tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post4741401341783621680..comments2024-03-10T10:40:32.319-07:00Comments on Pyromaniacs: What is an "antinomian"?Phil Johnsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comBlogger147125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-18157206164092438842008-04-05T09:18:00.000-07:002008-04-05T09:18:00.000-07:00Sorry, it's off the front-page. Door's closed.Sorry, it's off the front-page. Door's closed.DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-47089232672157462952008-04-04T08:45:00.000-07:002008-04-04T08:45:00.000-07:00FWIW before the door closes on this thread, I thin...FWIW before the door closes on this thread, I think the terms “practical antinomianism” and “doctrinal antinomianism” are particularly unhelpful. While a distinction needs to made, doctrine always determines practice, or to say it another way, what you believe will always determine what you do. The “doctrinal antinomianism” of men like Sibbes, Owen (if it’s fair to include them here) and Reisinger obviously did not lead them to licentiousness. Perhaps “technical antinomianism” might better describe their viewpoints, or maybe as Terry and others have suggested, the term antinomian has lost its usefulness and needs to be replaced entirely. But with what?Pastor Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04506888721434975233noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-82815588807028326372008-04-04T05:59:00.000-07:002008-04-04T05:59:00.000-07:00Terry,After the article was published, many wrote ...Terry,<BR/><BR/>After the article was published, many wrote me privately and I even had an extended discussion on an email list. I learned a few things via these discussions. I will share a few closing observations of mine then sign off for now:<BR/><BR/>1. My original copy of the article did soften the blow of utilizing the phrase "theological [or "doctrinal"] antinomianism." Some crucial qualifies were edited, though not by me. I have since sought to define and highly qualify what I mean by the nuanced use of antinomian in a published article which was also an appendix to a book - "Covenant Theology From Adam to Christ," by Nehemiah Coxe and John Owen. You can see the book at www.rbap.net.<BR/><BR/>2. The fact that the broader, nuanced meanings of antinomianism (i.e., doctrinal, practical, theological, heretical, etc.) are not well known by some does not mean they are not useful terms. Confessional Christians often discuss issues in terms of their confessioal heritage. That's all I was doing.<BR/><BR/>For instance, confessional Presbyterians often call confessional Reformed Baptists predestinarian Baptists, not Reformed, and/or not covenantal. I understand why they do this. It is certainly possible that some do this to give the appearance of superiority and others to smear. The Lord knows their hearts. But others do it to categorize a group of churches in terms they can understand.<BR/><BR/>3. The book "The Weakness of the Law," by Jonathan Bayes, recommended by Sinclair Ferguson and Erroll Hulse, is one example of contemporary scholarship making a distinction between "practical" and "doctrinal antinomianism."<BR/><BR/>May the Lord help us (me first and foremost!) to speak to each other as brothers, though we may disagree. I have found that Tom Wells has been such a good example to me in this area. We have become good friends through all of this. I esteem him highly.<BR/><BR/>Press on, my brother!<BR/><BR/>Rich B.<BR/><BR/>PS: The "more dangerous" comment was originally qualified, though edited. I do not think they edited for shock or smear but for space. In the context of the entire article, I meant that it is harder to detect and it has some serious ramifications if followed consistently (i.e., Tom Wells' view of moral law). I address this in my reveiw of "NCT" by Tom Wells and Fred Zaspel.Rich Barcelloshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02737056106185097562noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-85250271975920875512008-04-03T23:09:00.000-07:002008-04-03T23:09:00.000-07:00Rich,You wrote, "I sent the article to Tom Wells b...Rich,<BR/><BR/>You wrote, <I>"I sent the article to Tom Wells before it went into print. I don't think he thought it was intended to smear anyone. BTW, Terry, how can you know that in the first place?"</I><BR/><BR/>1. I was very careful in my previous comment to say that it *seemed* like the use of the term "antinomian" was used to smear Dispensationalists and New Covenant Theology folks.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps "smear" is too strong a word (maybe "discredit" would be better), but I still think that was the effect of using that word.