Antinomianism: Difference between revisions
m Remove template per TFD outcome |
WP:HEAD |
||
Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
Although the term originated in early controversies of Protestant doctrine in the 16th century, it has its roots in debates over the [[Synoptic Gospels]] and the [[Pauline Epistles]] and the issue of [[Paul of Tarsus and Judaism]] in the 1st century, and it can be extended to any religious group believing they are not bound to obey the laws of their own religious tradition. However few groups or sects, outside of [[Christian anarchism]] or [[Jewish anarchism]], explicitly call themselves "antinomian". |
Although the term originated in early controversies of Protestant doctrine in the 16th century, it has its roots in debates over the [[Synoptic Gospels]] and the [[Pauline Epistles]] and the issue of [[Paul of Tarsus and Judaism]] in the 1st century, and it can be extended to any religious group believing they are not bound to obey the laws of their own religious tradition. However few groups or sects, outside of [[Christian anarchism]] or [[Jewish anarchism]], explicitly call themselves "antinomian". |
||
== |
==Christianity== |
||
Antinomianism has been a point of doctrinal contention in the [[History of Christianity]], especially in [[Protestantism]]. Given the [[Protestant]] belief of [[Sola fide|justification through faith alone]], versus on the basis of merit, most Protestant Christians consider themselves saved without having to keep the commandments of the Mosaic Law as a whole. However, consistent with the Reformed formula, “We are justified by faith alone but not by a faith that is alone,”<ref>[“Essential Truths of the Christian Faith” http://books.google.com/books?id=DC-TRU4tEvsC&pg=PT211&dq=R.+C.+Sproul+Faith+and+Works&hl=en&ei=cBUkTo6aOuXb0QHH0tC3Aw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=R.%20C.%20Sproul%20Faith%20and%20Works&f=false] p. 191</ref> salvific faith has overall been seen as one that effected obedience, with those teachings (known somewhat imprecisely) as the ''moral law'' in contrast to ''ceremonial law'' being retained in almost all [[Christian denominations]], see [[Biblical law in Christianity]] for details. Upon hearing that he was being charged with rejection of the Old Testament ''moral law'', Luther responded: |
Antinomianism has been a point of doctrinal contention in the [[History of Christianity]], especially in [[Protestantism]]. Given the [[Protestant]] belief of [[Sola fide|justification through faith alone]], versus on the basis of merit, most Protestant Christians consider themselves saved without having to keep the commandments of the Mosaic Law as a whole. However, consistent with the Reformed formula, “We are justified by faith alone but not by a faith that is alone,”<ref>[“Essential Truths of the Christian Faith” http://books.google.com/books?id=DC-TRU4tEvsC&pg=PT211&dq=R.+C.+Sproul+Faith+and+Works&hl=en&ei=cBUkTo6aOuXb0QHH0tC3Aw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=R.%20C.%20Sproul%20Faith%20and%20Works&f=false] p. 191</ref> salvific faith has overall been seen as one that effected obedience, with those teachings (known somewhat imprecisely) as the ''moral law'' in contrast to ''ceremonial law'' being retained in almost all [[Christian denominations]], see [[Biblical law in Christianity]] for details. Upon hearing that he was being charged with rejection of the Old Testament ''moral law'', Luther responded: |
||
⚫ | {{quote|And truly, I wonder exceedingly, how it came to be imputed to me, that I should reject the Law or ten Commandments, there being extant so many of my own expositions (and those of several sorts) upon the Commandments, which also are daily expounded, and used in our Churches, to say nothing of the Confession and Apology, and other books of ours.|sign=Martin Luther|source=<ref>[http://www.truecovenanter.com/truelutheran/luther_against_the_antinomians.html "A Treatise against Antinomians, written in an Epistolary way"]</ref>}} |
||
<blockquote> |
|||
⚫ | And truly, I wonder exceedingly, how it came to be imputed to me, that I should reject the Law or ten Commandments, there being extant so many of my own expositions (and those of several sorts) upon the Commandments, which also are daily expounded, and used in our Churches, to say nothing of the Confession and Apology, and other books of ours. |
||
</blockquote> |
|||
In his Introduction to Romans, Luther stated that saving faith is, |
In his Introduction to Romans, Luther stated that saving faith is, |
||
