the Spirit's indwelling), and then move to the appropriate secondary application to which his words are well suited, Philpot replaces the natural exegetical meaning of with an eisegetical antinomian interpretation. After quoting Deuteronomy 8:2, where contextually the זכר "remembering" is in direct relation to keeping מצוה "his commandments," Philpot writes,²⁹

He does not enforce it as a legal precept. I look upon Deuteronomy as the Gospel of the Pentateuch; it is so full of spiritual blessings. When therefore he says, "Thou shalt remember," it does not come with the peals of Sinai; it does not blaze, as it were, from that burning mount, as a precept to be fulfilled under the penalty of a curse.

What then will Philpot replace "remembering" the commandments with? He can’t leave it empty. So, he fills it.³⁰

But "thou shalt remember," when the divine Remembrancer brings it to thy recollection: when that heavenly Teacher shines upon thy path, and brings it to thy memory. And thus, in true Christian experience, it may be said to a child of God, 'Remember that the Lord appeared for thee on this occasion, and that he appeared for thee on that occasion; that he met thee in prayer; that he blessed thee in hearing; that he gave thee a visit upon thy bed; that he shone into thy breast in thy chimney corner; that he applied his promises to thy heart; that some sweet passage of his word broke in upon and melted thy soul.'

What he has written here might be an ordinal application of the passage from a pastoral vantage point, but it hardly represents the passage contextually or exegetically. Philpot has misinterpreted and misapplied the plain teaching of the Word of God.

Likewise in his sermon, The Patience and Faith of the Saints, taken from Revelation 14:4, Philpot once more completely rewrites the meaning.³¹

But, perhaps, the matter will be a little clearer, if I show you what are the commandments of God, and what it is to keep them, as God would have them kept. Let me then show you some of them, for I cannot point out all the commandments of God and how we keep them.

Now, in the very same way he opened up the previous passage, he vacates the primary meaning of the word as it is found in the text, and stuffs a new meaning inside its skin. He defines ἐντολή "commandments" in this passage as:

1. One commandment of God was that the Gospel should be preached, according to those words—"Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature."  
2. So when Jesus says, "Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest," I keep his commandment by coming to him for this blessing, for "his commandments are not grievous," but full of mercy and love.  3. In a similar way, when I repent of my sins and feel godly sorrow for them; when I am favoured with true contrition of heart and brokenness of spirit, and have that godly sorrow which needs not to be repented of, I am keeping the commandment of God,who bids me in his word repent of my sins.  
4. So when we love the family of God; when our heart goes forth in tender affection to those in whom we see the image of Jesus, we keep the commandment of God.  
5. When you seek the Lord's face for every blessing, watch his hand in every movement of life, live to his glory, come out of the world, and separate yourself from all evil to be his saint and servant; you keep the commandment of God.  
6. In the same way, also, when we set his word as the rule of our conduct; desire to know his will and do it; seek to please him and not ourselves or one another, but make his will to be our will, and his word our guide and monitor, then we keep the commandments of God.  He concluded this section by saying, "And these, be it observed, are not harsh, rigid commandments, thundered into our ears and conscience by a condemning law. They are sweet commandments; and carry with them their own blessing."

Lastly, consider Romans 8:1-4:

There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

Here the English Antinomian desires to split the word nomos, "law" in two: The Decalogue and the Royal Law, which is the Gospel. But sound exegesis will not allow it. There is a complete misreading of the text and great harm done when we are led to believe that the nomos taught here is obedience "to the precepts of the gospel."

We see this taught in a sermon on this text by Philpot titled, Sin Condemned and Righteousness Fulfilled. After pointing out to the hearer that the Law was weak through the flesh, Philpot turns the law out in its spiritual application and replaces it with something different. He goes on, in the verse preceding our text, to try and show how "the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus," meaning thereby the grace of God in the heart, the teaching of the Holy Spirit in the soul, which was to him a law, had made him free from the law of sin and death under which he had groaned.

Notice the subtlety in the phrase, "which was to him a law." What exactly was "to him a law"? "The grace of God in the heart." Now, it is not expressly untrue as a statement unless there is a removal of the Law from its context. Which there is. Philpot takes the word νόμος here, meaning the 10 Commandments, and simply replaces it with no explination; making the law that Paul is referring to as "the teaching of the Holy Spirit in the soul" apart from the Decalogue.

He goes on to say,³²

As, then, under these divine influences he walks after the Spirit, he is fulfilling the righteousness required by the law, for this blessed Spirit, breathing into his heart love to God and love to man, fulfils in him this righteousness, and that not only inwardly and experimentally, but outwardly and openly before God and man, by leading him into the ways of righteousness, and making him obedient to the precepts of the Gospel..."

Repeatedly in the writings of the English Antinomian, the Law of God is replaced by "the teaching of the Spirit" and the "precepts of the gospel", as the rule for the believer in the walk of faith.

But how does one quantify these laws? What are they? Philpot answers that question ambiguously, "Let me then show you some of them, for I cannot point out all the commandments of God and how we keep them."

Historical Understanding of the Use of the Law for the Believer

In Romans 3, 7, and 8, we are meant to understand that the Law, in and of itself, could do nothing saving for the believer. We must not be mistaken here; the soul has no righteousness by any works he performs. The Law can never save. There is no righteousness outside of Christ. Yet as Paul rightly points out, the believer was made righteous in Christ at the cross and is eternally kept righteous through vital union with Him (John 15). Paul is teaching that the principle of regeneration now enables the believer to preform that very νόμος which was, up until now, only bondage to him. The very same νόμος, that was once a condemning letter, has now become spiritual, beautiful, and loved (Romans 7:14,22). Before regeneration, it could never make him moral because the Law was the strength of sin (and death by corruption), being weak through the flesh. Yet, once that sin in the flesh was condemned, and the soul made vicariously righteous in and through the finished work of Christ, the righteousness of the νόμος is now performed in him as he walks according to the Spirit. He was weak after the flesh, and thus to the works of the Law, but now with a new principle within (regeneration or the new birth) by the power of the Holy Spirit, he is established unto the doing of the νόμος, though imperfectly so. Thus, the believer has a legal an alien righteousness (by the law) that Christ imputed by faith, well as a new principle of righteousness in the life of faith to grow by (also the law). We could put this in a logical "then and now" syllogism; then, unable to do the works of God unto salvation, but now by the Spirit's work, able to perform the works of the Law according to the measure of sanctification wrought in him. Now, the believer is truly righteous after the inner man. Now, not only does he serve and delight in the Law inwardly, but he also begins to walk in that same Law by the Spirit. That is to say, by Christ’s effectual power, as He works the grace, faith, and obedience into the soul, He also gives the will to perform it.

