What is an "antinomian"?
by Dan Phillips
This might be briefer, less commented-on, and less controversial than its predecessor, on legalism. The word "antinomian" isn't thrown around quite as freely.
Maybe because (unlike legalism) it's not much of a dodge to hide behind. You can't get much mileage, when a brother is exhorting you to take the Word to heart on some point, by calling him an "antinomian."
It is, however, misused as a dismissive way of refusing to deal seriously with other Biblically-based positions. If you can successfully label a person (or school) "antinomian"... well, he's bad, and that's that. So you don't need to think too hard about it.
It also is of course properly used of schools that are antinomian; and they are bad. Once again, then, what matters is using the word correctly — which, again, depends on defining it correctly.
So here are some proposed definitions. Note: they all have to do with Christian living, not how to become a Christian. None has to do with how to get saved, but with how to live as a Christian.
By popular usage (and with some overlap), an antinomian is...
This might be briefer, less commented-on, and less controversial than its predecessor, on legalism. The word "antinomian" isn't thrown around quite as freely.
Maybe because (unlike legalism) it's not much of a dodge to hide behind. You can't get much mileage, when a brother is exhorting you to take the Word to heart on some point, by calling him an "antinomian."It is, however, misused as a dismissive way of refusing to deal seriously with other Biblically-based positions. If you can successfully label a person (or school) "antinomian"... well, he's bad, and that's that. So you don't need to think too hard about it.
It also is of course properly used of schools that are antinomian; and they are bad. Once again, then, what matters is using the word correctly — which, again, depends on defining it correctly.
So here are some proposed definitions. Note: they all have to do with Christian living, not how to become a Christian. None has to do with how to get saved, but with how to live as a Christian.
By popular usage (and with some overlap), an antinomian is...
- Anyone who believes that Christians are not obliged to obey any part of the Law of Moses qua Law-of-Moses
- Anyone who believes that Christians are not obliged to obey the moral division of the Law of Moses qua Law-of-Moses
- Anyone who believes that Christians are not obliged to obey the commands of Christ and the apostles
- Anyone who believes that Christians are not obliged to obey any law
- Anyone who sets the leading of the Holy Spirit in opposition to obedience to any rule or law, whatever the source or location
- Anyone who sets grace in opposition to obedience to any written word of God
- Which of these have you heard most frequently?
- Which do you think is (or are) accurate and legitimate uses — and on what basis?
- Which do you think are inaccurate and illegitimate — and on what basis?
Labels: Dan Phillips, defining terms, faith, grace, law, Sanctification, theology
posted by DJP on Friday, March 28, 2008
147 Comments:
I am surely a partial antinomian especially when it comes to the law of Moses. But grace isn't at odds with obedience, in fact, it propels obedience in way that vastly surpasses legalism.
The older brother stays with the father and obeys him in a structured and antiseptic way while the younger brother receives his father's grace and we can surmise his obedience is filled with energy, gratefulness, and spiritual effervescence that always accompanies a believer who live consciously with the implications of the grace that was afforded his unworthy being.
Oh no, this younger brother is not serving the father's post its upon the refrigerator outlining the day's work schedule, no, no, no, this younger brother serves the Father and the father's directions are just another expression of the father's grace for which the younger son is grateful.
Grace received has revolutionized the entire relationship because now the younger son has come to realize the father loved him even when he was in disobedience and rebellion. So the love the younger brother now receives his father's love not as a reward for labor but straight from his unconditional heart. Could he take advantage of it? ure, but in reality this knowledge and the love of his father compels him to serve.
You see, grace unfolds the deeper caverns of God's love and propels, compels, drives us to serve our Heavenly Father and not the useful words of Moses which had run their course. We obey the "post-its" of the New Testament not because we have to or must do them because they make us sons, no, we obey our Glorious Father because we have seen Him with spiritual eyes, we have handled Him with our hearts, and we have received of His eternal grace and we have been changed forever. These New Testament Scriptures are gifts of grace that allow us to serve and worship our Great God more faithfully.
And in the end, we obey these words because we serve Him, we don't serve those words. His words are perfect, but our Father desires more than eye-service, He desires exuberant and expansive worship and service that reveals more than a tacit obligation, He desires service from a consecrated heart of worship.
So chalk me up as a "partial antinomian". But I remain a commited and full diluvial antinomian.
Having been a real live antinomian, and even having heard the preaching for years, I can answer this, (but not proudly).
An inaccurate useage of the term would be "anyone who believes that Christians are not obliged to obey any part of the Law of Moses." I've never heard it used that way. Are we to sacrifice on the Sabbath?
I do, on the other hand, believe that we are still to observe the moral law. Those that reject the ten commandments as "the law" may be properly labeled "antinomian", but possibly not. Someone who says that Christians are not bound to a Sabbath, yet attends church on Sunday, would not be an antinomian.Yet someone who says that we are not bound, and therefore never goes would be.