⚫ | {{quote|a living, creative, active and powerful thing, this faith. Faith cannot help doing [[good works]] constantly. It doesn’t stop to ask if good works ought to be done, but before anyone asks, it already has done them and continues to do them without ceasing. Anyone who does not do good works in this manner is an unbeliever...Thus, it is just as impossible to separate faith and works as it is to separate heat and light from fire!|<ref>[http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/luther-faith.txt Luther, "An Introduction to St. Paul's Letter to the Romans,"] Luther's German Bible of 1522 by Martin Luther, 1483-1546 Translated by Rev. Robert E. Smith from DR. MARTIN LUTHER'S VERMISCHTE DEUTSCHE SCHRIFTEN. Johann K. Irmischer, ed. Vol. 63 (Erlangen: Heyder and Zimmer, 1854), pp.124-125. [EA 63:124-125] August 1994</ref>}} |
||
<blockquote> |
|||
⚫ | a living, creative, active and powerful thing, this faith. Faith cannot help doing [[good works]] constantly. It doesn’t stop to ask if good works ought to be done, but before anyone asks, it already has done them and continues to do them without ceasing. Anyone who does not do good works in this manner is an unbeliever...Thus, it is just as impossible to separate faith and works as it is to separate heat and light from fire! |
||
</blockquote> |
|||
The [[Westminster Confession of Faith]] states: |
The [[Westminster Confession of Faith]] states: |
||
<blockquote> |
|||
Faith, thus receiving and resting on Christ and His righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification; yet it is not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but works by love.<ref>[Westminster Confession of Faith, CHAPTER XI. Of Justification. http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/wcf.htm]</ref> |
{{Quote|Faith, thus receiving and resting on Christ and His righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification; yet it is not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but works by love.|<ref>[Westminster Confession of Faith, CHAPTER XI. Of Justification. http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/wcf.htm]</ref>}} |
||
</blockquote> |
|||
The classic [[Methodist]] commentator [[Adam Clarke]] held, |
The classic [[Methodist]] commentator [[Adam Clarke]] held, |
||
<blockquote> |
|||
The Gospel proclaims liberty from the ceremonial law: but binds you still faster under the moral law. To be freed from the ceremonial law is the [[Christian liberty|Gospel liberty]]; to pretend freedom from the moral law is Antinomianism.<ref>[http://www.studylight.org/com/acc/view.cgi?book=ga&chapter=005 The Adam Clarke Commentary, Gal. 5:13]</ref> |
{{quote|The Gospel proclaims liberty from the ceremonial law: but binds you still faster under the moral law. To be freed from the ceremonial law is the [[Christian liberty|Gospel liberty]]; to pretend freedom from the moral law is Antinomianism.|<ref>[http://www.studylight.org/com/acc/view.cgi?book=ga&chapter=005 The Adam Clarke Commentary, Gal. 5:13]</ref>}} |
||
</blockquote> |
|||
Likewise on on Titus 1:16 ("They profess that they know God; but in works they deny, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate." KJV): |
Likewise on on Titus 1:16 ("They profess that they know God; but in works they deny, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate." KJV): |
||
<blockquote> |
|||
Full of a pretended faith, while utterly destitute of those works by which a genuine faith is accredited and proved.<ref>[http://www.studylight.org/com/acc/view.cgi?book=tit&chapter=001 The Adam Clarke Commentary, Titus 1]</ref> |
{{quote|Full of a pretended faith, while utterly destitute of those works by which a genuine faith is accredited and proved.|<ref>[http://www.studylight.org/com/acc/view.cgi?book=tit&chapter=001 The Adam Clarke Commentary, Titus 1]</ref>}} |
||
<blockquote> |
|||
To which the Presbyterian commentator [[Mathew Henry]] concurs: "There are many who in word and tongue profess to know God, and yet in their lives and conversations deny and reject him; their practice is a contradiction to their profession." |
{{Quote|To which the Presbyterian commentator [[Mathew Henry]] concurs: "There are many who in word and tongue profess to know God, and yet in their lives and conversations deny and reject him; their practice is a contradiction to their profession."|<ref>[http://www.studylight.org/com/mhc-com/view.cgi?book=tit&chapter=001 Matthew Henry Complete Commentary on the Whole Bible, Titus 1]</ref>}} |
||
</blockquote> |
|||
