Antinomianism - How Do You Stack Up?

[J. Dean]

Would you mind providing some references to where they have taught this?

I'll give you a couple of references about Chan and Platt right off the bat, many of which are consistent with the portions of their works that I have read from these two.

The following are reviews of people who have read the works of Chan and Platt, with some pretty extensive quoting of the authors: A review of Chan's "Crazy Love"(Sidenote: while the blog author does come off as a little too Antinomian in some parts, his points about Chan's impression of making salvation contingent upon works is not without foundation)

Here's another review from http://www.drcone.com/2012/04/11/ca...n-teeth-a-review-of-francis-chans-crazy-love/ Again, while I don't agree with every point the reviewer makes, he is essentially correct on the following criticism:

His (Chan's) statements on p. 86 can be formulized as follows:

To get to heaven, we must love Jesus faithfully. (85)

To love Jesus is to obey His commands. (85)

Therefore, to get to heaven we must faithfully obey His commands. (85)

That is inarguably a prescription for works salvation. The author brings together the two separate aspects of justification (God’s declaration of our righteousness through the applied blood of Christ) and progressive sanctification (the process of discipleship and spiritual maturity, culminating in heaven with our glorification).

For a quick point of reference on the significance of the book’s description of salvation, consider Paul’s words in Galatians 1:9.

Unfortunately, based on my own perusal of Chan, there's some merit to this criticism.

Concerning David Platt's book Radical, check out this review by Kevin DeYoung: Getting to the Root of Radical: A Review and Response – Kevin DeYoung (Now I know that Platt came out in his second book and tried to clarify that he wasn't trying to teach salvation by works or guilt-laden Christian living, but one does not get that impression from the first book. Like DeYoung says, Platt seems to insinuate guilt for ordering french fries.)

I'm sure that, if you asked Platt and Chan, they'd tell you they believe in salvation by grace through faith in Christ alone. But they need to be more careful about their writings and discussions concerning Christian giving and support. They (and all of us) also need to be careful to not judge people based on what they appear to give or not give based upon what they see in a person's front yard or garage; I know a great many people who are generous in ways that are not seen by the general public.

As for Piper, he has a chapter about this in Desiring God, and it basically comes across in the same manner as Chan's and Platt's points regarding possessions.

I agree completely that materialism is a problem. And as somebody who has seen pastors financially struggle and missionaries needing funding, I'll be the first to say that the church probably could be a whole lot better about this. But to paint a picture that implies "salvation by monasticism" is simply false.

 

[moral necessity]

It was probably not a strict experiential Calvinism, but it did have a great emphasis on proving your salvation, which led to a continual scraping and a lot of doubt and despair. A perfectionist type of conscience like mine could find no rest here. Assurance was not in the least a part of the essense of faith, and Calvin's response to the Council of Trent, along with his Institutes, emphasized the opposite perspective. It was a breath of fresh air to me to read his works to hear something in the other direction. Berkhof helped balance it out as well. I am not opposed to internal searches, but I do tend to balk at them if they serve to undermine our confidence in the work of Christ on our behalf.

That dovetails well with what I mentioned earlier, Charles. If there's any danger to Calvinism that's on the rise, it seems to be the lure of Wesleyanism and the overemphasis on works to the point of trusting in them as the basis for salvation, thus undermining the sufficiency in Christ. I'm seeing some of this with people associated with the Chan/Piper/Platt wing, who at times come across as legalists with regard to material things and how much one gives to the church. Some of it comes dangerously close to teaching a "salvation by monasticism" principle, even if that is not the initial intent.

I'm sure that Antinomians exist and that they're doing a disservice to the gospel in negating good works, but I've seen a whole lot more of a flirtation with works-righteousness in the church, Reformed and otherwise.

I agree.

I tend to think that we, with a sincere heart religiously, seem to have a default within us towards the works-righteousness, that we need to be careful of.
And, those who lack a sincere heart religiously seem to have a default within them towards abusing the gospel with antinomianism.

Those who come out of backgrounds like mine, who scrape and scrape and never have assurance, also need to be cautious against swinging the pendulum too far towards antinomianism. However, if a sincerity of heart is present, one can venture pretty far towards preserving the freeness of the gospel, and the confident assurance of salvation that it brings apart from works, while maintaining a drive to press for good works.

Blessings!