Number three is (or should be) obviously legitimate. In my former life, I was told that we "had no responsibility." Since we were not "able" to do any good, we only made ourselves hypocrites by trying. So when Paul (the only really inspired NT writer according to some antinomians) gives a command or places responsibility upon the believer, we must interpret it in a spiritual way. When this can't be done, we overlook it--as we should all of James' epistle, which was either not inspired, or must be understood spiritually (whatever that means). I was told one time that James was in the Bible to keep us from worshipping the Word rather than God.
The Holy Spirit will not lead us in a way that opposes the moral law. God will not "lead" us to leave our wife, or abort our baby. The Holy Spirit may however lead us to not obey laws of men (as he led Christ to heal on the Sabbath.)Anyone who believes that we are to be led by the Spirit rather than the Word is opening himself up to be led by Satan.
The next point is probably the most accurate description of an antinomian. Paul asks, "what then, shall we continue in sin that grace may abound?" His answer is "God forbid." The antinomian's answer is, "I'm just a poor sinner. I cannot do otherwise. If I'm tempted to kick my brother, it must have been foreordained before the foundation of the world. I'd better kick him or I'll be going against God's will."
I won't be able to come back to see how I did until later. Visit my blog. I'll link to this very good (as usual) post.
God bless,
I think I've probably heard #6 misued most often.
I say that because while there is a way in which grace runs against the grain of requiring strict obedience (only in that grace is required for us to become acceptable to God, strict obedience can't do it), in reality grace runs against disobedience. That is grace really does counter disobedience but it doesn't excuse it.
I've also heard it used against those who don't believe they must obey the whole law of Moses, particularly when arguing a specific point of that law against someone who does hold to that specific point.
I'd have to say that #3, that Christians are not obliged to obey any law would qualify as antinomian in my book.
5 & 6 are close competitors however, simply because when someone sets either grace or the "leading of the Holy Spirit" against obedience, it's pretty much always to allow themselves the freedom to do something the written word forbids, otherwise, why would they bother to set those things against it?
I think #6 is the tricky one because depending on the way someone presents that idea, it can be right or wrong, but we people generally use things wrong in order to gain permission where permission is not about to be granted...
Uh, most EvanJellyBeans I know have never heard of the word "antinomian". I have only heard this charge come from Roman Catholics.
Carrie, I'm sure you're right about 'beans. But I'm focusing on those who do use it.
To all: like last time, I'll probably weigh in after the bulk of conversation. But a little flutter in the meta so far makes me want to stress one point in particular.
THE ISSUE IS NOT HOW TO BECOME A CHRISTIAN. It is not the Gospel, salvation, any such. I'll resist the conversation going that way.
This is all and only about, "OK, now that you have been saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone, God is calling you to _____."
Which fill-in-the-blank RECEIVES, and which DESERVES, the opprobrium of "antinomian"?
Hope that clarifies and focuses, rather than muddling.
The Gospel is the wheel, and we won't be reinventing it in this meta. The issue is: how to roll?
Good follow up to the legalism post, Dan.
You're right to say that the word antinomian isn't used all that much. I can only think of one occasion where it came up in a conversation I had with someone. This was at the time a few months ago when I was becoming a future-ex Arminian. After discussing at length the problems of Arminianism with my friend, I mentioned as a side note that too many of my fellow Mennonite (read: Arminian) brethren stray into legalism (the conservative ones, that is) or into liberalism. I mentioned that this was most likely because Arminians have a propensity to focus on works, even while paying lip service to grace.
The one thing that liberals and legalists have in common, I mentioned to by friend, is an overemphasis on ethics/works, and that that is a problem most common among Arminians.
He then countered that if I became a Calvinist (which I did - PTL!) that I would then have problems with antinomianism. Of course, his understanding of the Reformed view of sanctification was wanting.
But, even though the term isn't often used, your #5 seems to be what I see most frequently among squishy leftish "Christians". Liberals love the Holy Spirit/Jesus Christ vs. Scripture false dichotomy. Ironically, so do true legalists.
I believe that there's actually somewhat of an overlap here in the sense that liberals and extreme conservatives actually both struggle with either legalism or antinomianism.
Sola Gratia!
Matt
Yeah, Matt; that's really interesting.
It makes sense that an Arminian would emphasize works, since the position necessarily involves man supplying the element God failed to supply in conversion/salvation. So if salvation requires man's contribution, and thus can be lost, he'd better know the rules for keeping it.
Yet as a rule I think that actual Calvinists (as opposed to Arminians who believe in "eternal security") have more tended to overemphasis on rule-keeping, rather than sloppy slushy shapeless notions of grace.
Are critics of the Emergent Church "AntiNoomian"?
Sorry.
I do believe the charge of Antinomianism has at times been raised as a criticism of Calvinism, i.e., a consequence of the system may be to encourage resting in a "carnal security."
