Antinomianism looks like...
- Thread starter A.Joseph
- Start date
- Status
I think this needs refining; one could say the Larger Catechism has a list of do's and do nots.
Solparvus
Puritan Board Senior
Legalism and antinomianism are both flip-sides of the same enmity.
Both hate the law of God. They just show it in different ways.
The legalist says, "Since my justification is not complete without my works, I must obey. But if I had my way, I would do what I want."
The antinomian says, "My justification is complete. Therefore I don't need to obey!"
One denies the Gospel cures the guilt of sin. The other denies it cures the power of sin. Neither likes God's moral law.
Both hate the law of God. They just show it in different ways.
The legalist says, "Since my justification is not complete without my works, I must obey. But if I had my way, I would do what I want."
The antinomian says, "My justification is complete. Therefore I don't need to obey!"
One denies the Gospel cures the guilt of sin. The other denies it cures the power of sin. Neither likes God's moral law.
Solparvus
Puritan Board Senior
Historically, antinomianism hasn't always been open lawlessness. In some cases it was the word given to those who denied that the Ten Commandments are for the New Testament Christian. Or, all except one belong to us.
Here is Baxter on antinomianism, in directions to new Christians on how to spot and avoid it. There is another good summary of antinomian doctrines by him once I can pull them in.
The big thing to look out for is disobedience under pretense of magnifying Christ and free grace.
- - - - - -- --- -- - --- - - - - --- ------
And natural corruption containeth in it, the seeds of all these damnable heresies: nothing more natural to lapsed man, than to shake off the government of God, and to become a lawgiver to himself, and as many others as he can ; and to turn the grace of God into wantonness. Therefore the profane, that never heard it from any heretics but themselves, do make themselves such a creed as this; that:
“God is merciful, and, therefore, we need not fear his threatenings, for he will be better than his word: it belongeth to him to save us, and not to us, and, therefore, we may cast our souls upon his care, though we care not for them ourselves. If he hath predestinated us to salvation, we shall be saved; and if he have not, we shall not, whatever we do, or how well soever we live. Christ died for sinners, and therefore, though we are sinners, he will save us. God is stronger than the devil, and, therefore, the devil shall not have the most. That which pleaseth the flesh, and doth God no harm, can never be so great a matter, or so much offend him, as to procure our damnation. What need of so much ado to be saved, or so much haste to turn to God, when any one that at last doth but repent, and cry God mercy, and believe that Christ died for him, shall be saved ? Christ is the Saviour of the world, and his grace is very great and free; and, therefore, God forbid that none should be saved but those few that are of strict and holy lives, and make so much ado for heaven. No man can know who shall be saved, and who shall not ; and, therefore, it is the wisest way, to do nobody any harm, and to live merrily, and trust God with our souls, and put our salvation upon the venture; nobody is saved for his own works or deservings; and, therefore, our hives may serve the turn as well, as if they were more strict and holy.”
This is the creed of the ungodly; by which you may see how natural it is to them, to abuse the Gospel, and plead God’s grace, to quiet and strengthen them in their sin, and to embolden themselves on Christ to disobey him. But this is but to set Christ against himself: even his merits and mercies, against his government and Spirit: and to set his death, against the ends of his death: and to set our Saviour against our salvation: and to run from God and rebel against him, because Christ died to recover us to God, and to give us repentance unto life: and to sin, because he died to save his people from their sins, “and to purify a peculiar people to himself, zealous of good works”.” “He that committeth sin, is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil”.
Here is Baxter on antinomianism, in directions to new Christians on how to spot and avoid it. There is another good summary of antinomian doctrines by him once I can pull them in.
The big thing to look out for is disobedience under pretense of magnifying Christ and free grace.