Contrary to the English Antinomian's teaching, there are not two laws at variance with each other in Romans, but a single Law experienced from two vantage points. To the Antinomian, "the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus", the "royal law", which is the "perfect law of liberty," and "the law of faith," is in contradistinction to the Ten Commandments. They claim it is a "new gospel law" found in Jeremiah 31:33, "I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people." However, Jeremiah 31 argues for us, not against us, if we look at the context once more. Jeremiah 31 speaks about the outward (the Law according to the tables of stone), moving it inward, pressing upon the heart of flesh by the Spirit in regeneration. The context of Jeremiah 31 makes it unequivocally plain, "I will put my law in their inward parts". What law would Israel be thinking about? What is the only Law in the Word of God ever called "my law" by Jehovah? It is without question the Decalogue. So, in Jeremiah 31 and Romans 3, 7 and 8, the law mentioned is no different from the moral Law of God. That is to say, in these chapters, we are taught that, upon regeneration, a new principle takes root and begins to grow, that enables the believer, inwardly and outwardly, to praise, worship, honor, and obey Christ as Lord and King according to the Law of Moses. The very Law that was once dead, external, condemnatory, servile, and ritualistic, is now the joy of the child of God. Psalm 119:48 "My hands also will I lift up unto thy commandments, which I have loved; and I will meditate in thy statutes." The Latent Antinomian would never sing such a song.

Remember, if the moral Law (Ten Commandments) can be encapsulated within, and summed up by the Royal Law ("thou shalt love the Lord thy God and thy neighbor as thyself"), then Spirit-wrought obedience to this commandment has fulfilled the righteousness of all other commandments. This is why Jesus said to His disciples, "If you love Me, keep My commandments." Contrary to Paul, Philpot makes the law void through faith. But the Spirit does not. No, according to Paul, we ιστωμεν νομον, we "establish the law" (Romans 3:31). Now, it is spiritual. Now it is desirable. Now it no longer condemns. Now it directs. Now the believer can say with David "O how love I thy law! it is my meditation all the day." (Psalm 119:97). He can say with Paul, "For I delight in the law of God after the inward man" (Romans 7:22).

What has been demonstrated in this section is the uniform explanation and application given, not only by Philpot but every English Antinomian when he comes to a passage that points to the Ten Commandments as being the rule of life for the believer. This forced doctrine is contrary to the plain exegesis of the Word of God and the Reformed Confessions. The Heidelberg Catechism places the Law of God firmly under the heading of the Christian's thankfulness and asks:³³³⁴

The Westminster Confession of Faith says on the Law of God:

Question 114. But can those who are converted to God perfectly keep these commandments?

Answer: No: but even the holiest men, while in this life, have only a small beginning of this obedience; yet so, that with a sincere resolution they begin to live, not only according to some, but all the commandments of God.

Question 115. Why will God then have the ten commandments so strictly preached, since no man in this life can keep them?

Answer: First, that all our lifetime we may learn more and more to know our sinful nature, and thus become the more earnest in seeking the remission of sin, and righteousness in Christ; likewise, that we constantly endeavour and pray to God for the grace of the Holy Spirit, that we may become more and more conformable to the image of God, till we arrive at the perfection proposed to us, in a life to come.

The Westminster Larger Catechism elaborates:

Q. 97. What special use is there of the moral law to the regenerate?

A. Although they that are regenerate, and believe in Christ, be delivered from the moral law as a covenant of works, so as thereby they are neither justified nor condemned; yet, besides the general uses thereof common to them with all men, it is of special use, to show them how much they are bound to Christ for his fulfilling it, and enduring the curse thereof in their stead, and for their good; and thereby to provoke them to more thankfulness, and to express the same in their greater care to conform themselves thereunto as the rule of their obedience.

So, we can see how the English Latent Antinomian's view of the place of the Law of God is contrary to the plain exegesis of the Word of God, and the historic understanding of the Reformed Church. They have not held to the "form of sound words" as Paul commanded his spiritual in 2 Timothy 1:13. There is a clear violation of all sound, contextual, and exegetical principles so the antinomian can undo the binding nature of the Law of God.

This we hope has demonstrated the fundamental error of the English Latent Antinomian as it pertains to the Law of God. Now a new problem appears: if we do not catch the subtleties of this error, what other misleading doctrines are taught by this methodology? By eagerly and unguardedly consuming these authors, we accidentally open ourselves up to several other Latent Antinomian unorthodoxies.

The Decrees of God and Supralapsarianism

Decrees of God

English Latent Antinomianism emphasizes God's will of decree at the expense of His will of precept.³⁵ They reason that, God's real purpose in dealing with man, will only be discovered by peeking behind the curtain of His secret decree. Therefore, certain passages are bypassed and never preached on. Their reasoning goes like this; "If God truly wanted the hearer to obey a given command or precept, His sovereignty would bring it to pass by decree. Since He did not bring it about by decree, it is not what He truly desires. If it is not what He truly desires, we need not pay attention to it". Thus, all Bible texts that contain a precept are passed over or reinterpreted (as above) through the lens of the secret will of God. By this deduction, countless passages are never preached on, creating a form of Latent Antinomianism reasoned from the Calvinistic position of sovereignty. This immediately brings us to the order of the decree of man's creation, fall, and salvation, also known as the infralapsarian vs. supralapsarian debate.

The effects of the Decree: An Inordinate Supralapsarianism39

Both infra- and supra- lapsarianism deal with the logical order of God's decree pertaining to the salvation of man, before creation. The terms are Latin; supra (before), and infra (after) the lapsus (fall). B.B Warfield's The Plan of Salvation³⁶ has perhaps the best treatment of the lapsarian debate in the English language.

Supralapsarianism teaches that the logical order in the mind of God before the fall, as it pertains to salvation, was that the decree to elect, preceded the decree to create and permit the Fall. The supralapsarian view of the order of the decree is as follows: election, creation, fall, redemption. Supralapsarian theologians and notable pastors were Beza, Gomarus, Zanchius, Ursinus, Perkins, Twiss, Rutherford, Vietius, Witsisus, Comrie, John Gill, A.W. Pink, H. Hoeksema, G.H. Kersten, and Gordon Clark.³⁷ Infralapsarianism teaches that the logical order in the mind of God before the fall, as it pertains to salvation, was that the decree to create, precedes the decree to elect and permit the Fall. The infralapsarian view of the order of the decree is as follows: creation, fall, election, redemption. Infralapsarian's include Francis Turrerin, Wilhelmus à Brakel, John Owen, Thomas Brooks, Jonathan Edwards, W. G. T. Shedd, Charles Hodge, L. Boettner. Both sides claim John Calvin. The Three Forms of Unity are decidedly infra in their language, while the Westminster Standards gave latitude to both views but leaned infralapsarian.³⁸

Supralapsarians believe that election governs all aspects of life, and that reprobation is a volitional act of divine sovereignty, and only secondarily, an act of divine justice. The reason this is important is all English Latent Antinomians are modified supralapsarians, as we will see. By logical deduction, the order of the decree to an Antinomian is election, redemption, creation, and fall. Some argue that any lapsation debate is a tempest in a teacup. Still, we will see that the view one holds regarding the decrees of God are of tremendous practical importance as it relates to conversion and the preaching of the Gospel. We note this doctrine because it is one component of the more significant conclusion we will come to later in our closing. This brings us to the hypothesis of the English Antinomian's view of redemption, the doctrine called Justification from Eternity.