And isn't that partly what the Lordship Salvation issue is about? Does not Dr. MacArhtur properly raise this charge against the non-Lordship side? I can't recall if he uses the word, but it seems he could have.
"AntiNoomian" — I like it.
I think only Arminoids who've never read an actual Calvinist might think that. They get there on their misunderstanding of a caricature: "Golly, I think if I believed ___, then I'd ___." They don't actually listen to those who affirm the Biblical emphasis on God's monergistic authoring of our salvation.
IOW, they'd never actually read Calvin, Edwards, Owen, etc., and say, "Those darned antinomians!!"
I only have heard this term thrown around in the blogosphere, never in person
By your numbering system, 1 is definitely not, 6 definitely is, and somewhere in number 2 is the dividing point.
Dan, if you look at the debates of the 1700s, antinomianism was really quite a controvery. You will find some of the most careful theologians arguing the point, e.g., John Fletcher. Fletcher was actually a most fair minded Arminian, pointing out the piety of his Calvinist opponents and counselling his bretheren to cool it.
But, again, there does seem to be a basis for the charge,as seen in the non-Lordship Calvinists. Isn't that, effectively, one of their positions?
Wouldn't you agree that this is part of MacArthur's critique of their side?
It was put this way by M. James Sawyer: "The Free Grace teaching emphasizes, legitimately, that assurance of salvation is clearly taught in the Scriptures. But in so doing these teachers have reduced faith to something less than the full orbed biblical teaching, and bifurcated justification and sanctification so as to lay the theological basis of antinomianism."
That, it seems to me, is a legitimate concern.
I hear #6 under the guise of “once saved always saved” mentality. However, I like what John MacArthur says, “you cannot have security of the spirit without perseverance.”
I'd say # 4 is the most legitimate use of the word, but I'd add "in scripture" to the end, because I don't think anyone seriously believes that Christians don't have to obey any law (like stopping at a red light).
As believers we are not obliged to obey any law in the Word to retain the love of our Father toward us. We may disobey, but only for a time and then we will, like the prodigal son, return. We obey because we love Him. And we love Him because He first loved us. Those who declare that they are above obedience make their professed sonship very questionable.
1. Our answer needs to come from Scripture, not someone's personal definition, even if from a Systematic Theology volume.
2. No true believer is a "true" Antinomian. (I say "true Antinomian, because a true believer may foolishly TEACH Antinomianism because they are ignorant and easily swayed and unequipped to be a teacher. Many so-called free-gracers fall into this category, IMHO.)
3. John makes this clear in 1 John 3:4, "Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness [Gk. "anomia" -antinomianism]."
"Practices" (present tense Gk.) is the key, referring to the ongoingly unrepentent sinner.
John is separating the wheat from the tares here.
4. The New Creation in Christ loves the commands of God, and hates sin, in their very nature.
They may sin, through temporary deception by the world, the flesh, and the devil. But they won't "practice" ongoing unrepentent sin.
5. The real issue is regeneration. We can say that those who are born again are "obliged" to obey some command of God or other, but the truth is, if they are truly born again, this "obligation" may be met or unmet at any given time, yet they are 100% forgiven through the Grace of God. 100% forgiven.
6. Should we sin, then, so that this Grace might abound?
"Stupid question," Paul says paraphrastically.
"You are a new creation now, with the Holy Spirit in you. Live like it. Walk by the Spirit.
"Of course if you don't, you're still forgiven, but you don't want to live that way in your heart of hearts, do you? (If the answer is 'Yes', you are not regenerate as you might have thought, and are a true Antinomian)."
7. Finally, I agree with Martyn Lloyd-Jones, who famously said that if you are not occasionally accused of being an Antinomian, you should question whether you are preaching the true Gospel of Grace.
Rom. 8:28 is true, even regarding our sins, or it's not true at all. So the real question is, "Do you love God?" If you do, your life will be one of seeking to know His heart, and general obedience to it.
Blessings,
Terry
I've recently been reading stuff by MaCarthur, James Boice etc and in doing so my views have shifted towards believeing that 'works' should be the evidence of salvation. I've also been reading stuff by R.T Kendall who says that one can be saved even if his life denies it... two questions...
Do the 'Lordship Salvation' peeps border on legalism?
Does Kendall border on Antinominism?
revivalfire,
1. When Lordship Salvation says that regeneration precedes faith, and that the faith which comes from regeneration includes believing in Jesus as Lord, they are NOT Legalistic. If you don't believe in Jesus as Lord, you don't believe in Jesus. But it's by grace alone, through faith alone, preceded by regeneration.
2. However, when Lordship Salvation says things like "Salvation comes by giving all that you are for all that He is",
or uses the Parable of the Pearl to say that one "buys" the Kingdom by giving up something,
or confuses salvation with discipleship by saying one must "deny themselves and take up their cross" to be worthy to be saved,
then "Yes", they are not just bordering on Legalism. They are doing what Roman Catholics do, i.e., contributing meritorious works to the salvation process, and denying it's meritorious.