<BR/><BR/>John Reisinger thought so, too, and said in his Open Letter,<BR/><BR/><I>"One of those articles, "The Death of the Decalogue," by Richard Barcellos, applied the ODIOUS [emphasis Terry's] label of theological antinomian to Tom Wells and Fred Zaspel, co-authors of the book New Covenant Theology (page 55), and to me (page 16)."</I><BR/><BR/>2. I know of no one who doesn't think the term "antinomian" is "odious", and the application of that odious term short-circuits analytical thinking, as opposed to encouraging it. <BR/><BR/>It's considered by most as heresy, and isn't far removed from calling a political Conservative a Nazi, for example. <BR/><BR/>Oh, they're a Nazi? I won't bother listening to them. End of story. <BR/><BR/>Then, of course, they're forced to defend themselves as not being a Nazi, but the damage is done in some minds.<BR/><BR/>3. I had said from memory that there were one or two other articles in the <I>Tabletalk</I> issue, but there were actually a total of five. <BR/><BR/>4. Even the <I>Tabletalk</I> issue itself was inconsistent in its use of the term "antinomian".<BR/><BR/>As Reisinger wrote in his Open Letter, <BR/><BR/><I>"We are especially grateful to you for clearly defining, in the article by Morton Smith (pages 8-10, 54), what was historically considered antinomianism. We can only wish you had used that definition consistently throughout the entire issue instead of having it discarded for new and different definitions, especially the definition used by Richard Barcellos."</I><BR/><BR/>Morton Smith, in his article, quotes a work entitled <I>Antinomianism Discovered and Confuted</I> by Thomas Gataker, a member of the Westminster Assembly, that lists six marks of antinomianism.<BR/><BR/>Reisinger cries out, <BR/><BR/><I>"Not a single one of the six things on that list are true of Tom Wells, Fred Zaspel or me. One of the six could conceivably apply, but only if our view was misunderstood. The other five are far off from our convictions."</I> <BR/><BR/>5. The overriding impact of the articles was that NCT proponents were "against law" in some scary sense. <BR/><BR/>In Keith Mathison's article in the TT issue, he labels Dispensationalism as antinomian.<BR/><BR/>And you, Rich, said that New Covenant Theology is "more dangerous than explicit antinonianism" (page 15).<BR/><BR/>Really?<BR/><BR/>Even Sproul, in his article, "To The Gallows With Moses!", quotes true antinomian Johannes Agricola, who indicated that someone could willfully live a life of sin and still be a child of God.<BR/><BR/>He goes on to quote the little poem,<BR/><BR/>"Free from the law,<BR/>Oh blessed condition;<BR/>We can sin all we want,<BR/>And still have remission."<BR/><BR/><I>Tabletalk</I> readers, as Reisinger puts it, <BR/><BR/><I>"...by implication, have every reason to believe that Wells, Zaspel and I believe the same thing as Agricola. However, we have preached, and will continue to preach, the absolute necessity and certainty of the final perseverance of the saints. We disagree with Agricola just as strongly as you do. You unjustly malign us by innuendo."</I> <BR/><BR/>6. All of which circles around to my main point, which is that the term "antinomian" is at best pretty useless, and at worst a word to smear (okay, "discredit") those who are not Covenant Theology folks, without having to engage them in Scriptural dialogue or debate.<BR/><BR/>7. Finally, you are as capable as most any contemporary guy to defend your Covenant Theology, as evidenced by other articles of yours, and your book <I>In Defense of the Decalogue</I>. Not to say that I found them convincing, but at least they state the case with a Scripturally-oriented framework.<BR/><BR/>Who, besides a Church History geek, really needs the term "antinomian"? <BR/><BR/><I>Sola Scriptura</I> (and I know we agree on that, brother), <BR/><BR/>TerryTerry Rayburnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00888533194435826837noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-43308112911476199352008-04-03T16:44:00.000-07:002008-04-03T16:44:00.000-07:00And now for some shameless fawning: I hope for the...<I>And now for some shameless fawning: I hope for the opportunity to meet you at Band of Bloggers or during the conference proper.</I><BR/><BR/>Love to, Michael.<BR/><BR/>And as to the three uses of the law, I think you might have three <I>perspectives</I> on the Law amongst the three of us!DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-51827305165181493822008-04-03T16:41:00.000-07:002008-04-03T16:41:00.000-07:00DJP,Thanks for the reply; the “new” policy makes a...DJP,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the reply; the “new” policy makes absolute sense. I wonder how the three of you preside over as much as you do, what with this, your two other blogs, Frank’s fourteen, and Phil’s link extravaganza, not to mention your family, church and work responsibilities. It’s all I can do to post once a week on my blog with its two readers.