Though historically a general consensus has been evident as to which laws of the Old Testament pertain to the category of moral law which Christians are enjoined to keep, (see [[Biblical law in Christianity]]) certain laws can somewhat difficult, and may be vulnerable to subjective judgment, (see [[Cafeteria Christianity]]), and a broad definition of antinomianism can also be exercised. Christian sects and [[theologian]]s who feel that they are freed from more laws than is customary are often called "antinomian" by their critics, while those who feel that more than the customary laws apply are in turn called "[[Judaizers]]" or ''legalists'' by their critics. Theological charges of antinomianism typically imply that the opponent's doctrine leads to various sorts of licentiousness, and imply that the antinomian chooses his theology in order to further a career of dissipation. However, the conspicuous austerity of life among many sects accused of antinomianism (such as [[Anabaptists]] or [[Calvinists]]) suggests that these accusations are often, or even mostly, made for [[rhetoric]]al effect. Accusations of antinomianism have also been used more loosely to criticize doctrines that erode the authority of the church, or to criticize teachings perceived as hostile to government and [[rule of law|civic law]]. |
Though historically a general consensus has been evident as to which laws of the Old Testament pertain to the category of moral law which Christians are enjoined to keep, (see [[Biblical law in Christianity]]) certain laws can somewhat difficult, and may be vulnerable to subjective judgment, (see [[Cafeteria Christianity]]), and a broad definition of antinomianism can also be exercised. Christian sects and [[theologian]]s who feel that they are freed from more laws than is customary are often called "antinomian" by their critics, while those who feel that more than the customary laws apply are in turn called "[[Judaizers]]" or ''legalists'' by their critics. Theological charges of antinomianism typically imply that the opponent's doctrine leads to various sorts of licentiousness, and imply that the antinomian chooses his theology in order to further a career of dissipation. However, the conspicuous austerity of life among many sects accused of antinomianism (such as [[Anabaptists]] or [[Calvinists]]) suggests that these accusations are often, or even mostly, made for [[rhetoric]]al effect. Accusations of antinomianism have also been used more loosely to criticize doctrines that erode the authority of the church, or to criticize teachings perceived as hostile to government and [[rule of law|civic law]]. |
||
Line 47: | Line 40: | ||
* Dualistic Antinomianism (Gnostic) This view sees salvation as for the soul only, and bodily behavior as irrelevant both to God’s interest and the soul’s health… |
* Dualistic Antinomianism (Gnostic) This view sees salvation as for the soul only, and bodily behavior as irrelevant both to God’s interest and the soul’s health… |
||
* Spirit-centered Antinomianism …puts such trust in the Holy Spirit’s inward prompting as to deny any need to be taught by the law how to live. Freedom from the law as a way of salvation is assumed to bring with it freedom from the law as a guide to conduct. |
* Spirit-centered Antinomianism …puts such trust in the Holy Spirit’s inward prompting as to deny any need to be taught by the law how to live. Freedom from the law as a way of salvation is assumed to bring with it freedom from the law as a guide to conduct. |
||
* Christ-centered Antinomianism …argues that God sees no sin in believers, because they are in Christ, who kept the law for them, and therefore what they actually do makes no difference, provided that they keep believing. |
* Christ-centered Antinomianism …argues that God sees no sin in believers, because they are in Christ, who kept the law for them, and therefore what they actually do makes no difference, provided that they keep believing. |
||
* Dispensational Antinomianism …denies that biblical law is God’s direct command and affirms that the Bible’s imperative statements trigger the Word of the Spirit, which when it comes may or may not correspond exactly to what is written. |
* Dispensational Antinomianism …denies that biblical law is God’s direct command and affirms that the Bible’s imperative statements trigger the Word of the Spirit, which when it comes may or may not correspond exactly to what is written. |
||
* Situationist Antinomianism …says that a motive and intention of love is all that God now requires of Christians, and the commands of the Decalogue and other ethical parts of scripture, for all that they are ascribed to God directly, are mere rules of thumb for loving, rules that love may at times disregard.<ref>[http://www.monergism.com/directory/link_category/Legalism--Antinomianism/AntinomianismJ.I. Packer, Concise Theology], Pp. 178-180</ref> |