3. Kendall, as in my post example above, isn't a true Antinomian himself, but if your representation of him is correct, he is teaching that a true Antinomian might be regenerate, and that is incorrect per 1 John 3:4.
@ Dan: thanks again for a timely post - I recently got to use the word over at my own. I was recently given a nifty Reformation Study Bible (ESV) that includes a great article on antinomianism; wish I had if with me right now - not that I'd want to make a comment that long and hijack this blog.
Grace - real grace - teaches that the law, the commands, and the moral strictures given to us cannot save us. Antinomians teach that those things also have no more standing to speak to our conduct as well, and that is going too far. They teach that we no longer have an obligation for obedience. I think that describes what I mean when I use the word.
Schaeffer describes it this way in Joshua and the Flow of Biblical History: "the notion that because we are saved by grace on the basis of the finished work of Christ, it does not matter how we live... the Word of God makes plain that we equally must oppose all forms of antinomianism."
By the way, forgive me for seeming just a little harsh, but I'm going to tweak the list based on the conduct I see prevalent. This might just open a can of worms for lunch:
5. Anyone who sets their feelings and urges, mistaken for the leading of the Holy Spirit, in opposition to obedience to any rule or law, whatever the source or location
6. Anyone who sets libertinism, mistaken for true grace, in opposition to obedience to any written word of God
Any takers?
Keith,
In my initial post I mentioned the "leading of the Spirit" idea but now I'm not so sure.
That person believes that they are obeying something, they've just got a bad view of Scripture.
The other guy...well I agree with Terry, if they are a believer, even if they say they're free (in the antinomian sense), they won't really live that way. Otherwise, how can the be a believer.
Sigh. Nineteen comments, and nobody mentioned the graphics.
Probably should go to Frank's fourteenth blog and learn how to put a Pyro logo on Bacchus' toga....
@ daryl:
I caught where you'd put "leading of the Holy Spirit" in quotes, and I assumed you were thinking about feelings and urges passed off as genuine leading. I read you as being in agreement.
I keep coming back to Heb. 5:14, where we get a definition of mature believers: "... those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil." Seems to me that being a mature believer, knowing right from wrong, and being sensitive to the genuine leading of the Spirit should all go (and grow) hand in hand - and the mature believer will live consistently with that.
Yes?
BTW, LOVE the graphics.
Thanks.
You're my commenter of the day so far.
@ Dan:
Fond memories of Disney's "Fantasia" - the original. And I've seen some "youth group" meetings that weren't far removed from a saturnalia; I assumed that was where you were going with the reference...
Keith,
I'm saying that someone who sets up urges or leading (genuine or not) or anything else over against Scripture, and then follows those non-Scriptural things, isn't an antinomian by virtue of the fact that they're trying to obey something. The wrong thing? Yes. But still something.
The Antinomian would say "Woo Hoo!! I don't have to obey anything!"
So if that's what you were saying, I agree. :)
@ daryl:
Well stated! We're on the same page, and I like the way you put that.
And my apologies to all - my lapse of using "saturnalia" instead of "bacchanalia" just goes to show I'm not culturally sensitive or missional enough. I suppose I need to work on engaging my surrounding culture.
Heh.
The freeness of obedience is of very different degrees; and believers' obedience is never absolutely free, till it be absolutely perfect in heaven; but the freeness of their obedience will always bear proportion to the measure of their faith, which is never perfect in this life; thus, the more faith, the more freeness of obedience, and the less faith, the less of that freeness.
What the author of this piece has in mind answers some of the points made in the previous post, namely, the ability to follow law is proportional to the amount of faith that is given. He has also a fine discussion on the difference between the law of works versus the law of Christ. What strikes anyone who reads this or Scripture is the obvious commandments as djp points to. The fact that there are commandments means that there is law. How we define law makes all the difference.
The denial of the first and the affirmation of the second is the way of grace. The denial of the first and the denial of the second would be antinomian. The affirmation of the first and the denial of the second is legalism.
It is a fine read to supplement this discussion.
I can't follow Bacchus and Christ at the same time? You people are tough to please!
Dan:
Hmm...based on the descriptions you've listed, I think I might actually be an "antinomian."
Paul clearly points out that Gentiles are not under the law, but that "the one who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law." If I read that right, I am not "obliged" to observe any bit of the Law of Moses. However, if I observe what Paul calls alternately the "law of Christ" and the "law of the Spirit," I will most assuredly find myself fulfilling whatever portions of the Law of Moses are good. I love God and my neighbor, ergo, I do not commit adultery nor do I steal from them.
I think Christians err when they ask: "Which, if any, of the law are we to follow?" Neither Gentiles nor Christian Jews are under the Law of Moses, but the Law of Christ.