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Young is a strong proponent of experimental religion. By the term Young likens it to the work of the scientist who forms hypotheses, tests them, and confirm, rejects, or revises said hypotheses. Likewise, believers are to to be constantly examining themselves, testing their experiences, and thusly proving their election sure.

I grew up in a church that taught this exact doctrine and I was one of many tortured souls in the church, never at rest in Christ, always wondering if I was truly saved or not. What resulted was a church full of people who were almost perpetually professing to be saved, then recanting. I'm by no means saying that we should not make our calling and election sure, but I would question that it's something that should be "constantly" done. Depending on what you mean by this, the idea can be taken too far and thus leave otherwise true believers in a constant state of doubt. There is a time to be confident that Christ has secured our election and that we are sovereignly his. Jesus promises us "rest for our souls," and a soul that is constantly testing experiences to prove his or her own election is not a soul at rest.

My words were a wee bit infelicitous. The word "constantly" was not something Young used and in my haste of marrying I Cor 13:5, James 2, and Hebrews 6:4-5, (all cited by young) with my own thoughts on "praying without ceasing" (not cited by Young), I ended up with "constantly". In fairness to Young, he makes no explicit mention that one should be constantly examining oneself. That said, I suppose the matter of the frequency of one's self-examination is best left up to the individual as long as he or she properly understands the assurance we are told we may lay claim to in Scripture. I understand what you are getting at and the despair that may arise from taking things to extremes.

As an aside, following the observation (and tip of the hat to J. Gresham Machen) that the trend in modern religion of exalting life over doctrine by the modernist is destructive, Young also writes: "Since a sound experience is rooted in doctrine, and unsound experience is widespread, it is preferable to retain the term "experimental religion" rather than replace it by "experiential religion."

 

[The Apologetic Thomas]

11. The elect are actually justified before they believe, even from all eternity.

I'm not sure about this one.
I was always taught the elect were in some sense justified from eternity since the atonement itself is transcendent, but that the justification wasn't complete until the blood of Jesus is applied to the elect person giving him true and saving faith.

 

[Peairtach]

11. The elect are actually justified before they believe, even from all eternity.

I'm not sure about this one.
I was always taught the elect were in some sense justified from eternity since the atonement itself is transcendent, but that the justification wasn't complete until the blood of Jesus is applied to the elect person giving him true and saving faith.

Someone who doesn't exist can't be justified, although the Lord can purpose to justify him at some stage of his existence.

 

[The Apologetic Thomas]

Someone who doesn't exist can't be justified, although the Lord can purpose to justify him at some stage of his existence.

Makes sense.

 

[Weston Stoler]

1. The law is made void by grace. Justification by faith alone renders good works unnecessary.

That statement is correct to the extent that good works are not instrumental of salvation

2. Since good works are unnecessary, obedience to the law is not required of justified persons.

Not required to save, yes.

3. God sees no sin in the justified, who are no longer bound by the law, and is not displeased with them if they sin.

Now this one we have to be VERY careful about, because this one can quickly turn into making the law as my atonement instead of Christ, because when and if I sin I fall into the trap of believing I need to try to keep the law harder to atone for my sin.

4. God therefore does not chastise justified persons for sin.

Obviously this is not supported by Scripture. While we are saved from the ultimate penalty of sin (damnation) we can surely be affected by the temporal consequences of sin

5. Nor can sin in any way injure the justified.

Again, see #4

6. Since no duties or obligations are admitted in the gospel, faith and repentance are not commanded.

Illogical. Faith is the instrumental means of justification; repentance is a natural consequence of that faith. A Christian cannot help but be repentant due to the regenerative work of the Holy Spirit

7. The Christian need not repent in order to receive pardon of sin.

Again, if you mean the false idea that our repentance rather than the finished work of Christ is the grounds of our justification, then there could be a point here (there IS a difference, btw), but repentance is a natural by-product of saving faith and will naturally follow, as Calvin indicated.

8. Nor need he mortify sin; Christ has mortified sin for him.

Yes and no. Yes, Christ's perfect obedience to the law is done on our behalf; again, in the sense that somehow our mortification contributes to our salvation, this thesis is correct. But again, the new nature and the Spirit make us WANT to mortify sin, not because it saves us, but because we are already saved. To put it in a marital analogy, I please my wife, not because I fear she'll divorce me, but because I love her. Big difference.