- - - - - -- --- -- - --- - - - - --- ------
And natural corruption containeth in it, the seeds of all these damnable heresies: nothing more natural to lapsed man, than to shake off the government of God, and to become a lawgiver to himself, and as many others as he can ; and to turn the grace of God into wantonness. Therefore the profane, that never heard it from any heretics but themselves, do make themselves such a creed as this; that:
“God is merciful, and, therefore, we need not fear his threatenings, for he will be better than his word: it belongeth to him to save us, and not to us, and, therefore, we may cast our souls upon his care, though we care not for them ourselves. If he hath predestinated us to salvation, we shall be saved; and if he have not, we shall not, whatever we do, or how well soever we live. Christ died for sinners, and therefore, though we are sinners, he will save us. God is stronger than the devil, and, therefore, the devil shall not have the most. That which pleaseth the flesh, and doth God no harm, can never be so great a matter, or so much offend him, as to procure our damnation. What need of so much ado to be saved, or so much haste to turn to God, when any one that at last doth but repent, and cry God mercy, and believe that Christ died for him, shall be saved ? Christ is the Saviour of the world, and his grace is very great and free; and, therefore, God forbid that none should be saved but those few that are of strict and holy lives, and make so much ado for heaven. No man can know who shall be saved, and who shall not ; and, therefore, it is the wisest way, to do nobody any harm, and to live merrily, and trust God with our souls, and put our salvation upon the venture; nobody is saved for his own works or deservings; and, therefore, our hives may serve the turn as well, as if they were more strict and holy.”
This is the creed of the ungodly; by which you may see how natural it is to them, to abuse the Gospel, and plead God’s grace, to quiet and strengthen them in their sin, and to embolden themselves on Christ to disobey him. But this is but to set Christ against himself: even his merits and mercies, against his government and Spirit: and to set his death, against the ends of his death: and to set our Saviour against our salvation: and to run from God and rebel against him, because Christ died to recover us to God, and to give us repentance unto life: and to sin, because he died to save his people from their sins, “and to purify a peculiar people to himself, zealous of good works”.” “He that committeth sin, is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil”.
A.Joseph
Puritan Board Senior
I mean, what does it means to be antinomian?
What are some examples...
Is it really just a generally cavalier attitude towards sin? A hyper-grace license to sin in which spiritual warfare is completely foreign?
Can you be one and not realize it?
Can you be one and still be saved?
A.Joseph
Puritan Board Senior
ok, that helps with some of my follow up questions, thanks!!!
J. H. Thornwell wrote a helpful little piece entitled simply "Antinomianism." It might at least help answer your question(s).
The collected writings of James Henley Thornwell : Thornwell, James Henley, 1812-1862 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
1. Theological.--2. Theological and ethical.--3. Theological and controversial.--4. Ecclesiastical
archive.org
Functional antinomianism reduced to the basics:
“Free from the law, o blessed condition, I can sin all I want and still have remission.”
The tripping point is the emphasis on "I."
“Free from the law, o blessed condition, I can sin all I want and still have remission.”
The tripping point is the emphasis on "I."
timfost
Puritan Board Senior
"Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound?" (Rom. 6:1)
"What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace?" (Rom. 6:15)
Tobias Crisp held to the belief that there were two Covenants of Grace (Westminster rejects in 7.6). Consider Crisp's commentary on Hebrews 8:6:
"The whole Administration of that Covenant which the Priests had to manage, was wholly and only matter of Grace: And though it were a Covenant of Grace, yet it is opposed to that Covenant which Christ in his own Person did mediate. Therefore the opposition which stands here, is not between the Covenant of Works, and the Covenant of Grace, but it is between the Covenant of Grace weak, imperfect, unprofitable, disannulled; and another Covenant of Grace that is perfect, established, and makes the comers thereunto perfect."
The idea is that the former CoG had moral conditions. The second CoG had no moral conditions since they were completely met in Christ alone. (He also strongly advocated eternal justification, not surprisingly).
In many ways, in Crisp's thinking, good works were accidental (i.e. not essential) to the Christian life since Christ kept the law perfectly for the elect.