Sorry, if I'm addressing a point you weren't trying to make.
6. Anyone who sets grace in opposition to obedience to any written word of God
The true scriptural interpretation of the Gospel is constantly under attack from two different fronts. On one front you have legalism which adds works to salvation, violating the testimony of Scripture, denying the finished work of Christ as sufficient for justification, nullifying the grace of God, rejecting the faith given by God, and robbing the glory that belongs to God alone.
The legalist denies grace in justification (imputed righteousness).
On the other front you have libertinism which takes away from salvation by removing the works of salvation, violating the testimony of Scripture, denying the power of the finished work of Christ as sufficient for sanctification, turning the grace of God into licentiousness, receiving a dead and useless faith, robbing God of His glory.
The libertine (antinomian) defiles grace in sanctification (implanted righteousness).
Grace and peace,
Olan
"If you love me you will keep my commandments"
We serve by love to a Father's commands not by fear of a judge's laws. The law of Moses doesn't save, it doesn't sanctify, it doesn't help, it is dead and gone forever. To drag it into the life of a believer is to strap a decaying corpse upon our backs and suggest we are obeying God.
The New Testament Scriptures are the gracious words of instruction to new creatures in Christ, and if we are in fact in Christ we will respond. If a key doesn't open a door it is the wrong key and if a "professing" believer doesn't respond to the words of the New Testament then they are not intended for him.
We are the children of promise, the promise of the Spirit who has placed the knowledge of God inside our spirits. We are now free to serve Christ free from that which slew us previously - the law. So long Aquarius, and we thank you!
No surprise that this thread is not generating the same number of comments as the "Legalist" thread.
I think part of it is just the way the words are, and how easily they're pronounced, and how easily the meaning is grasped. I mean, c'mon. Legalist vs. Antinomian.
Everybody and their grandmother has a conniption fit about meeting a legalist and thinking they know what a legalist is. But "antinomian"? It's hard to even say the word, let alone to define and understand it's proper meaning.
My suggestion is to come up with a different easier word than antinomian that means the same thing as antinomian, and that has the same powerful emotive punch as legalist does.
How about "whoring hypocrite"?
:-)
Considering I never heard the term 'antinomian' before, I really appreciate the topic.
@ truth unites...
I hear you, brother. Another word for "antinomian"... shorter, easier to say... same meaning...
Hmmm....
"Emergent"? (three syllables, and we all know it)
"PoMo"? (you can't get much shorter than that)
Personally, I'm fond of "Rebel Without A Clue," but not everyone would get that connection.
BTW, thanks for the good words back at STAND!
An antinomian is anyone one sees at church on Sunday morning that one doesn't like the looks of.
(Just kidding!!!)
Somehow I knew this converstation would turn to how antinomian = eeeeeeevvvvvil emergent
I am surprised it actually took this long though.
I love all the titles. Monergist, preterist, partial-preterist, pelagian, partial-pelagian, and many other important sounding words.
I like to collectively use the word "goofballs" which indicates a distinct departure from my own theology. Rule of thumb is that whoever labels the other first is pronounced as correct.
@ dac:
Sorry, brother. My bad, in the common street parlance.
But someone had to do it, so it might as well be me; it's been on my mind for a while, ever since I branded them as the Nicolaitans of our age.
Give credit to everyone else, because they've avoided saying it. I'm the day's only rabble-rouser. Nonetheless, as long as I've brought it up, can you think of any group which, as a group, has as serious an antinomian bent and still lays claim to the banner "Christian"? I'll happily consider any other candidate of equal stature...
There's a very simple reason for why this thread isn't as commented-upon as the legalist thread. 'Legalist' is a very abused word by a whole bunch of people across the spectrum in Christendom. It's more popular.
The only people who use the word "antinomian" are...
... wait for it...
...LEGALISTS!
Rick-
Come on confess, you lose when you thumb wrestle with yourself, don't ya
Dan: I loved the graphic the moment I saw it, and it fits as a caricature of whatever mental image comes into my mind at the sight of the word "antinomian." Sorry I didn't comment about it earlier.
Like Dac, I've really only encountered the word in the blogosphere—perhaps once or twice on books or offline articles.
Off topic, but an even less common word is the semantically unrelated antinomy (the apparent state of tension between divine sovereignty and human free will), which Packer uses to good effect in his Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God.
Rick,
Your opening comment sounds good, probably has a lot of folk thinking "yep, that is me too" but really now, what are they teaching you guys in seminary? I am beginning to see why you don't like voluminous scripture.
Then we have strong tower wanting to tell us what everyone else writes about the subject, even when he contradicts himself.
Now why is it again we practice righteousness rather than lawlessness? Could it be because we are born again, raised with him to a life of righteousness?
Romans 6
Belivers are Dead to Sin, Alive to God
1What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? 2By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? 3Do you not know that all of uswho have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just asChrist was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.
