Posted on 11/16/2002 1:02:27 PM PST by f.Christian
Antinomianism (Greek anti,"against"; nomos,"law") is the doctrine that faith in Christ frees the Christian from obligation to observe the moral law as set forth in the Old Testament. The insistence in the Epistles of St. Paul upon the inadequacy of the law to save, and upon salvation by faith without "works of the law" or "deeds of righteousness" (see Romans 3:20, 28; Ephesians 2:9; 2 Timothy 2:9; Titus 3:5) could easily be interpreted as a claim of freedom from all obligation to obey the moral law. Thus, righteous persons might well hold such a doctrine and behave in an exemplary way, not from compulsion but from a devotion higher than the law. Gross and vicious persons, however, might well interpret the exemption from obligation as positive permission to disregard the moral law in determining their conduct.
Such concepts had evidently begun in the apostles' own day, as appears from the arguments and warnings in the epistles of the New Testament (see Romans 6, 8; 1 Peter 3:5). The term was first used during theReformation by Martin Luther to describe the opinions of the German preacher Johann Agricola. The Antinomian Controversy of this time, in which Luther took a very active part, terminated in 1540 in a retraction by Agricola. Views more extreme than his were afterward advocated by some of the English nonconformists and by the Anabaptists.
The word comes from the Greek anti (against) and nomos (law), and refers to the doctrine that it is not necessary for Christians to preach and / or obey the moral law of the OT. There have been several different justifications for this view down through the centuries.
Some have taught that once persons are justified by faith in Christ, they no longer have any obligation toward the moral law because Jesus has freed them from it. A variant of this first position is that since Christ has raised believers above the positive precepts of the law, they need to be obedient only to the immediate guidance of the Holy Spirit, who will keep them from sin.
A second view has been that since the law came from the Demiurge (as in Gnosticism) and not from the true, loving Father, it was a Christian's duty to disobey it.
Third, others have said that since sin is inevitable anyway, there is no need to resist it. An extension of this view is the contention of some that since God, in his eternal decree, willed sin, it would be presumptuous to resist it. Finally, still others have opposed the preaching of the law on the grounds that it is unnecessary and, indeed, contrary to the gospel of Jesus Christ.
It was the first of these views that the apostle Paul had to address in various letters to Christian churches in the first century. For example, there were those in the Corinth church who taught that once people were justified by faith, they could engage in immorality since there was no longer any obligation to obey the moral law (1 Cor. 5 - 6). Paul also had to correct others who obviously had drawn wrong conclusions from his teachings on justification and grace (e.g., Rom. 3:8, 31). Paul himself agonized over his own inability to meet the law's demands, but also exalted it as holy, spiritual, and good (Rom. 7). Elsewhere he taught that the law was the schoolmaster who brings sinners to a knowledge of their sin and therefore to Christ (Gal. 3:24). He concluded that the proper relationship was that of the stipulated works of the law flowing from the experience of saving grace rather than vice versa (Rom. 6 - 8).
Perhaps the most extreme form of antinomianism in early Christianity found expression in the Adamite sect in North Africa. The Adamites flourished in the second and third centuries, called their church "Paradise," condemned marriage because Adam had not observed it, and worshiped in the nude.
Many Gnostics in the first centuries of the Christian era held the second of these variations of antinomianism, that the Demiurage, not the true God, gave the moral law; therefore it should not be kept. Some forms of antinomian Gnosticism survived well into the Middle Ages. Moreover, various medieval heretical groups preached Corinthian - style freedom from the law, some going so far as to claim that even prostitution was not sinful for the spiritual person.
The two most famous antinomian controversies in Christian history occurred in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, and involved Martin Luther and Anne Hutchinson, respectively. In fact, it was Luther who actually coined the word "antinomianism" in his theological struggle with his former student, Johann Agricola. In the early days of the Reformation, Luther had taught that, after NT times, the moral law had only the negative value of preparing sinners for grace by making them aware of their sin. Agricola denied even this function of the law, believing that repentance should be induced only through the preaching of the gospel of salvation by grace through faith in Christ.
This first major theological controversy in Protestant history lasted intermittently from 1537 to 1540. During this time Luther began to stress the role of the law in Christian life and to preach that it was needed to discipline Christians. He also wrote an important theological treatise to refute antinomianism once and for all: Against the Antinomians (1539). The whole matter was finally settled for Lutheranism by the Formula of Concord in 1577, which recognized a threefold use of the law: (1) to reveal sin, (2) to establish general decency in society at large, and (3) to provide a rule of life for those who have been regenerated through faith in Christ.
There were several outbreaks of antinomianism in the Puritan movement in seventeenth century England. However, the major controversy over this teaching among Puritans came in New England in the 1630s in connection with an outspoken woman named Anne Marbury Hutchinson, who emigrated to Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1634. At the time, the New England Puritans were attempting to clarify the place of "preparation for conversion" in covenant (or federal) theology. They had come to the conclusion that salvation lay in fulfilling the conditions of God's covenant with humankind, including preparation for justification and a conscious effort toward sancitification. To some, including Hutchinson, this seemed like an overemphasis on the observance of the law, and she condemned it as a "covenant of works." Instead, she stressed the "covenant of grace," which she said was apart from the works of the law. She began to hold informal meetings in her home to expound her views and to denounce those of the preachers in Massachusetts.