* Situationist Antinomianism …says that a motive and intention of love is all that God now requires of Christians, and the commands of the Decalogue and other ethical parts of scripture, for all that they are ascribed to God directly, are mere rules of thumb for loving, rules that love may at times disregard.<ref>[http://www.monergism.com/directory/link_category/Legalism--Antinomianism/AntinomianismJ.I. Packer, Concise Theology], Pp. 178-180</ref> |
||
=== |
===Gnosticism=== |
||
[[Fathers of Christian Gnosticism|Early Gnostic sects]] were accused of failure to follow the Mosaic Law in language that suggests the modern term "antinomian". Some Gnostic sects did not accept parts of the Old Testament moral law. For example, the [[Manichaeism|Manichaeans]] held that their spiritual being was unaffected by the action of matter and regarded [[Mortal sin|carnal sins]] as being, at worst, forms of bodily disease. [[Marcionism]], though technically not gnostic, rejected the [[Hebrew Bible]] in its entirety. Such deviations from the moral law were criticized by [[Proto-orthodox Christianity|proto-orthodox]] rivals of the Gnostics, who ascribed various aberrant and licentious acts to them. A biblical example of such criticism can be found in {{bibleref2|Revelation|2:6–15}}, which criticizes the [[Nicolaitanes]], an early Gnostic sect. |
[[Fathers of Christian Gnosticism|Early Gnostic sects]] were accused of failure to follow the Mosaic Law in language that suggests the modern term "antinomian". Some Gnostic sects did not accept parts of the Old Testament moral law. For example, the [[Manichaeism|Manichaeans]] held that their spiritual being was unaffected by the action of matter and regarded [[Mortal sin|carnal sins]] as being, at worst, forms of bodily disease. [[Marcionism]], though technically not gnostic, rejected the [[Hebrew Bible]] in its entirety. Such deviations from the moral law were criticized by [[Proto-orthodox Christianity|proto-orthodox]] rivals of the Gnostics, who ascribed various aberrant and licentious acts to them. A biblical example of such criticism can be found in {{bibleref2|Revelation|2:6–15}}, which criticizes the [[Nicolaitanes]], an early Gnostic sect. |
||
=== |
===Lutheranism=== |
||
{{See also|Martin Luther#Anti-Antinomianism}} |
{{See also|Martin Luther#Anti-Antinomianism}} |
||
Line 78: | Line 67: | ||
As a result of this, antinomianism is dealt with in the last [[confession of faith]] of the [[Book of Concord]]. The [[Formula of Concord]] rejects antinominism in the fifth article, ''On the [[Biblical_law_in_Christianity#Lutheran_Church|Law]] and the Gospel''<ref>See the Epitome of the Formula of Concord, article five, [http://www.bookofconcord.org/fc-ep.php#V.%20Law%20and%20Gospel ''Law and Gospel'']</ref> and in the sixth article, ''On the Third Use of the Law''.<ref>See the Epitome of the Formula of Concord, article six, [http://www.bookofconcord.org/fc-ep.php#VI.%20The%20Third%20Use%20of%20the%20Law. ''On the Third Use of the Law'']</ref> |
As a result of this, antinomianism is dealt with in the last [[confession of faith]] of the [[Book of Concord]]. The [[Formula of Concord]] rejects antinominism in the fifth article, ''On the [[Biblical_law_in_Christianity#Lutheran_Church|Law]] and the Gospel''<ref>See the Epitome of the Formula of Concord, article five, [http://www.bookofconcord.org/fc-ep.php#V.%20Law%20and%20Gospel ''Law and Gospel'']</ref> and in the sixth article, ''On the Third Use of the Law''.<ref>See the Epitome of the Formula of Concord, article six, [http://www.bookofconcord.org/fc-ep.php#VI.%20The%20Third%20Use%20of%20the%20Law. ''On the Third Use of the Law'']</ref> |
||
===Calvinism=== |
|||
===Charges against Calvinists=== |
|||
From the latter part of the 18th century, charges of antinomianism were frequently directed against [[Calvinism|Calvinists]], primarily by [[Arminian]] [[Methodist]]s, who subscribed to a [[Synergism (theology)|synergistic]] [[soteriology]] that contrasted with Calvinism's [[monergism|monergistic]] doctrine of [[justification (theology)|justification]]. The controversy between Arminian and Calvinistic Methodists produced the notable Arminian critique of Calvinism: [[John William Fletcher|Fletcher]]'s ''Five Checks to Antinomianism'' (1771–75). |