Justification from Eternity

"The Antinomians erroneously hold, that we are justified from eternity. This doctrine is a key which opens the door to all licentiousness."³⁹ English Antinomians thankfully do not walk through that door, but they do open it.

When we begin to put these theological pieces together, (conflating God's will of decree and precept and a modified supralapsarianism), it necessarily leads to the belief in justification from eternity, a grave error. All Latent Antinomian authors hold to this erroneous doctrine.⁴⁰ The question boils down to this: Is God's decree in eternity past a decree to justify, or a decree that justifies? This is of monumental importance. Latent Antinomians believe that the elect's actual and total justification occurred before they took their first breath, in eternity, long before Christ's blood was shed. Philpot says, "If ever they had seen Christ's righteousness, or the beauty and grandeur of those covenant engagements, whereby the church stood justified in Christ from all eternity, they would not call imputed righteousness 'imputed nonsense.'"⁴¹

If we follow it logically, the ramification of this line of thinking means that there was no enmity (hostility) between the elect sinner and God, at any time. Thus, the doctrine of propitiation⁴² is denied in practice. J.C. Philpot writes:

Against the persons of the elect there was, in the mind of God, no vindictive wrath, no penal anger...There is, then, no such reconciliation of God as to make Him love those whom He did not love before, for He loved the elect from all eternity in Christ, their covenant—head.

In his work on The Doctrine of Reconciliation, A.W. Pink dedicates his entire introduction and first chapter to this error. In sighting the quote above, Pink says that Philpot's error,⁴³

...seems a strange medley, lacking in perspicuity and betraying confusion of thought in the mind of its composer. First, Mr. Philpot considered that the language of the New Testament does not warrant the expression "A reconciled God." Second, he felt that to affirm a reconciliation on God's part to us would imply an alteration of purpose in Him and as though the Atonement changed His mind "From displeasure to mercy and grace." Then he evidently feared he was coming very close to the ground occupied by the Socinians; so, third, he allowed that the work of Christ was both a "sacrifice" and a "propitiation." But "a propitiation" is the very thing which is needed to conciliate one who is offended!

The seriousness of this error can clearly be seen. In his sermon, The Heart's Desire of Every Living Soul, Philpot writes,⁴⁴

Remember me, O Lord, with the favour that thou bearest unto thy people." There is a "favour," then, that God "bears to his people." And what sort of "favour" is this? It is eternal favour. He never had anything else but favour to them: he loved them from eternity; his heart, his affections were eternally fixed upon them.

Gadsby does not let Philpot stand alone in this claim, writing,⁴⁵

I believe that all his people were eternally in him; and when he came from heaven, all his elect were in him. Jesus is God's bread for them. He is the food of their souls; they were never separate from him, but were all set apart in him, chosen in him, accepted in him, and blessed in him.

Blessed be the Lord, who hath chosen us in him, and not out of him. As Jude says, "Sanctified by God the Father, preserved in Christ Jesus, and called." So that our calling is a proof we are preserved. In what sense are we preserved? "According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world." Did Christ lose any of his people? No; they were preserved in him from all eternity. In old Adam they all fell; but in Christ they never fell. 

After quoting Paul in Romans 8, where the apostle was clearly teaching justification in time, Gadsby replaces the natural meaning of the word "now" with the imposition of justification from eternity.⁴⁶

But were he to deny the objects of his love, he would deny himself; for they are one with him, "bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh." "Now are we the sons of God." It was now when the apostle wrote his epistle, it was now in eternity past, and it will be now in eternity to come.

This interpretation now limits precisely to whom the Gospel will be sent. Who? None but the elect. This leads to another error, a denial of the Free Offer of the Gospel. To outline this error, we will turn to the official formularies of the English Antinomian, the Articles of Faith of the Gospel Standard Magazine.

The Free Offer of the Gospel

Article 29⁴⁷

While we believe that the Gospel is to be preached in or proclaimed to all the world, as in Mark 16:15, we deny offers of grace; that is to say, that the Gospel is to be offered indiscriminately to all. (2 Cor. 4:3-4.)

In attempting to unseat The Gospel Standard Article against the Free Offer, we could go to the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Three forms of Unity. However, in this section, we will look at the wellspring writings of John Calvin himself, the Apostle of Free Grace. In doing so, we hope to cut to the root of the English Antinomian, as they claim to be true Calvinists.⁴⁸ What will become plain is they go well beyond Calvin himself. Considering the copious amount of material Calvin wrote on the subject, we have chosen to cite multiple passages from a cross-section of Calvin's sermons and commentaries over a wide disbursement of books. This ought to give an overwhelming sense of Calvin's teaching on the subject, and place the Gospel Standard firmly outside the historic Reformed and Puritan tradition. The relevant sections have been bolded, but a greater context is also allotted for clarity.

Comments on John 3:16

It is a remarkable commendation of faith, that it frees us from everlasting destruction. For he intended expressly to state that, though we appear to have been born to death, undoubted deliverance is offered to us by the faith of Christ; and, therefore, that we ought not to fear death, which otherwise hangs over us. And he has employed the universal term whosoever, both to invite all indiscriminately to partake of life, and to cut off every excuse from unbelievers. Such is also the import of the term World, which he formerly used; for though nothing will be found in the world that is worthy of the favor of God, yet he shows himself to be reconciled to the whole world, when he invites all men without exception to the faith of Christ, which is nothing else than an entrance into life.

Let us remember, on the other hand, that while life is promised universally to all who believe in Christ, still faith is not common to all. For Christ is made known and held out to the view of all, but the elect alone are they whose eyes God opens, that they may seek him by faith.