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, perhaps one day when you’re hurting for an idea you can come back to this thread from a slightly different angle, say on the three uses of the law. For that matter, even before this post I was thinking about writing to ask you to consider a post on the first use of the law. I have the greatest respect for The Way of the Master guys, but wonder if in light the Old Covenant’s passing if we shouldn’t focus more on the unredeemed’s failure to keep Christ’s commandments, now that one greater than Moses has come. <BR/><BR/>And now for some shameless fawning: I hope for the opportunity to meet you at Band of Bloggers or during the conference proper.Pastor Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04506888721434975233noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-7212700971467289812008-04-03T14:20:00.000-07:002008-04-03T14:20:00.000-07:00Michael, for that very reason (because we can't mo...<B>Michael</B>, for that very reason (because we can't monitor meta's endlessly) <A HREF="http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2007/11/meta-policy-change.html" REL="nofollow">we instituted a policy change</A>, and lock meta's before they drop off the front page.DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-47652448315083035402008-04-03T09:09:00.000-07:002008-04-03T09:09:00.000-07:00Sorry for taking two posts to complete my thought,...Sorry for taking two posts to complete my thought, but circumstances provided a little more time to add to my previous comment.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, I am fascinated by the subject, because it seems to me that since Christ has come, his words and his example ought to be <B>the</B> rule of life in faith and practice. And while the law has great value for gaining insight and understanding into the meaning of Christ’s’ teaching, it should be Christ’s words that govern us, not those of Moses.<BR/><BR/>Having never studied this in depth, I look forward to reading what the giants of understanding, Owen, Calvin and Luther have to say about this.<BR/><BR/>A side note to the Pyro hosts, is continuing this discussion over time ok? I’m sure you guys have enough on your plates that you don’t need comments on exhausted threads popping up in your inbox all the time.Pastor Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04506888721434975233noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-72640476592571521932008-04-03T08:23:00.000-07:002008-04-03T08:23:00.000-07:00Thanks, Rich. (For those still following this thre...Thanks, Rich.<BR/> <BR/>(For those still following this thread, here’s a direct <A HREF="http://www.rbtr.org/owensdecaloguebarcellos.pdf" REL="nofollow">link</A> to Richard’s article.)<BR/><BR/>As if anyone will still be around, I’ll need a few weeks to digest all this enough to comment.Pastor Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04506888721434975233noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-54843971181738432652008-04-03T07:28:00.000-07:002008-04-03T07:28:00.000-07:00The Table Talk article I was asked to write was so...The Table Talk article I was asked to write was somewhere in the neighborhood of 1500 words. There's only so much you can do with that kind of limitation. I am pretty sure I qualified 'antinomian' whenever I used in in refernece to NCT. I sent the article to Tom Wells before it went into print. I don't think he thought it was intended to smear anyone. BTW, Terry, how can you know that in the first place?<BR/><BR/>Here is a footnote in an article I wrote a few years ago. It shows that the nuanced use of antinomian is in older literature as well as contemporary literature.<BR/><BR/>"Historically, antinomians have been labeled differently, depending on the type of antinomianism adhered to. Practical antinomians not only teach against law in the Christian life, they also advocate lawless living. Doctrinal antinomians, however, do not advocate lawless living, but they deny the third use of the law or, at best, advocate it, but redefine what law means. See Turretin, Institutes, 2:141ff. where he discusses the fact that antinomians deny the third use of the law. See Ernest F. Kevan, The Grace of Law (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1976, second printing, February 1983), 22 (n.32), 24, 25, for evidence that those who denied the perpetuity of the Decalogue and, hence, the third use of the law, were labeled as moderately antinomian or doctrinally antinomian, even though considered otherwise virtuous. See also Jonathan F. Bayes, The Weakness of the Law (Carlisle, Cumbria, UK: Paternoster Press, 2000), 44-46, where he discusses John G. Reisinger in the context of doctrinal antinomianism, my article “The Death of the Decalogue,” Tabletalk, September 2002, which is a brief discussion of the doctrinal antinomianism of NCT, my review of New Covenant Theology by Tom Wells and Fred Zaspel in Reformed Baptist Theological Review, I:1, January 2004, and Ian McNaughton, “Antinomianism in Historical Perspective” and James M. Renihan, “Caterpillars and Butterflies,” which is a book review of New Covenant Theology in Reformation Today, September-October 2003, No. 195, 9-16 and 23-26. NCT, as a movement, abominates practical antinomianism, and rightly so."