# Antinomianism



## Notthemama1984 (Sep 22, 2010)

I need some help clarifying this term if you do not mind.

I had always understood _antinomianism_ as a view that rejected the Mosaic Law in its entirety. Thus if one rejected the Decalogue as applicable today, then one was antinomian.

Today I read an article on antinomianism that focused on a dispute of sanctification and how one knew if they were justified. The dispute originated with Tobias Crisp and John Eaton. 

I had never heard the latter. Is Antinomianism still about being secure in one's justification or is it about rejecting the Mosaic Law?

---------- Post added at 04:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:48 PM ----------

If someone knows how to attach a pdf file, I will pass along the article.


----------



## JML (Sep 22, 2010)

I always understood it as a rejection of the moral law as binding on the Christian. Hence the term anti (against) nomian (law).


----------



## puritan628 (Sep 22, 2010)

*Attaching a PDF*

Here's how I've discovered to attach a PDF:

1. Use the "Go Advanced" method of posting.

2. There's an Attachments link on the top line where the font choices, sizes, and other properties are. Select that paperclip-looking icon.

3. Select "Add Files" in the dialogue box that opens up.

4. Select "Select Files" in the smaller dialogue box that opens up.

5. Locate and select the PDF file you want to attach and select "Open" in that dialogue box.

6. Select "Upload" in the box where your file is listed as one of the files to upload from your computer.

7. The file should then be listed in the "Attachments" section of the original dialogue box. You can then select that item and post your response. Let's see if it worked. ...


----------



## puritan628 (Sep 22, 2010)

Oh, and yes, I've always understood it to mean against law.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Sep 22, 2010)

well the file is too large. Thanks for the info though.


----------



## moral necessity (Sep 22, 2010)

I think this is a very important question you are asking, for otherwise, the label will be inappropriately applied. In the published collection of Tobias Crisps' works, John Gill is the editor, who is defending Mr. Crisp from the antinomian label that was being pinned upon him. Over and over again throughout the book, he says in the footnotes that what Mr. Crisp just said shows that he is not "anti law". A fairly clear historical definition of what "antinomianism" is and is not can be extracted from Gill's comments.

Here's a good link for a little history, including some about Crisp and Eaton, and the history of the antinomian label. You'll need to scroll the surrounding pages of where the link takes you to in the book. The life and thought of John Gill ... - Google Books

Blessings!


----------



## rbcbob (Sep 22, 2010)

If you want to pursue Crisp, Eaton, et.al. read _The Grace Of Law_ "a study of Puritan Theology, by Ernest F. Kevan. There are copious quotations from the Puritans as they debated Legalism, Antinomianism, and Neo-Nomianism.


----------



## Nebrexan (Sep 23, 2010)

The prospective deacons at our church are going through R.C. Sproul's _Truths We Confess_. In one chapter (Vol. 2, p. 65) he gives the "song of the antinomian":

Saved from the law,
O blessed condition!
I can sin all I want
And still have remission.


----------



## jwithnell (Sep 23, 2010)

My understanding has followed some of what's mentioned here: a denial that the Mosaic covenant has anything to do with the New Testament believer. I've also seen it applied to those who reject bringing the civil law into the modern era. However, in OPC circles, I'm finding it defined as someone who lives a "loose" life because, hey I'm saved, I have no restraints. I guess it's important to define terms when speaking or writing.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Sep 23, 2010)

I have learned that another problem when discussing antinomianism with dispensationalists is that I see that the Decalogue is the Moral Law. Dispensationalists don't. Thus when I saw they deny the moral law, they argue against it because we define Moral Law differently.


----------