9. Nor ought he be distressed in conscience upon backsliding, but he should hold fast to a full assurance of his salvation in the midst of the vilest sins.

I actually agree with this statement, because the alternative to it is a step in the direction of works-righteousness. I'm sorry, but if we say salvation is in Christ alone, then we really need to mean Christ ALONE. That does not mean that wallowing in sin is desirable, to be sure, but again, the alternative to this is saying "I'm saved because I'm a good person," which is impossible because God demands perfect goodness from us, and we will never fulfill that this side of eternity.

10. Justifying faith is the assurance that one is already justified.

Not sure I understand this one. If by this the thesis purports that I am justified because of Christ's work on the cross, then this is corect. But if it means a presumptive justification without actual regeneration, then there's a problem.

11. The elect are actually justified before they believe, even from all eternity.

Now we get sticky. If you mean that the elect, at a predetermined time in history, will come to saving faith, then yes. But, all people are born condemned. In other words, I, J. Dean, at one point in my life, was NOT saved, even though I was predestined by God to come to saving faith.

12. Therefore, they were never children of wrath or under condemnation.

False. See Eph 2

13. Their sin, as to its very being, was imputed to Christ so as not to be theirs, and His holiness is imputed to them as their only sanctification.

That statement is correct ONLY IF it is understood that the effectual working of regeneration happens at a specific point in time ordained by God; but prior to that point in space-time, the elect are actually not part of the covenant people in concrete standing (in other words, were an elect person to die before conversion they would be non-elect, if that makes sense).

14. Sanctification is no evidence of justification, for assurance is the fruit of an immediate revelation that one is an elect person.

Agree completely with this. A person can do "good works," even works of a Christian nature, yet not be saved. Just because a person appears to be doing good does not mean he is truly saved. A Mormon may resemble a Christian in outward works, yet nobody here would even consider the Mormon doctrine of salvation to be orthodox.

15. No conviction by the law precedes the sinner’s closing with Christ, inasmuch as Christ is freely offered to sinners as sinners.

Violates the whole principle of "law and gospel" as understood by Luther, Calvin, et al. One must be told what one is saved from in order to say one can be saved.

16. Repentance is produced not by the law, but by the gospel only.

This thesis is only half right. Repentance is produced by saving faith. It is granted by God (I don't know the passage offhand, but Paul talks about God "granting repentence" to people). It is not "produced" by the law OR the gospel intrinsically, but by the working of the Spirit in faith.

17. The secret counsel of God is the rule of man’s conduct.

Not sure what is meant by this thesis

18. God is the author and approver of sin, for sin is the accomplishment of His will.

Contrary to Scripture insofar as that it makes God the "author" of sin. God detests sin; while it is true that God uses sin in the accomplisment of His will, God does not call evil "good," nor does He encourage the accomplishment of His will through wickedness.

19. Unless the Spirit works holiness in the soul, there is no obligation to be holy or to strive toward that end.

Again, we have to be careful about this one. For a regenerate person, the Spirit does indeed work holiness in the soul, and it is by this that the Christian desires to do good for the glory of God and for the good of his neighbor. There is an obligation externally to be holy, but this obligation MUST be kept in light of the fact that 1.) Unregenerate man cannot be holy, 2.) Unregenerate man has no desire whatsoever to be holy by the standard of God, 3.) All efforts to be holy or to strive for that end are fruitless apart from conversion, and 4.) Our striving for holiness even after conversion is not the grounds for our justification, nor is the fruit of holiness the grounds for our justification. Again, this one can easily flop into works-righteousness if care is not taken.

20. All externals are useless or indifferent, since the Spirit alone gives life.

Again, if we're talking about salvation/regeneration, then yes, this point is correct. That being said, the Spirit as He so desires can and does work through externalities (preaching of the Word, for example).

Any surprises in the above?

I don't know if I'd say there are surprises, but I would caution that the answers to some of those proposed theses are not necessarily an equal and opposing answer in the negative. As somebody who went through churches that flirted too much with works righteousness, I would say that the temptation to legalism is just as great, if not more so, as the temptation to slip into antinomianism. To be honest, I see a great deal more error in the direction of works-righteousness than I do in the direction of lawlessness, though I do not deny that the latter can be a real error for some.

AMR

[/QUOTE]

You said all the things I wanted to say but couldn't articulate correctly.