On a practical level, it wasn't a complete lack of regard for morality, but it also tended to downplay the role of moral obligation. Of course, downplaying morality leads to immorality, at least to some degree.
Modern forms of antinomianism may be seen in the "carnal Christian" as well as certain advocates of "eternal security" (contrast to perseverance if the saints).
It's mainly thinking that since I have been eternally secured, and all my sins forgiven, do not have have to worry that much about being confirmed to image of Jesus, as will always be acceptable to God. It's basically being saved and yet still ok to keep doing what I want to do, not seeking what God wants me to do.
Here are just a few quotes from the last chapter (9) of Mark Jones' book on Antinomianism.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00GM3WQZ6/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1
There can be little doubt that defining antinomianism is exceedingly difficult, to the point that even discussing a number of shared characteristics is not without its problems. In my view, a book on legalism would also encounter the same types of problems. Many understand “legalism” as salvation by works, which is only partly true. This way of understanding the concept ends up missing the more subtle forms of legalistic thinking that creep into our thinking. If antinomianism is understood simply as all indicatives without imperatives, and legalism simply as all imperatives without indicatives, then there have been very few true antinomians or true legalists in the Christian tradition. Legalistic thinking suffers from the same types of subtle errors as antinomianism. Indeed, they share the same fundamental problem: poor Christology.
Jones, Mark. Antinomianism: Reformed Theology's Unwelcome Guest? (pp. 123-124). P&R Publishing. Kindle Edition.
A further area of dispute between the antinomians and Reformed theologians had to do with the relationship between the law and the gospel. No Reformed writer disputed that the law and the gospel were utterly opposed to one another when it came to the doctrine of justification. The precise point of contention centered on the law-gospel distinction in the Christian life. For the Christian, the law is his friend because God and Christ are his friends—that is, the law and the gospel “sweetly comply.” The notion of a radical opposition between the law and the gospel, whereby the law only commands and the gospel only promises, has more in common with antinomian theology than Reformed theology. In fact, such Reformed theologians as John Owen spoke about the “prescriptive part of the gospel.” When a sharp distinction is maintained between the law and the gospel in the Christian life, the first use of the law tends to replace the third use of the law as its primary function. Despite claims to the contrary, the law takes on a decidedly negative tone in the preaching and writing of those who hold to such a sharp distinction. For Reformed theologians who speak of a promising and commanding gospel, the graciousness of the gospel is shown by the fact that God accepts our sincere, albeit imperfect, obedience. He could not do that if we sought to be justified by the law. For this reason, the Christian life is not one of despair because we cannot obey our Father—far from it. Our Father, in his grace toward us in Christ, accepts our obedience and may even refer to his people as righteous and blameless, despite their imperfect obedience (Luke 1:6).
Jones, Mark. Antinomianism: Reformed Theology's Unwelcome Guest? (pp. 125-126). P&R Publishing. Kindle Edition.
Not surprisingly, the antinomians loved to echo the phrase that God does not love us any more or any less on the basis of our obedience or lack thereof. But that is not the whole story. Reformed divines spoke of a twofold love of God for his creatures. His benevolent love, which is primary, is eternal, unchangeable, and unconditional. There is nothing we can do or not do to merit this love. However, God and Christ have a love of complacency for their people, which has in view the communion that takes place between them and their people (John 14:21, 23). This complacent love is not static, but can increase or decrease based on our obedience or disobedience. For this reason, God and Christ really are pleased and displeased with Christians. The antinomians, with their view that God sees no sin in his people, asserted that God could not be angry with his people. But it is not pastorally helpful to tell Christians that God cannot get angry with them when in fact he can and does (Pss. 38–39). Repentance and forgiveness are aspects of the Christian life that should occur daily (Matt. 6:12).