From the latter part of the 18th century, charges of antinomianism were frequently directed against [[Calvinism|Calvinists]], primarily by [[Arminian]] [[Methodist]]s, who subscribed to a [[Synergism (theology)|synergistic]] [[soteriology]] that contrasted with Calvinism's [[monergism|monergistic]] doctrine of [[justification (theology)|justification]]. The controversy between Arminian and Calvinistic Methodists produced the notable Arminian critique of Calvinism: [[John William Fletcher|Fletcher]]'s ''Five Checks to Antinomianism'' (1771–75). |
||
=== |
===Quakers=== |
||
[[Religious Society of Friends|Quakers]] were charged with antinomianism due to their rejection of a graduate clergy and a clerical administrative structure, as well as their reliance on the Spirit (as revealed by the [[Inner Light]] of God within each person) rather than the Scriptures. They also rejected civil legal authorities and their laws (such as the paying of [[tithes]] to the State church and the swearing of oaths) when they were seen as inconsistent with the promptings of the Inner Light of God. |
[[Religious Society of Friends|Quakers]] were charged with antinomianism due to their rejection of a graduate clergy and a clerical administrative structure, as well as their reliance on the Spirit (as revealed by the [[Inner Light]] of God within each person) rather than the Scriptures. They also rejected civil legal authorities and their laws (such as the paying of [[tithes]] to the State church and the swearing of oaths) when they were seen as inconsistent with the promptings of the Inner Light of God. |
||
=== |
===Jesuits=== |
||
[[Blaise Pascal]] accused the [[Society of Jesus|Jesuits]] of antinomianism in his ''Lettres provinciales'', charging that Jesuit [[casuistry]] undermined moral principles. |
[[Blaise Pascal]] accused the [[Society of Jesus|Jesuits]] of antinomianism in his ''Lettres provinciales'', charging that Jesuit [[casuistry]] undermined moral principles. |
||
Line 90: | Line 79: | ||
Other Protestant groups that have been accused of antinomianism include the [[Anabaptist]]s and [[Mennonite]]s. In the history of [[United States|American]] [[Puritan]]ism, [[Roger Williams (theologian)|Roger Williams]] and [[Anne Hutchinson]] were accused of antinomian teachings by the Puritan leadership of [[Massachusetts]]. The [[Ranter]]s of 17th century England were one of the most out-right antinomian sects in the [[history of Christianity]]. [[New Covenant Theology]] has been accused of antinomianism for their belief that the [[Ten Commandments]] have been abrogated, but they point out that nine of these ten<ref>The fourth commandment (Exodus 20:8) of the Decalogue is not repeated in the New Testament.</ref> are renewed under the [[New Testament|New Covenant]]'s [[Law of Christ]]. |
Other Protestant groups that have been accused of antinomianism include the [[Anabaptist]]s and [[Mennonite]]s. In the history of [[United States|American]] [[Puritan]]ism, [[Roger Williams (theologian)|Roger Williams]] and [[Anne Hutchinson]] were accused of antinomian teachings by the Puritan leadership of [[Massachusetts]]. The [[Ranter]]s of 17th century England were one of the most out-right antinomian sects in the [[history of Christianity]]. [[New Covenant Theology]] has been accused of antinomianism for their belief that the [[Ten Commandments]] have been abrogated, but they point out that nine of these ten<ref>The fourth commandment (Exodus 20:8) of the Decalogue is not repeated in the New Testament.</ref> are renewed under the [[New Testament|New Covenant]]'s [[Law of Christ]]. |
||
=== |
===Old Testament=== |
||
The Hebrew Bible emphasizes the importance of Israel keeping the [[613 Commandments|Mosaic Law]], and seems to argue against the doctrine of antinomianism. For example, [[Daniel 7|Daniel 7:24-25]] states as a warning that a certain king who will speak great words against God and wear out the saints will also go so far as to try to change [[Hebrew calendar|times]] and laws: |
The Hebrew Bible emphasizes the importance of Israel keeping the [[613 Commandments|Mosaic Law]], and seems to argue against the doctrine of antinomianism. For example, [[Daniel 7|Daniel 7:24-25]] states as a warning that a certain king who will speak great words against God and wear out the saints will also go so far as to try to change [[Hebrew calendar|times]] and laws: |
||
{{quote|(24) And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise: and another shall rise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings. (25) And he shall speak great words against the [[Elyon|most High]], and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time. [[KJV]] ''(speaking of the "Little horn" in Daniel 7:8 believed by many Biblical scholars to be [[Antiochus Epiphanes]])''}} |