Comments on 2 Peter 3:9

But the Lord is not slack, or, delays not. He checks extreme and unreasonable haste by another reason, that is, that the Lord defers his coming that he might invite all mankind to repentance… But it may be asked, If God wishes none to perish, why is it that so many do perish? To this my answer is, that no mention is here made of the hidden purpose of God, according to which the reprobate are doomed to their own ruin, but only of his will as made known to us in the Gospel. For God there stretches forth his hand without a difference to all, but lays hold only of those, to lead them to himself, whom he has chosen before the foundation of the world.

Comment on Matthew 23:37

Seeing that in His Word He calls all alike to salvation, and this is the object of preaching, that all should take refuge in His faith and protection, it is right to say that He wishes all to gather to Him. Now the nature of the Word shows us that here there is no description of the secret counsel of God – just His wishes. Certainly those whom He wishes effectively to gather, He draws inwardly by His Spirit, and calls them not merely by man's outward voice. If anyone objects that it is absurd to split God's will, I answer that this is exactly our belief, that His will is one and undivided: but because our minds cannot plumb the profound depths of His secret election to suit our infirmity, the will of God is set before us as double.

Comments on John 17:9

He openly declares that He does not pray for the world, for He is solicitous only for His own flock [the disciples] which He received from the Father's hand. But this might seem absurd; for no better rule of prayer can be found than to follow Christ as our Guide and Teacher. But we are commanded to pray for all, and Christ Himself afterwards prayed for all indiscriminately, 'Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.' I reply, the prayers which we utter for all are still limited to God's elect. We ought to pray that this and that and every man may be saved and so embrace the whole human race, because we cannot yet distinguish the elect from the reprobate…we pray for the salvation of all whom we know to have been created in God's image and who have the same nature as ourselves; and we leave to God's judgment those whom He knows to be reprobate.

Synoptic Gospels 1:116

God invites all indiscriminately to salvation through the Gospel, but the ingratitude of the world is the reason why this grace, which is equally offered to all, is enjoyed by few.

Comments on Acts 1

As no man is excluded from calling upon God, the gate of salvation is set open to all men; neither is there any other thing which keepeth us back from entering in, save only our own unbelief.

Comment on John 3:13-18

God …shows himself to be reconciled to the whole world, when he invites all men without exception to faith in Christ …For Christ is made known and held out to the view of all, but the elect alone are they whose eyes God opens, that they may seek him by faith.

Comment on Isaiah 54

The Gospel is to be preached indiscriminately to the elect and to the reprobate: but the elect alone come to Christ, because they have been taught of God.

With this sampling of quotes from the Magisterial Reformer John Calvin himself, it should become readily apparent that Article 29 of The Gospel Standard is not congruent with the line Calvin established from the Word of God, and whom Philpot called, "a bulwark against error, and a guide into the truth as it is in Jesus.”

Denial of Duty Faith

Article 29⁴⁹

We deny duty-faith and duty-repentance - these terms signifying that it is every man's duty spiritually and savingly to repent and believe. We deny also that there is any capability in man by nature to any spiritual good whatever. So that reject the doctrine that men in a state of nature should be exhorted to believe in or turn to God. 

Another distinguishing mark of English Latent Antinomianism is the denial of what has come to be known as duty-faith. Duty-faith is neither a biblical nor confessional term. It’s a moniker coined to disparage what the English Antinomian believes is a significant error; that the unbeliever must obey the command to repent and believe in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.

We must be clear. Those who deny duty-faith never intended to minimize the sin of unbelief. The purpose of formulating this doctrine was to safeguard the biblical teaching of the total depravity of man, and the absolute sovereignty of God. The Latent Antinomian rightly understands that man in his natural state is dead in trespasses and sins and possesses no power to exercise the spiritual acts of faith and repentance. They clearly teach that fallen man has neither the power, will, nor inclination to do anything for his spiritual good. The denial of duty-faith stands boldly against the error of Arminianism, which teaches that man has the innate ability to exercise saving faith, thus contributing to his own salvation. For the English Latent Antinomian, duty-faith is denied because the command for all, without exception, to repent and believe implies that the unregenerate have the power to do so.

The error, of course, assumes that what God commands man to do, man can do, be it Law or Gospel. Luther's argument against Erasmus on the bondage of the will is equally applicable to the English Antinomian when he said,⁵⁰

... by the words of the law man is admonished and taught, not what he can do, but what he ought to do. How is it that you theologians are twice as stupid as schoolboys, in that as soon as you get hold of a single imperative verb you infer an indicative meaning, as though the moment a thing is commanded it is done, or can be done? The passages of Scripture which you cite are imperative; and they prove and establish nothing about the ability of man, but only lay down what is and is not to be done.

Luther has pointed out the precise problem of the English Antinomian; they do not rightly understand the difference between the imperatives (what you should do) and the indicatives (what Christ has done) of the Gospel. The New Testament is full of commands from God that are given in such a way that appear to indicate that the hearer has the strength to perform them, even though they do not. Here are a few examples: "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ (imperative), and thou shalt be saved (indicative)." "Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden (imperative), and I will give you rest" (indicative). Notice that in each case, the indicative does not make the imperative unnecessary, or mitigate it. It actually grounds the imperative, underscoring the urgency for help. We could say that the indicatives are the roots, and imperatives the branches, of any Gospel call.

However, like the Arminian, the English Antinomian insists that you can only command what the hearer has the strength to perform. This is why you will never read a sermon by an English Latent Antinomian on a text that contains an imperative or indicative of either the Law or the Gospel. If he does, he will first divest it of its original meaning and then proceed to insert his theology, as we have seen above.

A denial of duty-faith is contrary to Scripture and secondarily to the writings of the Reformers and Puritans. Here are a few samplings (emphasis added):

John Calvin⁵¹

A slight acquaintance with Paul will enable anyone to understand, without tedious argument, how easily he reconciled things which they pretend to be repugnant to each other. Christ commands men to believe in Him, yet His limitation is neither false nor contrary to His command when He says 'No man can come to Me except it were given him of My Father.' Let preaching therefore have its force to bring men to faith.

Martin Luther⁵²

The first part then of Christianity is the preaching of repentance, and the knowledge of ourselves. A man, therefore, is made a Christian not by working but by hearing; wherefore, he that will exercise himself to righteousness must first exercise himself in hearing the Gospel. Now, when he hath heard and received the Gospel, let him give himself to God with a joyful heart, and afterwards let him exercise himself in those good works which are commanded in the law.

Jerome Zanchius⁵³

When we meet with a precept, we should simply endeavour to obey it, without enquiring into God's hidden purpose.... Notwithstanding God's predestination is most certain and unalterable, so that no elect person can perish, nor any reprobate be saved, yet it does not follow from thence that all reproofs and exhortations on the part of God, or prayers on the part of men, are useless. 