Jones, Mark. Antinomianism: Reformed Theology's Unwelcome Guest? (p. 127). P&R Publishing. Kindle Edition.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00GM3WQZ6/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1
There can be little doubt that defining antinomianism is exceedingly difficult, to the point that even discussing a number of shared characteristics is not without its problems. In my view, a book on legalism would also encounter the same types of problems. Many understand “legalism” as salvation by works, which is only partly true. This way of understanding the concept ends up missing the more subtle forms of legalistic thinking that creep into our thinking. If antinomianism is understood simply as all indicatives without imperatives, and legalism simply as all imperatives without indicatives, then there have been very few true antinomians or true legalists in the Christian tradition. Legalistic thinking suffers from the same types of subtle errors as antinomianism. Indeed, they share the same fundamental problem: poor Christology.
Jones, Mark. Antinomianism: Reformed Theology's Unwelcome Guest? (pp. 123-124). P&R Publishing. Kindle Edition.
A further area of dispute between the antinomians and Reformed theologians had to do with the relationship between the law and the gospel. No Reformed writer disputed that the law and the gospel were utterly opposed to one another when it came to the doctrine of justification. The precise point of contention centered on the law-gospel distinction in the Christian life. For the Christian, the law is his friend because God and Christ are his friends—that is, the law and the gospel “sweetly comply.” The notion of a radical opposition between the law and the gospel, whereby the law only commands and the gospel only promises, has more in common with antinomian theology than Reformed theology. In fact, such Reformed theologians as John Owen spoke about the “prescriptive part of the gospel.” When a sharp distinction is maintained between the law and the gospel in the Christian life, the first use of the law tends to replace the third use of the law as its primary function. Despite claims to the contrary, the law takes on a decidedly negative tone in the preaching and writing of those who hold to such a sharp distinction. For Reformed theologians who speak of a promising and commanding gospel, the graciousness of the gospel is shown by the fact that God accepts our sincere, albeit imperfect, obedience. He could not do that if we sought to be justified by the law. For this reason, the Christian life is not one of despair because we cannot obey our Father—far from it. Our Father, in his grace toward us in Christ, accepts our obedience and may even refer to his people as righteous and blameless, despite their imperfect obedience (Luke 1:6).
Jones, Mark. Antinomianism: Reformed Theology's Unwelcome Guest? (pp. 125-126). P&R Publishing. Kindle Edition.
Not surprisingly, the antinomians loved to echo the phrase that God does not love us any more or any less on the basis of our obedience or lack thereof. But that is not the whole story. Reformed divines spoke of a twofold love of God for his creatures. His benevolent love, which is primary, is eternal, unchangeable, and unconditional. There is nothing we can do or not do to merit this love. However, God and Christ have a love of complacency for their people, which has in view the communion that takes place between them and their people (John 14:21, 23). This complacent love is not static, but can increase or decrease based on our obedience or disobedience. For this reason, God and Christ really are pleased and displeased with Christians. The antinomians, with their view that God sees no sin in his people, asserted that God could not be angry with his people. But it is not pastorally helpful to tell Christians that God cannot get angry with them when in fact he can and does (Pss. 38–39). Repentance and forgiveness are aspects of the Christian life that should occur daily (Matt. 6:12).
Jones, Mark. Antinomianism: Reformed Theology's Unwelcome Guest? (p. 127). P&R Publishing. Kindle Edition.
Last edited:
Solparvus
Puritan Board Senior
Walking in the Truth - Craig Scott
Preached on 2 John last night. First half addresses antimomianism.
Discussing afterward, antinomianism does something similar to legalism: Just as legalism separates law from the character of the lawgiver, so does antinomianism grace from the grace-giving Savior.
Grace is not a thing. It is a person. It is partaking in the virtue of the mediation of Christ, and He gives His benefits together.
Preached on 2 John last night. First half addresses antimomianism.
Discussing afterward, antinomianism does something similar to legalism: Just as legalism separates law from the character of the lawgiver, so does antinomianism grace from the grace-giving Savior.
Grace is not a thing. It is a person. It is partaking in the virtue of the mediation of Christ, and He gives His benefits together.
Last edited:
Steve Curtis
Puritan Board Senior
- Status