5For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. 6We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin. 7Forone who has died has been set free from sin. 8Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. 9We know that Christ, being raised from the dead, will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him. 10For the death he died he died to sin, once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God. 11So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus.
12Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, to make you obey its passions. 13Do not present your members to sin as instruments for unrighteousness, but present yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life, and your members to God as instruments for righteousness. 14For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.
Slaves to Righteousness
15What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! 16Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness? 17But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed, 18and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness. 19I am speaking in human terms, because of your natural limitations. For just as you once presented your members as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness leading to more lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness leading to sanctification.
20 For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness. 21But what fruit were you getting at that time from the things of which you are now ashamed? For the end of those things is death. 22But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the fruit you get leads to sanctification and its end, eternal life. 23For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
In the words of Elijah,
1 Kings 18:21 (English Standard Version)
21And Elijah came near to all the people and said, "How long will you go limping between two different opinions? If the LORD is God, follow him; but if Baal, then follow him." And the people did not answer him a word.
By the way, an antinomian to me would be one that considered himself crucified with Christ but rather than being raised with Him to a life of righteousness, finds himself still in the grave. That is just dead folks. No longer alive.
Matt:
You made an excellent point upthread: that attributing human effort to justification and assurance (getting saved and staying saved) can lead very quickly to works-based righteousness, among both conservatives (legalism) and liberals (the social gospel and its derivative offshoots).
Ezekiel - you have posted much Scripture but I only recieve the original Greek and Hebrew and not the contextual translations of men. To be honest with you I have not been quite able to connect with you as yet. Probably the problem is with me. Are you a sinless perfectionist?
"Then we have strong tower wanting to tell us what everyone else writes about the subject, even when he contradicts himself."
Okiedey, where?
I think I saw your name listed in Fisher's piece.
Fortunately Nomista eventually comes to understand that being a legalist was an error.
Hey strong tower - I appreciate humor. Thanks. It sometimes relieves the tension created by the sound of busy theologians punching keyboards, right? Peace.
Rick,
No, not a sinless perfectionist by any means. But I am a slave of righteousness....
Hebrew, Greek, English, Spanish.
You are not telling us that without seminary training and mastery of the Hebrew or Greek that we cant be crucified with Christ are you?
"You are not telling us that without seminary training and mastery of the Hebrew or Greek that we cant be crucified with Christ are you?"
No, but I am recommending a little less cappuccino and enjoy a little grace once in a while. You come across as stressed sometimes.
Another word for antinomian, ummm ...
Maybe "against law" sounds better in French: contre la loi, or just contrelaloi. It has a nice ring to it to go with an unrestrained, free-to-disobey, divine-laissez-faire approach. Just happens to be totally unbecoming a doulos to Christ who is liberated, yes, but free, no.
Rick,
Luke 10:16 and 23
"Ezekiel - To be honest with you I have not been quite able to connect with you as yet. Probably the problem is with me. Are you a sinless perfectionist?"
No cappuccino for me thanks. I like black. Prolly won't suprise you that I grind my own either.
Don't look now, it was a bit o dry humor.:)
Michelle - C’est La Vie
Zeke - thanks brother, progress. Food fight anyone?
Rick, by the way, carefull with the word Grace. not sure it means the same to you as it does to me.
I enjoy loads of Grace every morning. Truth too.
John 1.
Hey Zeke - who are your favorite Christian writers both dead and alive?
Luke 10:16 and 23
What's that mean? Who is the me, you, seers?
No Scripture please just your own spiritfilled words.
Luke 10:16 and 23. I see your Luke 10:16 and 23 and raise you:
century 86 quatrain 23
Unusual thread. (c:
Wyatt, — you do get that it's a hodgepodge of descriptions, both overlapping and mutually-exclusive? So you might be antinomian by one description, but not another?
Olan, good points.
Michelle, I'm sorry, but we've already got a lady who posts French stuff. Etrangere, with weird accents over some of the vowels.
Michelle, what I just said was true, but a joke. Good comment, thanks.
Terry, interesting, lively, thanks.
I believe that theologians have historically used the term mostly in sense #2: "Anyone who believes that Christians are not obliged to obey the moral division of the Law of Moses qua Law-of-Moses."
The sense in which I would use it would be more #3, which usually includes #5 and/or #6.
I don't ever hear it used in the sense Luther apparently coined it in disputing against Agricola -- that it means opposition to using the law to convict the sinner and lead him to Christ.
The man who left my church simply and sheerly because I taught that Christians should obey the commands of Christ and the apostles should be obeyed, by grace and in faith, was an antinomian.
"Luther apparently coined it in disputing against Agricola -- that it means opposition to using the law to convict the sinner and lead him to Christ."
However would you convict them?