William Perkins⁵⁴

With the promises there is joined an exhortation or command to believe, which is more general than the promise; because the promise is only made to believers; but the commandment is given to believers and unbelievers also. For the elect are mingled with the wicked in the same assemblies, and therefore the ministers of the Gospel ought indiscriminately to exhort all and every one to repent. In very truth, if thou goest forth of this world being no repentant sinner, thou goest damned to Hell: wherefore delay not one minute of an hour longer, but with all speed repent and turn unto God. 65

John Flavel⁵⁵

But you will say, if unregenerate men be dead men, to what purpose is it to persuade them to arise and stand up? This difficulty is solved in this very text (Eph. 5:14): though the duty is ours, yet the power is God's.

Now contrast these words with antinomian William Gadsby,⁵⁶

I have long since come to a point about what some people call "the duty of all men to believe," and I say it is a doctrine of devils and calculated to harass and sink the child of God into feelings of hopeless despair. I found myself helpless, and utterly unable to practice duty-faith, and felt that I should as certainly sink to hell with duty-faith as with duty-works.

I say, all such statements are a lie, and such happiness is nothing but the devil's happiness, and he communicates it on purpose to delude the souls of millions; all which a person may have without possessing one spark of real gospel grace.

By this differentiation, we can see that the oldest and safest of all teachers taught the imperative to believe, or duty-faith, while at the same time, knowing and certainly teaching that faith is a monergistic gift from a Sovereign and all-powerful God. How different these Reformers and Puritans were from the English Latent Antinomian. Read Articles 32 and 33 of the Gospel Standard Articles of Faith,⁵⁷ the official formularies of those who can properly be called Latent Antinomians today:

Article 32

We believe that it would be unsafe, from the brief records we have of the way in which the apostles, under the immediate direction of the Lord, addressed their hearers in certain special cases and circumstances, to derive absolute and universal rules for ministerial addresses in the present day under widely-different circumstances. And we further believe that an assumption that others have been inspired as the Apostles were, has led to the grossest errors among both Romanists and Protestants.

Article 33

Therefore, that for ministers in this present day to address unconverted persons, or indiscriminately all in a mixed congregation, calling upon them to savingly repent, believe, and receive Christ, or perform any other acts dependent upon the new creative power of the Holy Ghost, is, on the one hand, to imply creature power, and on the other to deny the doctrine of special redemption.

In 1909 the Gospel Standard printed an "explanation" of these Articles to shed clearer light on the apparent problems found when comparing their articles with the plain teaching of the Word of God. However, instead of rectifying the problem, the explanation exacerbated it. In part, the explanation reads,⁵⁸

The thing denied by these Articles is that unconverted persons should directly be called upon to repent, receive, and close with Christ; being told that unless they do so they should perish- it being feared that such expressions imply creature power.

It is further argued in the same "explanation" that there remains a significant distinction between the anointing and power of Apostolic preaching and all preaching ever since. The defenders of the Articles brazenly insist that the ability of the Apostles to preach indiscriminately and call all men to repent and believe lay hidden in the uniqueness of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, directly connected to the sign-gifts of the Apostolic dispensation. This included,⁵⁹

Miracles, healings, prophesy, infallible discernment, ocular authority, etc., no longer continued," concluding that modern preaching that calls all men to repent and believe is unfaithful because "No one is now inspired as the apostles were.

We can notice here all the seeds of what later became the theological kindergarten of Dispensational Antinomianism, the view that the relevancy of the Decalogue was confined entirely to the people of Israel under the Mosaic dispensation. Through this lens of Antinomianism, the entire law has been abolished in the dispensation of the Gospel. All passages with a legal importance, even the Sermon on the Mount, are allotted to previous dispensations of God's dealings with man. They have no relevance to the New Testament Church.

We can see that this is a clear departure from the historic Reformed Faith as it pertains to the preaching of the Latent Antinomian in the 19th and 20th Centuries and beyond.

English Antinomianism and Conversion

As we said earlier, every error in the Church stems from a doctrine of imbalance, where an identifiable truth is magnified beyond its rightful place in the Word of God. Often this centers around the charter of God or one of His attributes. Arius did this with the humanity of Christ, eventually denying His Divinity, Pelagius did this by overemphasizing the responsibility of man to the neglect of God's sovereignty; and modern-day Oneness Pentecostals do this by elevating the singularity of the Godhead above His plurality of Persons (One God in Trinity, and Trinity in unity). Likewise, the English Latent Antinomian has embraced an error by magnifying God's one-sided grace that separates Jehovah from His eternal standard revealed in the Divine Law. Further, it has so magnified the absolute sovereignty of God that it has functionally eliminated the biblical doctrine of man's responsibility.

As we pointed out in the introduction, too often an overcorrection ensues when an error is discovered. With the English Latent Antinomian, the error of Arminianism needed to be buttressed by God's sovereignty, and that to an extreme. But there is a clear denial that God has decreed that the application of that sovereignty in salvation would be exercised and fulfilled by secondary causes, such as hearing, faith, repentance, Law and Gospel imperatives and indicatives, and the free offer. With the Gospel Standard men, an attempt has been made to use human logic to reconcile those passages that seem at variance with their dogma. This may clear up some apparent problems systematically for the Antinomian. Still, it opens up many more problems when dealing with the exegesis and application of the Word of God (as we have demonstrated).

The specific brand of Antinomianism we have been exposing was uncovered and embraced as a reaction to the easy-believism rampant in the State Church in Britain. For much of the 18th & 19th Centuries, the Anglican Church was a mixture of truth and error, light and darkness. The preaching of its most influential Bishops and ministers was moralistic and Arminian, excusing the hearer of their sin and making grand assumptions about the state of the lost souls before them. This deeply troubled the English Latent Antinomian. They desired to see the authority of God, election, original sin, man's inability, and sovereign grace recovered, and take its rightful place in the hearing of the preached Word. Unfortunately, their overcompensation was as dangerous as the error they sought to remedy.