{{quote|(24) And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise: and another shall rise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings. (25) And he shall speak great words against the [[Elyon|most High]], and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time. [[KJV]] ''(speaking of the "Little horn" in Daniel 7:8 believed by many Biblical scholars to be [[Antiochus Epiphanes]])''}} |
||
Line 96: | Line 85: | ||
In the [[Deuterocanon]] or [[Biblical apocrypha]], the [[1 Maccabees|Books of the Maccabees]] are another example of opposition to not observing the Mosaic Law. The texts describe the [[Maccabean revolt]] (165 BCE) against the [[Hellenization]] of Judea and argues strongly against erosion of adherence to the Law of Moses in Jewish culture. For example: |
In the [[Deuterocanon]] or [[Biblical apocrypha]], the [[1 Maccabees|Books of the Maccabees]] are another example of opposition to not observing the Mosaic Law. The texts describe the [[Maccabean revolt]] (165 BCE) against the [[Hellenization]] of Judea and argues strongly against erosion of adherence to the Law of Moses in Jewish culture. For example: |
||
{{quote|Not long after this the king [Antiochus] sent an [[Hellenistic Greece|Athenian senator]] to force the Jews to abandon the customs of their ancestors and live no longer by the [[Divine law|laws of God]]|{{bibleverse|2|Macc|6:1|NRSV}} |
{{quote|Not long after this the king [Antiochus] sent an [[Hellenistic Greece|Athenian senator]] to force the Jews to abandon the customs of their ancestors and live no longer by the [[Divine law|laws of God]]|{{bibleverse|2|Macc|6:1|NRSV}}|[[NRSV]]}} |
||
And: |
And: |
||
{{quote|So they built a [[Gymnasium (ancient Greece)|gymnasium]] in Jerusalem, according to [[Gentile]] custom, and [[epispasm|removed the marks of circumcision]], and abandoned the [[Mosaic covenant|holy covenant]]. They joined with the Gentiles and sold themselves to do evil.|{{bibleverse|1|Macc|1:14-15|NRSV}} |
{{quote|So they built a [[Gymnasium (ancient Greece)|gymnasium]] in Jerusalem, according to [[Gentile]] custom, and [[epispasm|removed the marks of circumcision]], and abandoned the [[Mosaic covenant|holy covenant]]. They joined with the Gentiles and sold themselves to do evil.|{{bibleverse|1|Macc|1:14-15|NRSV}}|[[NRSV]]}} |
||
=== |
===New Testament=== |
||
{{See also|Split of early Christianity and Judaism|Christianity and Judaism|Biblical law in Christianity}} |
{{See also|Split of early Christianity and Judaism|Christianity and Judaism|Biblical law in Christianity}} |
||
[[File:Saint James the Just.jpg|thumb|right|200px|Icon of [[James the Just]], whose judgment was adopted in the [[Apostolic Decree]] of {{bibleverse||Acts|15:19-29}}, c. 50 AD.]] |
[[File:Saint James the Just.jpg|thumb|right|200px|Icon of [[James the Just]], whose judgment was adopted in the [[Apostolic Decree]] of {{bibleverse||Acts|15:19-29}}, c. 50 AD.]] |
||
Line 124: | Line 113: | ||
In the [[Letter to the Hebrews]] ({{bibleref2|Hebrews|7:11-28}}), it is written that under the Old Testament Law, priests had to be from the tribe of Levi, Aaron and his sons. (See {{bibleref2|Exodus|29:8-9}} "Bring his sons and dress them in tunics and put headbands on them. Then tie sashes on Aaron and his sons. The priesthood is theirs by a lasting ordinance. In this way you shall ordain Aaron and his sons.") It is pointed out that Jesus was from the tribe of Judah, and thus Jesus could not be a priest under the Old Testament Law, as Jesus is not a descendant of Aaron. It states that the Law had to change for Jesus to be the High Priest: "For when there is a change of the priesthood, there must also be a change of the law." (Hebrews 7:12) |
In the [[Letter to the Hebrews]] ({{bibleref2|Hebrews|7:11-28}}), it is written that under the Old Testament Law, priests had to be from the tribe of Levi, Aaron and his sons. (See {{bibleref2|Exodus|29:8-9}} "Bring his sons and dress them in tunics and put headbands on them. Then tie sashes on Aaron and his sons. The priesthood is theirs by a lasting ordinance. In this way you shall ordain Aaron and his sons.") It is pointed out that Jesus was from the tribe of Judah, and thus Jesus could not be a priest under the Old Testament Law, as Jesus is not a descendant of Aaron. It states that the Law had to change for Jesus to be the High Priest: "For when there is a change of the priesthood, there must also be a change of the law." (Hebrews 7:12) |
||
====Pauline passages |
====Supporting Pauline passages==== |
||