<BR/><BR/>The enitre article is here: http://www.rbtr.org/samples.html. It deals with John Owen and New Covenant Theology, specifically the mis-understanding and mis-use of Owen by both Reisinger and Wells.Rich Barcelloshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02737056106185097562noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-52127451303886072812008-04-01T22:20:00.000-07:002008-04-01T22:20:00.000-07:00Here is a justly famous quote from Professor Zane ...Here is a justly famous quote from Professor Zane C. Hodges on both Antinomianism and Legalism:<BR/><BR/>Uh, oh! Here’s another of those nasty theological words—antinomianism! According to Berkhof the denial of the third use of the law is a mark of the antinomians. But if the word legalism is wrapped in obscurity these days, the term antinomianism is enveloped in Stygian darkness!<BR/><BR/>For instance, my copy of The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language has only one definition for this word, which it designates as its meaning in theology. Listen to this: "antinomian n. Theology. A member of a Christian sect holding that faith alone is necessary for salvation."4 Well, how about that! If that’s all we’re talking about under the term antinomian, I cheerfully confess to being one. And so, I imagine, would every member of GES, since that’s the doctrine articulated in our doctrinal confession. But I take great comfort in the fact that under the American Heritage definition, the apostle Paul himself should be classified as an unreconstructed antinomian!<BR/><BR/>I wish it were all as simple as that. But of course it isn’t. I said before we were talking about a muddy, muddy word here, and we certainly are. You see the term antinomian has a complicated theological history.<BR/><BR/>Martin Luther is thought to have been the first to utilize the term, in his controversy with Johann Agricola. Agricola is said to have denied the relevance of the moral law in bringing a sinner to repentance. On the other hand, some who have accepted this second, or pedagogic, use of the law, have still been called antinomians. For example, Hugh Blair writes that they (the antinomians) "insist that the moral law has no place in the life of the believer, who is not under law but under grace, and so not bound by the law as a rule of life for Christian living."5 As you can see, this articulation of things is close to Berkhof’s third use of the law. The main difference is that Blair specifies "the moral law" and Berkhof mentions simply "the law." Obviously we have opened a can of worms.<BR/><BR/>A reading of all the documents in the second edition of David D. Hall’s, The Antinomian Controversy, 1636-1638: A Documentary History6 reveals that the nature of this controversy has been repeatedly misrepresented both in the theological classroom and in theological literature. The controversy was not at all about the need for holy living—all sides agreed to this. Thus Anne Hutchinson, the famous villainess of the controversy, "was not a ‘libertine’ who advocated sexual license."7 In fact, the controversy was not about sanctification per se but about assurance of salvation. So Hall writes: "I argued in 1968, and would argue again, that assurance of salvation was the central issue in the controversy."8 <BR/><BR/>I would like to suggest that today the term antinomian is largely what you make it. That’s unfortunate, but I’m afraid it’s true. But of course the root derivation of the word simply means "opposed to law." Not necessarily to the law of Moses per se, but simply to law as such. It would be nice if all parties in the current debate over the Gospel could agree to confine the term to those who are opposed to all forms of law in the Christian life. That is to say, an antinomian would then be one who held that there are no laws governing Christian behavior so that the Christian is entirely free from commandments and binding obligations. That kind of definition would clarify things a lot.<BR/><BR/>For one thing, under that definition, Paul was certainly not an antinomian. After all, it was Paul who said (1 Cor 9:21) that in seeking to win to Christ those who were "without law," he became "as without law"—but he hastens to add, "not being without law toward God, but under law toward Christ." In another place he can say, "Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ" (Gal 6:2). Regardless of the precise meaning of this text, it certainly shows that Paul could think in terms of Christian law. In addition, the NT everywhere asserts that our Lord left commandments that are binding on His followers today.