I would consider the source of the accusation accusing Malone of being a dispensationalist: Matthew McMahon and his cronies. If you read his criticisms of other groups that do not reflect his personal convictions with any regularity, you will notice that he will hurl the slurs "Antinomian" and "Dispensational" toward them with as much conviction and consistency as Jesse Jackson hurls the slur of "racist" toward conservatives. It gets to the point that the words are stripped of all of their historical and theological meaning. I would not put too much stock into a guy who practically believes in baptismal regeneration.

Honestly, from where I am sitting, it appears to me that McMahon is finding it difficult to deal with Malone's work. His emotionally laden skreed in the form of a book critique criticizes Malone for such silly things as for not quoting Witsius enough in his study. Please. I think Dr. McMahon recognizes in his heart that the theology he utilizes for his brand of Covenantalism is inconsistent with a thorough and consistent biblical exegesis, something that Malone establishes with precision in his book defending baptism. As a result, McMahon is flaying about attempting to attach some discredit to what Malone has argued. In a way, it is a tad embarrassing.

Fred

"Ah, sitting - the great leveler of men. From the mightest of pharaohs to the lowest of peasants, who doesn't enjoy a good sit?" M. Burns