[[File:PaulT.jpg|thumb|right|200px|Artist depiction of ''Saint Paul Writing His Epistles'', 16th century (Blaffer Foundation Collection, [[Houston]], [[Texas]]). Most scholars think Paul actually dictated his letters to a secretary.<ref>[[Stephen L Harris|Harris, Stephen L.]], Understanding the Bible. Palo Alto: Mayfield. 1985. p. 316-320. Harris cites {{bibleverse||Galatians|6:11}}, {{bibleverse||Romans|16:22}}, {{bibleverse||Colossians|4:18}}, {{bibleverse|2|Thessalonians|3:17}}, {{bibleverse||Philemon|19}}. [[Joseph Barber Lightfoot]] in his ''Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians'' writes: "At this point [{{bibleverse||Galatians|6:11}}] the apostle takes the pen from his [[amanuensis]], and the concluding paragraph is written with his own hand. From the time when letters began to be forged in his name ({{bibleverse|2|Thessalonians|2:2}}; {{bibleverse|2|Thessalonians|3:17}}) it seems to have been his practice to close with a few words in his own handwriting, as a precaution against such forgeries... In the present case he writes a whole paragraph, summing up the main lessons of the epistle in terse, eager, disjointed sentences. He writes it, too, in large, bold characters (Gr. ''pelikois grammasin''), that his handwriting may reflect the energy and determination of his soul."</ref>]] |
[[File:PaulT.jpg|thumb|right|200px|Artist depiction of ''Saint Paul Writing His Epistles'', 16th century (Blaffer Foundation Collection, [[Houston]], [[Texas]]). Most scholars think Paul actually dictated his letters to a secretary.<ref>[[Stephen L Harris|Harris, Stephen L.]], Understanding the Bible. Palo Alto: Mayfield. 1985. p. 316-320. Harris cites {{bibleverse||Galatians|6:11}}, {{bibleverse||Romans|16:22}}, {{bibleverse||Colossians|4:18}}, {{bibleverse|2|Thessalonians|3:17}}, {{bibleverse||Philemon|19}}. [[Joseph Barber Lightfoot]] in his ''Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians'' writes: "At this point [{{bibleverse||Galatians|6:11}}] the apostle takes the pen from his [[amanuensis]], and the concluding paragraph is written with his own hand. From the time when letters began to be forged in his name ({{bibleverse|2|Thessalonians|2:2}}; {{bibleverse|2|Thessalonians|3:17}}) it seems to have been his practice to close with a few words in his own handwriting, as a precaution against such forgeries... In the present case he writes a whole paragraph, summing up the main lessons of the epistle in terse, eager, disjointed sentences. He writes it, too, in large, bold characters (Gr. ''pelikois grammasin''), that his handwriting may reflect the energy and determination of his soul."</ref>]] |
||
{{See also|Pauline Christianity|Paul of Tarsus and Judaism}} |
{{See also|Pauline Christianity|Paul of Tarsus and Judaism}} |
||
Line 159: | Line 148: | ||
It is written that the first covenant was obsolete, and would soon disappear: "By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear." {{bibleref2|Hebrews|8:13}}. It clearly identifies the first covenant which is disappearing in {{bibleref2|Hebrews|9:1-5}}. Of particular note are the "stone tables of the covenant" in Hebrews 9:4, referring directly to the [[Ten Commandments]], which however most Christians believe are still valid. "Now the first covenant had regulations for worship and also an earthly sanctuary. A tabernacle was set up. In its first room were the lampstand, the table and the consecrated bread; this was called the Holy Place. Behind the second curtain was a room called the Most Holy Place, which had the golden altar of incense and the gold-covered ark of the covenant. This ark contained the gold jar of manna, Aaron's staff that had budded, and the stone tablets of the covenant. Above the ark were the cherubim of the Glory, overshadowing the atonement cover." (Hebrews 9:1-5) |
It is written that the first covenant was obsolete, and would soon disappear: "By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear." {{bibleref2|Hebrews|8:13}}. It clearly identifies the first covenant which is disappearing in {{bibleref2|Hebrews|9:1-5}}. Of particular note are the "stone tables of the covenant" in Hebrews 9:4, referring directly to the [[Ten Commandments]], which however most Christians believe are still valid. "Now the first covenant had regulations for worship and also an earthly sanctuary. A tabernacle was set up. In its first room were the lampstand, the table and the consecrated bread; this was called the Holy Place. Behind the second curtain was a room called the Most Holy Place, which had the golden altar of incense and the gold-covered ark of the covenant. This ark contained the gold jar of manna, Aaron's staff that had budded, and the stone tablets of the covenant. Above the ark were the cherubim of the Glory, overshadowing the atonement cover." (Hebrews 9:1-5) |