<BR/><BR/>So you see what I mean. If we could confine the designation antinomian to those who will not acknowledge any such thing as a Christian law, we would clarify the situation greatly. But don’t hold your breath waiting for this to happen. Antinomian is too good a Christian "cuss-word" to retreat easily to the fringes of theological debate in the way I am suggesting. It just happens to be a very convenient cudgel with which to bludgeon theological opponents whose attributes and theology offend us. I regret to say that Christian polemicists do not readily retire their most useful brickbats, anymore than the nuclear powers easily discard their nuclear arsenals. It’s nice to have something with which to blow your opponents off the face of the map, and antinomianism serves very well for that purpose in some theological circles.<BR/><BR/>So how about my own nuclear arsenal? What theological word is my big bomb? All right. I’m going to admit it. My own nuclear riposte is wrapped up in one word: legalism.<BR/><BR/>Taken from "Legalism, the Real Thing" found at:<BR/>http://www.faithalone.org/journal/1996ii/Hodges.htmlAntoniohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08383024070371150288noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-24718684114759615842008-04-01T18:52:00.000-07:002008-04-01T18:52:00.000-07:00Not sure if something I wrote prompted Solameanie ...Not sure if something I wrote prompted Solameanie to think about the "You're not the boss of me" <A HREF="http://www.spurgeon.org/images/pyromaniac/TeamPyro/e-s_011.jpg" REL="nofollow">Po-Motivator</A>, but I certainly don’t want anyone to think that’s where I’m coming from. <BR/><BR/>Maybe I should have added to my scriptural convictions about the law that I hold deeply to Romans 6:15-18: <I>What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! Do 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? But 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, and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness.</I> (ESV) <BR/><BR/>And for good measure, Romans 8:12-13: <I>So then, brothers, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh. For if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live.</I> (ESV)Pastor Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04506888721434975233noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-17259342727388950112008-04-01T10:53:00.000-07:002008-04-01T10:53:00.000-07:00Why does Phil's poster, "You're not the boss of me...Why does Phil's poster, "You're not the boss of me" come to mind all of a sudden?Solameaniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09869424956571944997noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-9454131283749760632008-04-01T08:53:00.000-07:002008-04-01T08:53:00.000-07:00Pinging Rich Barcellos. (Wish I knew how to do tha...Pinging Rich Barcellos. (Wish I knew how to do that.) Would love to hear your thoughts on this thread; hope you remember to write when you get home.<BR/><BR/>Personally, I have learned a great deal from the comments and the links. Had no idea how loaded, nuanced, and technical the term antinomian could be.<BR/><BR/>For those challenged by following all 133 comments, some with lengthy links, here’s a summary of what I’ve gotten so far:<BR/><BR/>1) The word seems to have been coined by Martin Luther in response to the idea put forth by <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Agricola" REL="nofollow">Johannes Agricola</A> that Christians were entirely free from the Mosaic Law.<BR/><BR/>2) From Bobby Grow’s <A HREF="http://theologyofbobby.wordpress.com/2008/02/25/quid-pro-quo-salvation-or-free-grace-comparing-and-contrasting-william-perkins-and-richard-sibbes/" REL="nofollow">reference</A>, a few years later the term took on an exceptionally nuanced use to describe differences between William Perkins and Richard Sibbes, with Sibbes (of all people!) considered antinomian for seeing a transformation of the affections being the primary vehicle of sanctification, while Perkins and the nomists viewed “human responsibility as the center-theme of salvation”. I didn’t see the word “antinomian” in the article, but I can see how it might have been applied. Something else I learned, worth reading the article for, concerned Sibbes’ and Perkins’ disagreement over the “privative” vs. “positive” nature of sin and the cause of the fall.