Within certain Christian circles, the impact of English Latent Antinomianism in the pew has been enormous. How many souls have quietly been led to believe that these men are a proper guide in things pertaining to everlasting life? C.H Spurgeon spoke against their tainted Gospel with much force and passion. Its error haunted his ministry to one degree or another his whole life. What is remarkable was in his farewell sermon December 11, 1859, during a time of great illness, it was to the subject of Antinomianism he turned to warn his flock.⁶⁰

But, then, let me remark further, while there is this temptation not to declare all the counsel of God, the true minister of Christ feels impelled to preach the whole truth, because it and it alone can meet the wants of man. What evils has this world seen through a distorted, mangled, man-moulded gospel. What mischiefs have been done to the souls of men by men who have preached only one part and not all the counsel of God. My heart bleeds for many a family where Antinomian doctrine has gained the sway. I could tell many a sad story of families dead in sin, whose consciences are seared as with a hot iron, by the fatal preaching to which they listen. I have known convictions stifled and desires quenched by the soul-destroying system which takes manhood from man and makes him no more responsible than an ox. I cannot imagine a more ready instrument in the hands of Satan for the ruin of souls than a minister who tells sinners that it is not their duty to repent of their sins or to believe in Christ...Even in Christian families, what evil will a distorted gospel produce! I have seen the young believer, just saved from sin, happy in his early Christian career, and walking humbly with his God. But evil has crept in, disguised in the mantle of truth. The finger of partial blindness was laid upon their eyes, and but one doctrine could be seen. Sovereignty was seen, but not responsibility. The minister once beloved was hated; he who had been honest to preach God's Word, was accounted as the off-scouring of all things.

J.C. Ryle mentions this error in his 20 Letters on Holiness, which was his own response to the Antinomian influences of his day. He spoke to the mistakes of these men when he said,

An Election to salvation which teaches people to dispense with the use of all means of grace, may please ignorant people, fanatics, and Antinomians. But I take leave to say that it is an Election of which I can find no mention in God's Word.

Later, in another work, he has this to say about the dangers of such men,⁶¹

Beware of supposing that a teacher of religion is to be trusted, because although he holds some unsound views, he yet 'teaches a great deal of truth.' Such a teacher is precisely the man to do you harm: poison is always most dangerous when it is given in small doses and mixed with wholesome food. Beware of being taken in by the apparent earnestness of many of the teachers and upholders of false doctrine. Remember that zeal and sincerity and fervor are no proof whatever that a man is working for Christ, and ought to believed... Of all the delusions prevalent in these latter days, there is none greater than the common notion that 'if a man is in earnest about his religion he must be a good man!' Beware of being carried away by this delusion; beware of being led astray by 'earnest minded men!' Earnestness is in itself an excellent thing; but it must be earnestness in behalf of Christ and His whole truth, or else it is worth nothing at all.

When the doctrine of justification is not clearly taught, or a new schema like that of the antinomian replaces the Scriptural teaching on the subject, souls are at stake in the pew. Conversion is reduced to "discovering your eternal justification" or experiencing "justification in the court of conscience." The English Latent Antinomian has demonstrated himself to be a promulgator of an error on just this subject, with its own causes, steps, explanations, and errors. Justification by faith is any church's standing and falling article and the sure ground and foundation of the lost sinner found. When we get this wrong, nothing else matters much. Again, Ryle,⁶²

Let us always beware of any teaching which either directly or indirectly obscures justification by faith. All religious systems which put anything between the heavy laden sinner and Jesus Christ the Savior, except simple faith, are dangerous and unscriptural. All systems which make out faith to be anything complicated, anything but a simple, childlike dependence, – the hand which receives the soul's medicine from the physician, – are unsafe and poisonous systems. All systems which cast discredit on the simple Protestant doctrine which broke the power of Rome, carry about with them a plague-spot, and are dangerous to souls.

Conclusion

The attraction of the writings of the English Latent Antinomian cannot be overlooked. The experimental nature of their sermons and devotional books draws the child of God into many beautiful truths about the life of faith after regeneration. How one enters into that new and living way, however, is completely absent. Therefore, evangelism is unheard of in these circles. To use a Pilgrim's Progress analogy, one is led deeply in the paths of life after the Wicket Gate, but you are never told how one gets to the gate, or through it. No English Latent Antinomian preaches to the unconverted, but only to God's people or the "sensible sinner." In either case, they are already justified from eternity.

What are some of the drawing factors in some traditional Reformed circles to the writings of these Strict and Particular Baptists?

First, there is a well-grounded concern about easy-believism, where salvation is automatic and within the grasp of all. The English Latent Antinomian answers this serious error by exalting God's sovereignty and man's absolute inability.

Another large draw is that these men were all supralapsarians (though modified), looking at all aspects of salvation, from the decree to the cross, through the lens of election. We have already stated that this teaching of standard supralapsarianism is not a reason to disassociate, even though it is not the historical view of the decrees of God. Suppose in one's personal life, one concludes that supralapsarianism is correct (knowing it by that name or not). In that case, few authors hold divine election as firmly, write more simply, and open the heart more experimentally than the English Latent Antinomian.

Third, as we have already mentioned, the warmth of Christian experience runs very deep in these authors. There is a wonderful tracing of self in the despondent and wounded soul, as Christ is set forth in all His saving wonder. We clearly see from the writings of the English Latent Antinomian, that being a member of a church or knowing certain doctrines falls short of saving faith. An intimate union between the soul and Christ is needed, producing a longing, trusting, loving, and resting relationship with Christ's Person by the indwelling Spirit. Very few authors describe the soul's cry as these men do (Puritans excepted).

In conclusion, we speak not to the Strict & Particular Baptists themselves but to the traditionally Reformed. Especially the warm, experiential supralapsarians who may have come in contact with justification from eternity.⁶³⁶⁴⁶⁵

When the unconverted or newly regenerated soul is fed early, or exclusively by these writers, or when these authors are recommended to members of the flock by leaders precisely because of their high Calvinism and experiential warmth, the influences of Latent Antinomianism can seep into the heart of the child of God, almost without detection. It mixes with his foundation or spiritual development as he reads the devotions and sermons of these men. They are not going to these men for doctrine, but for experience. This we understand. But is there not a doctrine being taught quietly by these experiences? Yes there is. Over time, those who unguardedly read these men begin to assimilate their broader teaching. Why? For just this reason: "The one who so wonderfully explains the deep things of my own heart must be right on the other matters they teach. After all, we agree on so much." In other words, "Because I identify so well with what is being described by this author, I will not question or even take notice of the underlying theology in which this experience came about. It is right because what they are saying echoes in my heart". It is not that the antinomian influenced Reformed reader denies the binding nature of the Law of God. It is certainly not the case that they walk through the door of licentiousness! They are often very godly, serious, and holy people. But there is a mixing, a combining of Antinomianism with Reformed truth. It is not on purpose, but it is evident.