In the context of the great stress of the times, it was only a few years before the civil war erupted in England and the colony lived in tense frontier circumstances, the New England clergy probably misunderstood her main concerns and overreacted to what they perceived to be a threat to the unity and internal security of the Puritan community. At a synod of Congregational churches in 1637 Hutchinson was condemned as an antinomian, enthusiast, and heretic, and banished from the colony. In 1638 she moved to Rhode Island.
In the twentieth century some have viewed existentialist ethics, situation ethics, and moral relativism as forms of antinomianism because these either reject or diminish the normative force of moral law. Certainly most orthodox Christians today agree that the law served the twin purposes of establishing the fact of human sin and of providing moral guidelines for Christian living. In general the various antinomian controversies in history have clarified the legitimate distinctions between law and gospel and between justification and sanctification.
The Christian community as a whole has rejected antinomianism over the years for several reasons. It has regarded the view as damaging to the unity of the Bible, which demands that one part of the divine revelation must not contradict another. Even more important, it has argued that antinomians misunderstood the nature of justification by faith, which, though granted apart from the works of the law, is not sanctification. In general, orthodoxy teaches that the moral principles of the law are still valid, not as objective strivings but as fruits of the Holy Spirit at work in the life of the believer. This disposes of the objection that since the law is too demanding to be kept, it can be completely thrust aside as irrelevant to the individual living under grace.
R D Linder
(Elwell Evangelical Dictionary)
‘Take my yoke upon you and learn from me. For I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden light.’ (Matthew 11:29&30)
"To those who are wearied by hard and unrewarding usage, Jesus offers relief. Yet we see that it is not rest in the form of complete cessation of obligation. Jesus rest from the yoke that galls lies in acceptance of another yoke of service-his. There is a rest for tired spirits, that can only be had along the road of service. Jesus teaches that that there can be no succor for the toils of despairing effort, apart from effort of another kind-effort springing out of a new and different relationship."
"Jesus rest does not liberate us from a sense of the seriousness of sin. Rather, we are taught by him that sin is more virulent, and dangerous than we had ever dreamt. He takes us on a... tour(link)---through the neighborhood of our own soul, and there discloses vast tracts of evil we had not thought were there."
"Instead of a...cheap escapism---Jesus delivers us from the discouragement of bad religion, and other poor moral guardians, by asking us to come with him and bear the load that love laid on his back. The paradox of Jesus is that love is always heavy-laden. Yet it is precisely this willingness to bear, that makes the yoke of Christ light."
"If we are not yoked with Jesus, we shall have to wear the yoke of other value systems which may appear to ask little of us, but which in fact leave us guilty, remorseful, drained of hope, and joy."
Becky
I agree on this-and accept that Grace is evidence of the kindness of God at the same time. Doing works to score points doesn't get it....doing good works to express faith and a love for God, does. Motive is everything.
Becky
Becky
And if we fail to "show" our salvation by obedience, thanksgiving and praise, do we lose it?
If not, what is the point of obedience, thanksgiving and praise? Can we get to heaven without it?
‘But I say to all of you: In the future, you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the mighty One.’ (Matthew 26:64)
"If the universe is moral, (and the fact that such a person as Christ existed, is strong evidence that it is), then what Jesus said about himself and the future, must come true. If morality has an infinite source, and backing, then the moral excellence of Christ will ultimately... triumph---over evil."
"I know some very agreeable people. I know some that I would call gentle giants. But their easygoing spirit is never a threat to greed and corruption. Kindness, patience, understanding, and love are not better than envy and bitterness, if they only ever exist as counterweights to their opposites. A good man who is content to coexist forever with badness, and wrong, cannot be a good man in any absolute sense."
"The goodness of Jesus is surpassing because he not only sorrowed over sin, and was outraged by it, he set himself against it, and warned his enemies that by suffering for it, he would rise above it, and eliminate it."
"If our universe is a moral one, then Jesus' values can never be viewed in any offhand way. Rather, he must be seen as a hazard to every act, motive, system, institution, or law, that is not in sympathy with him. A question that governments and their constituents ought to ask is: Are we making laws; invoking policies that clash with Christ and the direction of his Spirit? If so we are building badly. The universe itself will not back us. The future belongs to Christ-and to all who follow him."
NO.
If not, what is the point of obedience, thanksgiving and praise? Can we get to heaven without it?
I do not mean to be uncharitable, but this is a very selfish attitude. The point of obedience, thanksgiving and praise is to show obedience thanksgiving and praise. To show love for the God that sent His Son to hang and a cross and save our sorry carcasses.
1 John 5:3 For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments, and His commandments are not grevious.
Do you always have to have something back for your good behavior? Is good behavior to much to ask for so great a salvation? Isn't pleasing God enough of a rewrd?
Becky
I have always been told: "be good and you go to heaven; be bad and you go to hell." Now you're saying that that's a lie. Behaviour doesn't matter! Reminds me of Santa Claus. We all get our gifts anyway. (Do you know of anyone who ever really got a lump of coal in his/her stocking?)
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for "believing and receiving." That puts us all in heaven with Bill and Hillary. But if obedience is irrelevant, why bother to have commandments in the first place?
Is good behavior to much to ask for so great a salvation?
You're suggesting that there is a correlation between behaviour and salvation. Is there now, really? Think about it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.