Agricola sounds like a nickname for sourmash or home brew, but would make a good nickname for Osteen's sinless Gospel, too. Fizzy, fuzzy, and self-filling...
Rick,
Favorite Christian writers.
Dead. Spurgeon.
Alive. MacArthur although I really like DJP. I think he has a way of seeing things in scripture that aren't evident unless one has spent serious time in the WORD.
Yours?
djp? Isn't he a freemason?? Only kidding. :)
Dead - I like Spurgeon, Wesley, Luther, Pink, Tozer, Ravenhill, and Campbell.
Alive - Some MacArthur, Wilkerson, some Piper, and various articles by various authors.
I love reading the accounts of past revivals as well.
Rick,
Your 2:12 post sounds like you are mocking or scoffing. Have I missed the sense of your post?
1 1
Blessed is the man
who walks not in the counsel of the wicked,
nor stands in the way of sinners,
nor sits in the seat of scoffers;
2
but his delight is in the law of the Lord,
and on his law he meditates day and night.
3
He is like a tree
planted by streams of water
that yields its fruit in its season,
and its leaf does not wither.
In all that he does, he prospers.
Strong Tower,
If you step back and look at our past exchanges do you realize that what you find so offensive is me quoting scripture? Do you also see your tendency to quote other writers as your authorities and suggest we should believe what you say based on what they say?
Why is that? Why is the WORD so offensive to you?
Ezekiel - I formally and respectfully disengage from you. My communication seems to be counter-productive to us both.
Peace.
Dan,
Here’s an example of #1 I find interesting. Though I’ve been unable to find the original comment by R. C. Sproul that sparked this, this Open Letter to R.C. Sproul
from John G. Reisinger illustrates how someone who is exceptionally serious about living a moral, Christ-honoring life can be considered antinomian by another. In the case of Sproul and Reisinger, I suspect one would be hard put to find too much difference between their views on Christian living.
(The specific matter that purportedly caused Sproul to label Reisinger an antinomian was in regard to the New Covenant Theology assertion that the 4th Commandment was no longer binding on the Christian.)
I hope this isn’t too far off base in its utter lack of connection to the new graphic—which, by the way, I like very much for its stirring of the style pot.
No I don't see that, Zeke. If you look at my responses you will see that I am not so unlike you in quoting Scripture.I just understand it. I infact irritate the flesh out of many here, ask Cent.
You simply quote Scripture, stripping it of any meaning that contradicts the postition you put forth; which is as far as I can see, a legalistic self-perfectionism. At least that is the way you come across. And, you avoid answering questions like the last one, which may allow a closer look at who you are.
What did you mean by listing Luke 10:16 and 23?
Again I will ask who is the you, who is the one that hears and doesn't hear, who is the disciple? Where do you see yourself? What do you see that others do not?
Did you go to the link I left. Or did you kiss it off. You accused someone of contradiction. I asked where? So where, and who. My contention is you do not have a clue and you cannot define your own doctrine clearly or are unwilling to do so, to be able to cogently dissect others beliefs or defend your own. Your recourse is to copy over huge amounts of Scripture which ostensibly support your postition but which in reality ofuscates.
Now, what did you mean by what appears a slam which offended Mike. I think, it was a slam, he seemed offended, I am not sure... because your responses are so ethereal.
"Your 2:12 post sounds like you are mocking or scoffing. Have I missed the sense of your post?"
It was actually a joke, not a mockery. The issue had been covered before. Just quoting Scripture without some expression of your understanding of them tells us nothing. It is as a non sequitur. So, and this is the way I took it, it is as informative as quoting non-sense verses. But, you didn't get it and just could not laugh at yourself. But instead you quoted more:
"Blessed is the man
who walks not in the counsel of the wicked,
nor stands in the way of sinners,
nor sits in the seat of scoffers;
2
but his delight is in the law of the Lord,
and on his law he meditates day and night.
3
He is like a tree
planted by streams of water
that yields its fruit in its season,
and its leaf does not wither.
In all that he does, he prospers."
And, I think Mike got your import. You called him a name (letting corrupt communication come out of your mouth Zeke is moldy stinking fruit) and you excused yourself by making yourself the blessed one. Kinda like you did with Luke 10:16 and 23, right? As if the rest of us are all blind and idiots who reject and are opposed to Christ and you are the only enlighten one.
If I am getting you wrong, blame it on the meta, count me a fool, unable to comprehend your lofty speech and irrevocable erudition. But, please condescend, come down to the level of those of us who walk in the shadows of your righteoun brightness and tell us what you mean. Because you speak legalese and brag of your walk of grace. Please then be gracious and give gifts of milk and honey for your meat is too tough to chew.
To the rest- forgive me this, you all know how serrated I can be and how easily I make it to be ignored.
I would like to point out something that Pastor Michael said. A person who strenuously approves of keeping the law to the exclusion of mercy is antinomian while he keeps it diligently. Jesus said, now follow this Zeke cuz I am about to quote at length Scripture: Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others...He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness (mercy), and to walk humbly with your God?