Finally, a question must be asked. Do those who freely read the authors of English Latent Antinomianism even know about the errors listed in this paper? Do they understand that this is not the historic faith of the Reformed Church? Do they know that by borrowing their language, they borrow their theology? Do they understand that the antinomian denies so much pertaining to the Covenant of Grace (promises and precepts) and the abiding standard of the Law of God? Do they know that they believe in justification from eternity and deny the wrath of God before regeneration? Probably not. Because of this, the errors mentioned inadvertently seep into the hearts and minds of even Reformed confessing members over time. Now a conflict rises in their hearts. There is an incompatibility between the pulpit and their closet. They develop serious difficulty with the language of the Confessions themselves and do not know what to do with the imperatives of the Word when preached or read. In other words, their Bible becomes thin. Because there is no ability to discern truth from error in these men, the child of God unwittingly assimilates their doctrine without notice. Then, when the whole Gospel is preached to them, they find it repugnant to their taste, having intermingled with their foundation, an antinomian error mixed with Gospel truth. The vinegar of Antinomianism has curdled the pure milk of the word.

Bibliography

Beeke, Joel: The Three Forms of Unity: Heidelberg Catechism, Belgic Confession, Canons of Dort. Birmingham, AL: Solid Ground Christian, 2010.

Calvin, Jean: A Harmony of the Synoptic Gospels. Lafayette, IN: Calvin Publications.

_____. Sermons on Deuteronomy. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1987. 167.

Calvin, Jean, and Hugh T. Kerr: Calvin's Institutes: A New Compend. Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox, 1989.

Calvin, Jean, and John Owen: Commentaries on the Catholic Epistles. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1948.

Calvin, Jean, and T. H. L. Parker: The Gospel According to St. John. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1961.

Calvin, Jean, and William Pringle: Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Isaiah. Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans Pub., 1956.

Calvin, Jean, David W. Torrance, and Thomas F. Torrance: The Acts of the Apostles. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1982.

_____. The Gospel According the St John. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1988. 140.

Calvin, Jean, Ford Lewis Battles, and John T. McNeill: Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion: In Two Volumes. London: SCM, 1961.

Charles H. Spurgeon. The Spurgeon Series 1859 & 1860: Unabridged Sermons In Modern Language. New Leaf Publishing Group, 2012.

Curruthers, Samuel William. The Westminster Confession of Faith. Manchester: R Aikman & Son, 1937. 209.

Gadsby, William: The Present State of Religion: Or, A Dialogue between Love-truth, Investigation, and Others. Manchester: Printed for the Author, by M. Wardle ... and Sold by Thomson and Son, 1808.

Gosden, John Hervey: What Gospel Standard Baptists Believe: A Commentary on the Gospel Standard Articles of Faith. Chippenham, Wilts.: Gospel Standard Societies, 1993.

Haykin, Michael A. G., and Mark Jones: Drawn into Controversie: Reformed Theological Diversity and Debates within Seventeenth-century British Puritanism. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011.

Huntington, William: The Believer's Rule of Life. Elon College, NC: Primitive Publications, 1977.

_____. A Divine Poem on the Shunamite. Addressed to a Friend. London: Sold by G. Terry; J. Chalmers; J. Davidson; Mr. Baker; Mrs Howes; at Monkwell-street Chapel; at Providence Chapel by Mr Mantle, Lewes, Mr Fenley, Bristol; and by Mr Chalmers, Portsmouth Common, 1787.

_____. "Moses Unveiled in the Face of Christ". The Select Works of the Late Rev. William Huntington. London: John Bennett, 1837.

_____. The Works of the Reverend William Huntington, Completed to the Close of the Year MDCCCVI. London: Printed for E. Huntington by T. Bensley.

Luther, Martin, J. I. Packer, and O. R. Johnston: The Bondage of the Will. Old Tappan, NJ: Revell, 1957.

Perkins, William, and Ian Breward: The Work of William Perkins. Abingdon (Berks.): Sutton Courtenay, 1970.

Philpot,John: The Secret of the Lord. Web. June 27, 2014.

_____. "The Patience and Faith of the Saints." Pilgrims Hunger and Pilgrims Food. Www.paradisepbc.org/Articles/Philpots%20Sermons/JCP196.doc. Web. June 27 2014.

_____. "The Secret of the Lord." The Secret of the Lord. Web. June 27, 2014.

_____. "William Huntington." Pastoral Sketches of Men of Faith. Lulu.com, 2006. 116-18.

Pink, Arthur Walkington: The Doctrine of Reconciliation. Grand Rapids, MI: Associated and Authors, 1971.

John Charles Ryle: Knots Untied: Being Plain Statements on Disputed Points in Religion from the Standpoint of an Evangelical Churchman. National Protestant Church Union and Charles Murray, 1898.

Toplady, Augustus: The Works of Augustus M. Toplady. London: Printed for William Baynes and Son, 1825.

Watson, Thomas: A Body of Practical Divinity Consisting of above One Hundred Seventy Six Sermons on the Lesser Catechism Composed by the Reverend Assembly of Divines at Westminster: With a Supplement of Some Sermons on Several Texts of Scripture. London: Printed for Thomas Parkurst, 1692.

Zanchi, Girolamo, Augustus Toplady, and Justus Lipsius: The Doctrine of Absolute Predestination. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1977.

---

Footnotes

1. Free Reformed Churches of North America, Heritage Netherlands Reformed Congregations, Netherlands Reformed Congregations, and Reformed Congregations of North America.

2. Huntington was not a baptist, but a paedobaptist nonconformist.

3. It is not the design of this paper to try and prove that the Reformed tradition is the truest expression of the Christian Faith but assumes it.

4. 1 Corinthians 9:21

5. The Evangelical Dictionary of Theology states, "In fact, it was Luther who actually coined the word antinomianism in his theological struggle with his former student, Johann Agricola.” Elwell, Walter A. "Antinomian." Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, p.71.

6. John Calvin, and Henry Beveridge. "Book 2." Institutes of the Christian Religion: A New Translation, p. 418.

7. Mark U. Edwards. “Chapter 7”. Luther and the False Brethren, p. 156-78.

8. Ibid.

9. The Gospel Standard Magazine originated with John Gadsby in 1835 with the assistance and support of his father, William Gadsby. The periodical became a rallying point for many Strict and Particular Baptists, and eventually produced the Articles of Faith which became the theological confession of churches and individuals all over the world. Its original Articles of Faith were the harbinger of English Latent Antinomianism.

10. Samuel Bolton. The True Bounds of Christian Freedom. Or a Treatise Wherein the Rights of the Law Are Vindicated, the Liberties of Grace Maintained, and Several Late Opinions against the Law Are Examined and Confuted, 1656.

11. Ernest F. Kevan, The Grace of Law, p.62.

12. Ebenezer Hooper, The Celebrated Coalheaver: Or, Reminiscences of the Rev. William Huntington, S.S., Consisting of Numerous Original Anecdotes, Letters, & Interesting Facts, Chiefly of His Latter Years & Death, Collected from Most Authentic Sources and Never before Published, with Criticisms on His Character, Writings, and Ministry by Eminent Authors. London: Gadsby, 66.