<BR/><BR/>3) <I>Webster’s 1858 Dictionary</I> has a definition, “One of a sect who maintain, that, under the gospel dispensation, the law is of no use or obligation; or who hold doctrines which supersede the necessity of good works and a virtuous life. This sect originated with John Agricola about the year 1538.” (I’m reminded here of R. C. Sproul’s observation in <I>Chosen By God”</I> that based on Webster’s definition of predestination about the best thing you could determine from it was that Webster was a Lutheran.)<BR/><BR/>4) A modern use of the term, not too far removed from Luther’s, was in a 2002 article by Rich Barcellos in <I>Table Talk</I> magazine apparently applying it to the proponents of New Covenant Theology. One of those proponents, John Reisinger, authored a lengthy<A HREF="http://www.soundofgrace.com/jgr/index074.htm" REL="nofollow"> response</A> saying at best he should be considered a 1/10 antinomian, because the only functional difference between him and his critics was in their view of Sabbath keeping.<BR/><BR/>5) Contemporary uses of the word are loosely connected to its historical roots but mostly based upon an informal translation of the term into English, “being against the law”. This can be used by most anyone who feels they are more scrupulous about pleasing God than another. Related to this is the use by some to describe modern “free grace” adherents and by some to describe the emerg/ing/ent/er church.<BR/><BR/>6) Lastly, I’m tempted to apply the term to myself, because though I cherish all God’s decrees, I believe Romans 7:6: <I>But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code.</I> Ephesians 2:14-16: <I>For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility.</I> And Hebrews 8:13: <I>In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.</I> (All ESV) <BR/><BR/>Sorry for the length; I was trying to be helpful.Pastor Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04506888721434975233noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-61640292779808126922008-04-01T04:03:00.000-07:002008-04-01T04:03:00.000-07:00Does Jimmy Dean work on Sundays?Works for me.(Ba-d...<I>Does Jimmy Dean work on Sundays?</I><BR/><BR/>Works for me.<BR/><BR/>(Ba-dum bum)DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-67905140929154565412008-03-31T19:35:00.000-07:002008-03-31T19:35:00.000-07:00Does Jimmy Dean work on Sundays?Does Jimmy Dean work on Sundays?Only Lookhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16074543462279905793noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-49016994859227650562008-03-31T14:33:00.000-07:002008-03-31T14:33:00.000-07:00Terry:Would those people then be "antinomian theon...Terry:<BR/><BR/>Would those people then be "antinomian theonomists"?<BR/><BR/>Kosher (<I>contra</I> Galatians), but pork's okay. The mind boggles....Stefan Ewinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05530690016594029847noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-18137853983186612302008-03-31T14:28:00.000-07:002008-03-31T14:28:00.000-07:00I forgot, in regards to "antinomian" (loosely spea...I forgot, in regards to "antinomian" (loosely speaking) Law-Keepers, I once met a family who said that they believe we should obey the Old Covenant dietary laws, "except it's okay to eat pork".<BR/><BR/>I guess they're Jimmy Dean fans.Terry Rayburnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00888533194435826837noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-40473573436306570392008-03-31T14:22:00.000-07:002008-03-31T14:22:00.000-07:00rich barcellos,"The guy who wrote the Table Talk a...rich barcellos,<BR/><BR/><I>"The guy who wrote the Table Talk article and who submitted it to three men with Ph.Ds. in 17th century theology prior to publication."</I><BR/><BR/>Ah-h, there's the problem. You submitted your article to three PhD's in 17th Century theology, when the term "antinomianism" originated in the 16th century! --That's a little side joke, Rich :)<BR/><BR/>Seriously, the Tabletalk issue had one or two other articles in addition to yours, and none of them seemed designed to "nuance" the meaning of "antinomianism", but to smear both Dispensationalists and New Covenant Theology guy, both of whom were called "antinomian".<BR/><BR/>Nor did the articles attempt to really engage the *arguments* of Dispensationalism and NCT, or even to represent them fairly. <BR/><BR/>The entire impression a fair reader would have was of an attempt to "brand" those who disagree with you as false teachers -- serious men who love Christ and His Word, but who don't, for example, think that the command to keep the Sabbath Day is applicable to New Covenant believers.<BR/><BR/>I won't go into the reasons for such non-Sabbatarianism in this context (an example from MacArthur is available <A HREF="http://www.gty.org/Resources/Issues&Answers/598" REL="nofollow">here</A>. Perhaps you know them well. <BR/><BR/>But I have long thought that those who are Covenant Theology guys are (if I may use one of the loose non-historical definitions of "antinomian") really "antinomian Sabbatarians", since they call for obedience to the Fourth Commandment, but without it being the seventh day, and with neither the biblical restrictions of Sabbath-keeping, nor the biblical punishments for violating it. Sort of "Sabbath Lite", except on Sunday.