It is fully possible, pay attention Zeke, to be so blinded in zeal to keep the law as a means of receiving God's favor that you are not only blind to your own need for mercy, you cannot keep the law of mercy. You might even say things like, "people speak to much of grace and mercy..."
This post has been removed by the author.
Correction up above. I said Mike where it should have been Rick. Sorry...
ST - since you were born in the same year as was I ('52) we can understand that dementia has set in!
:)
Le creme de mentia?
kooyk <-- my verification code, no kidding...
Uh, that should be "la creme", Strong Tower. Sorry, just couldn't resist that.
pastor michael,
The "Open Letter" by John Reisinger was written in response to a rather disgraceful issue of Tabletalk magazine. I believe it was the September 2004 issue.
Rather than dealing Scripturally with a point-by-point analysis of New Covenant Theology, it was basically a name-calling hit piece which ludicrously branded Reisinger and other New Covenant Theology guys as Antinomian.
It was not only sadly disrespectful, but exhibited such a woeful lack of understanding of what New Covenant Theology is, it reminded me of when, say, Time Magazine reports on the state of Evangelicalism, and quotes Vanderbilt or Harvard theologians to "illuminate" things.
Needless to say, neither Sproul, nor anyone from Tabletalk responded in any way to Reisinger (as of about a year ago, anyway).
John Reisinger, by the way, is an 80-something loving church statesman, who has shown the utmost respect for Covenant Theologians, not the least of which was his late brother Ernie (prominent in the Founders SBC movement), whom he credits with leading him to the Lord many years ago.
John has patiently sought to teach the Word from a NCT view, often in the face of being vilified by some whom he could run circles around theologically, and without the recklessness of those who have dismissed his studies without first understanding them.
John's Sound of Grace online magazine is reviewed by Phil Johnson on his Bookmarks under Helpful Theological Resources as follows:
Calvinism with an emphasis on the discontinuity of the Old and New Covenants. In distinction from more covenantal Reformed and Reformed Baptist views, the "New Covenant Theology" featured at this site downplays the role of the Law in the Christian's sanctification. As noted above, I'm not a proponent of NCT, but I've found my interaction with these views stimulating and helpful. This is the on-line version of the periodical founded by John Reisinger, whom I love and respect, despite our occasionally different points of view. (I would have categorized this site under "Christian Periodicals," but there's much more here than the journal featured on the opening page.)"
But you are French, no? I am but a poor English Pigdog...
Thanks Terry, and Michael. I found John's response insightful. I happen to agree with the NCT view of the Sabbath though I am not fully informed as to all that NCT teaches. Like many things we find in Scripture we latter find systematized in some work.
Anyway, I think it is interesting how blindness to our own legalistic tendencies can cause us to actually be antinomian. Very interesting...
Actually an English speaking ex-South African Canadian, nearly fluent in Afrikaans.
Wow- Globeular-
I am here in Cheyenne... yet to be determine what country it is in.
Strong Tower,
Ok, I will break it down for you. You say you want to know more about me then read Ezekiel 1-5. I am a common man. No seminary training and up until a couple of years ago just like a lot of folks that I see posting here and other blogs. I didn’t have a lot of desire to go to church, talk bible, read bible or live the life of a christian. Oh I called myself one, said I was saved, yet lived the way I wanted. The world couldn’t tell the difference, I looked just like one of them. My work was my idol, the dollar was my god.
Now things changed a couple of years ago, affliction (he really did choose me in the furnace of affliction) and correction and the next thing you know I was searching for answers in the WORD. Desperately searching. You might say I ate the scroll. And still eat it.
Now what happens today as I read through the threads, I see good points, good thought processes, different ways of looking at things, much like what I assume you get by reading the books and writers you apparently read. But what happens then is something attracts my attention. Usually where someone is misapplying scripture or saying something that doesn’t agree with what I have read. So I disagree, argue, whatever you want to call it. I contend for the WORD. I don’t so much care what MacArthur says or anyone else for that matter, just what the WORD says. You learned types, theologians whatever, can talk about Tozer, Piper and all those guys and I will stay out of it.
My pet peeve is preachers that should know better talking up Grace and Mercy, Under the blood, forgiveness and “we all sin and it is ok,” stuff. We don’t find that in the NT or the OT. It is a perversion of what is really in the WORD. We don’t talk about repentance, Christ is Lord, He is Holy and no one will enter the Kingdom unless we are holy. We can’t get past the first step and that is salvation through faith, not of works. We don’t go on and teach repentance, holyness, stop sinning and the power of Christ to change our lives. We profess to know God but deny Him by our works. We even take it to the point that we say we don’t need works, don’t need to bear fruit and if we do, that is a works based salvation and that can’t be right. So we wind up with churches full of folk