13. John Charles Philpot, "William Huntington." Pastoral Sketches of Men of Faith, p. 116-18.

14. J.C. Philpot, Pastoral Sketches of Men of Faith, p. 124.

15. William Huntington, "Moses Unveiled in the Face of Christ." The Select Works of the Late Rev. William Huntington. London: John Bennett, p. 557-58.

16. Sandemanianism, after the theologian Robert Sandeman (1718-1781) teaches that the nature of saving faith is reduced to mere intellectual assent to a fact or proposition.

17. William Huntington, The Works of the Reverend William Huntington, Completed to the Close of the Year MDCCCVI, n.d. p. 115.

18. William Huntington, The Believer's Rule of Life.

19. William Gadsby, The Present State of Religion: Or, A Dialogue Between Love-truth, Investigation, and Others, 1816.

20. William Gadsby, Sermons, Fragments of Sermons and Letters. p. 405.

21. John Calvin, John Calvin's Commentaries On St. Paul's Epistles To The Galatians. p. 104.

22. See the following commentaries on this passage: John Calvin, Matthew Henry, John Scott, Jamison, Faucett & Brown, Charles Spurgeon, David Dickson, Matthew Poole.

23. J.C., Philpot, DIVINE ENLARGEMENT AND SPIRITUAL OBEDIENCE. N.p., n.d. Web. 09 July 2014.

24. See the following commentaries on this passage: John Calvin, Matthew Henry, John Scott, Jamison, Faucett & Brown, Charles Spurgeon, David Dickson, Matthew Poole.

25. Preached at Providence Chapel, London, on August 23, 1846.

26. J.C. Philpot. "Pilgrims Hunger and Pilgrims Food." Pilgrims Hunger and Pilgrims Food. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 June 2014.

27. exegesis is the true explanation or analysis, especially of a biblical text. [Greek exēgēsis, from exēgeisthai, to interpret]

28. eisegesis (noun) is where an interpretation, especially of Scripture, comes from the interpreter's own ideas, or bias, rather than the meaning of the text.

29. Ibid.

30. John Philpot, "The Patience and Faith of the Saints." Pilgrims Hunger and Pilgrims Food. n.p, n.d accessed www.paradisepbc.org/Articles/Philpots%20Sermons/JCP196.doc, n.d. Web. 27 June 2014.

31. Preached at North Street Chapel, Stamford, on Lord's Day Morning, Feb. 3, 186

32. Preached at North Street Chapel, Stamford, on Feb. 3, 1861.

33. Joel R. Beeke, "Heidelberg Catechism, Q&A 114,115." The Three Forms of Unity: Heidelberg Catechism, Belgic Confession, Canons of Dort. N. pag. 80.

34. See especially Lord's Day 33; Question 91. But what are good works?

35. Samuel William Curruthers, "Chapter 19." The Westminster Confession of Faith, p. 7. 209.

36. Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield. The Plan of Salvation. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1942.

37. Also known as High-Calvinism. High Calvinists are orthodox and Reformed, though a minority.

38. Michael A. G Haykin and Mark Jones. Drawn into Controversie: Reformed Theological Diversity and Debates within Seventeenth-century British Puritanism, p. 107-08.

39. John Philpot, The Secret of the Lord is with Those who Fear Him, Preached at Zoar Chapel, London, August 4, 1844. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 June 2014.

40. It should be noted that while G.H. Kersten, taught justification from eternity, he also firmly believed in propitiaion, and that the elect reprobate was under the penal wrath of God until the point of regeneration and faith.

41. John Philpot, The Secret of the Lord is with Those who Fear Him, Preached at Zoar Chapel, London, August 4, 1844. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 June 2014.

42. Propitiation in the Bible refers to the idea that the death of Christ completely met the requirements of a just God with regards to the punishment of sinners, and satisfied the wrath due to the elect for original and actual transgressions.

43. Arthur W. Pink, "Chapter 1." The Doctrine of Reconciliation, p. 5-6.

44. Preached on Lord's Day Evening, June 28, 1840, at Zoar chapel, Great Alie Street.

45. Willian Gadsby, Sermons, Fragments of Sermons and Letters, p. 190.

46. Ibid. p. 257.

47. John Hervey Gosden, "Article 29." What Gospel Standard Baptists Believe: A Commentary on the Gospel Standard Articles of Faith, p. 109.

48. Philpot on Calvin, '“His "Institutes" is a body of Christian divinity in which all the great doctrines of our most holy faith are laid down with the greatest clearness and accuracy, so that there is scarcely a single point in the whole truth of God which does not find its right place there. The influence exerted by this work, which at once became a text book for private study and public lectures, both in this and every country where the gospel found any footing, is incalculable. Never before had the truth been presented with such clearness of statement, such abundance of scriptural proof, and such felicity of language. It at once, therefore, established itself as a bulwark against error, and a guide into the truth as it is in Jesus.”'

49. Gosden, p.129.

50. Martin Luther, J. I. Packer, and O. R. Johnston, The Bondage of the Will, p. 159.

51. Jean Calvin and Hugh T. Kerr. "Book 3, Chap.18." Calvin's Institutes: A New Compend.

52. Luther, Galatians, p. 104

53. Girolamo Zanchi, Augustus Toplady, and Justus Lipsius. The Doctrine of Absolute Predestination, p. 49, 120.

54. William Perkins, and Ian Breward. "Volume 1; Volume 3." The Work of William Perkins, p. 379, 692.

55. John Flavel, Method of Grace. p. 510.

56. Gadsby, p. 141.

57. Gosden, p. 152.

58. Ibid.

59. Ibid.

60. Charles H. Spurgeon. The Spurgeon Series 1859 & 1860: Unabridged Sermons In Modern Language. p. 275.

61. John Charles Ryle. Knots Untied: Being Plain Statements on Disputed Points in Religion from the Standpoint of an Evangelical Churchman, p. 416.

62. Ibid.

63. “Not one who is Reformed can deny justification before faith. That is, from eternity in the decree of God.” G. H. Kersten, Reformed Dogmatics vol. 2 , Eerdmans (1983) p. 419. Thankfully Kersten did believe in law-wrath for the elect sinner until the time of regeneration.”

64. “For this reason Scripture reveals these two positive, but apparently contradictory truths, with equally positive emphasis: (1) that, on the one hand, He has justified us in His own judgment-seat from eternity; and (2) that, on the other, only in conversion are we justified by faith”. Abraham Kuyper, The Work of the Holy Spirit, (1900), p. 367-372.

65. “We are justified in the decree of election from before the foundation of the world”. Herman Hoeksma, Reformed Dogmatics, RFPA, (1985) p. 502.