<BR/><BR/>(Yes, I have read Edwards' <I>Perpetuity and Change of the Sabbath</I>, which I consider light on Scriptural argument, and heavy on philosophical reasoning. Not as God-breathed as some seem to think of it, though it's about as good as could be expected if your *premise* is that Sunday is the new Sabbath, and binding on the Christian -- a bad premise, IMHO.)<BR/><BR/>To all,<BR/><BR/>In any case, I urge all to read Reisinger's previously mentioned <A HREF="http://www.soundofgrace.com/jgr/index074.htm" REL="nofollow">Open Letter to Sproul</A>, if you haven't already, since it covers much ground I won't belabor here.<BR/><BR/>Meanwhile, I still insist that the term "antinomian" is pretty much a worthless one, since it either has to be "nuanced" at length for its historical roots, or redefined and misused for less-than-noble purposes.<BR/><BR/>Or to put it another way...<BR/><BR/>Before using the term "antinomian", ask yourself, "Am I trying to seek to understand and clarify *biblical* truth, or am I trying to 'spin' in such a way as to merely smear or defeat my theological opponent?"<BR/><BR/>I believe if one asks that question, they will not bother using the almost-useless term, but will use more explanatory language.Terry Rayburnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00888533194435826837noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-45643524690318686842008-03-31T12:52:00.000-07:002008-03-31T12:52:00.000-07:00Candy:And better to grind teeth than to gnash teet...Candy:<BR/><BR/>And better to grind teeth than to gnash teeth!<BR/><BR/>Frickfricker:<BR/><BR/>You're right that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is probably in a whole different category than what we're talking about.<BR/><BR/>Actually confronting a brother or sister who's persisting in sin in the mistaken idea that he or she is being led into it by the Holy Spirit should involve correction, compassion, prayer, pointing them to Scripture, and eventually if need be, going the Matthew 18 route, with an eye to ultimate reconciliation.<BR/><BR/>Pulling the ace of trumps on them and wrongly scaring them into thinking they've committed the unpardonable sin—when there's still hope of repentance and they haven't outright apostasized Hebrews 10-style—would be an ill-advised and irresponsible course of action.Stefan Ewinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05530690016594029847noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-18875219858100014512008-03-31T12:40:00.000-07:002008-03-31T12:40:00.000-07:00It made us feel older.It made us feel older.DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-29802163736684071672008-03-31T11:56:00.000-07:002008-03-31T11:56:00.000-07:00Has it been only a year since the Francis Chan thi...Has it been only a year since the Francis Chan thing? I feel much older than that.FX Turkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16798420127955373559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-44977601749603435522008-03-31T08:48:00.000-07:002008-03-31T08:48:00.000-07:00Only Look said: Wasn't Chad Bresson and Steve Cam...Only Look said: <I> Wasn't Chad Bresson and Steve Camp implying that you guys were antinomian as well as arminian about this time last year on that Chan video thing?</I><BR/><BR/>I think it is not hard to imagine that in Steve Camp's eyes, almost everyone else seems to be an antinomian.candyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06088593538648596769noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-25129628456078783572008-03-31T08:42:00.000-07:002008-03-31T08:42:00.000-07:00Ezekial said: No cappuccino for me thanks. I like ...Ezekial said: <I>No cappuccino for me thanks. I like black. Prolly won't suprise you that I grind my own either.</I><BR/><BR/>Better to grind coffee than to grind teeth.<BR/><BR/>just joking.candyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06088593538648596769noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-27542145728104844342008-03-30T21:55:00.000-07:002008-03-30T21:55:00.000-07:00I agree with Tom Chantry. Historically speaking, '...I agree with Tom Chantry. Historically speaking, 'antinomian' is a highly nuanced, technical term. When I get home, assuming I remember, I will send evidence to that end.<BR/><BR/>The guy who wrote the Table Talk article and who submitted it to three men with Ph.Ds. in 17th century theology prior to publication,<BR/><BR/>Rich BarcellosRich Barcelloshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02737056106185097562noreply@blogger.com