||
====Pauline passages |
====Opposing Pauline passages==== |
||
Those who oppose antinomianism invoke Paul<ref>[http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/lawandgrace.html#Some Law and Grace]</ref> as upholding obedience to the law, in living out their saving faith: |
Those who oppose antinomianism invoke Paul<ref>[http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/lawandgrace.html#Some Law and Grace]</ref> as upholding obedience to the law, in living out their saving faith: |
||
* "For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law; (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified." {{bibleref|Romans|2:12–13}} KJV |
* "For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law; (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified." {{bibleref|Romans|2:12–13}} KJV |
||
Line 181: | Line 170: | ||
* "Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right. Honour thy father and mother; (which is the first commandment with promise." {{bibleref|Ephesians|6:1-2}} KJV |
* "Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right. Honour thy father and mother; (which is the first commandment with promise." {{bibleref|Ephesians|6:1-2}} KJV |
||
==== |
====Theology==== |
||
The [[Catholic Encyclopedia]] article on ''Judaizers''<ref>[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08537a.htm Catholic Encyclopedia: Judaizers]</ref> notes: "Paul, on the other hand, not only did not object to the observance of the Mosaic Law, as long as it did not interfere with the liberty of the Gentiles, but he conformed to its prescriptions when occasion required ({{bibleverse|1|Corinthians|9:20}}). Thus he shortly after the [[Council of Jerusalem]] circumcised Timothy ({{bibleref2|Acts|16:1-3}}), and he was in the very act of observing the Mosaic ritual when he was arrested at Jerusalem ({{bibleverse-nb||Acts|21:26}} sqq.)." |
The [[Catholic Encyclopedia]] article on ''Judaizers''<ref>[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08537a.htm Catholic Encyclopedia: Judaizers]</ref> notes: "Paul, on the other hand, not only did not object to the observance of the Mosaic Law, as long as it did not interfere with the liberty of the Gentiles, but he conformed to its prescriptions when occasion required ({{bibleverse|1|Corinthians|9:20}}). Thus he shortly after the [[Council of Jerusalem]] circumcised Timothy ({{bibleref2|Acts|16:1-3}}), and he was in the very act of observing the Mosaic ritual when he was arrested at Jerusalem ({{bibleverse-nb||Acts|21:26}} sqq.)." |
||
Line 196: | Line 185: | ||
Finally, Paul did make at least one statement that demonstrates agreement with James, that ''both'' faith produced as a result of repentance (the initial requirement for justification) ''and'' works (the evidence or proof of true faith) must exist together: "So then, King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the vision from heaven. First to those in Damascus, then to those in Jerusalem and in all Judea, and to the Gentiles also, I preached that they should repent and turn to God and ''prove their repentance by their deeds''." [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2026:19-20&version=NIV Acts 26:19-20] ([[NIV]]) |
Finally, Paul did make at least one statement that demonstrates agreement with James, that ''both'' faith produced as a result of repentance (the initial requirement for justification) ''and'' works (the evidence or proof of true faith) must exist together: "So then, King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the vision from heaven. First to those in Damascus, then to those in Jerusalem and in all Judea, and to the Gentiles also, I preached that they should repent and turn to God and ''prove their repentance by their deeds''." [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2026:19-20&version=NIV Acts 26:19-20] ([[NIV]]) |
||
====Jesus |
====Jesus==== |
||
The [[List of capital crimes in the bible|Torah prescribes the death penalty]] for [[Sabbath breaking|desecrating Sabbath]] by working ({{bibleverse||Exodus|31:14-17}}). To avoid any possibility of breaking the [[613 mitzvot|Torah commands]], the [[Pharisees]] formulated strict interpretations and numerous traditions which they treated as ''laws'', see [[Halakha]]. According to the [[Christians]], [[Jesus]] criticized the Pharisees for this ({{bibleref2|Mark|7:7-9}}). The [[Jewish Encyclopedia]] article on ''Jesus''<ref>[http://jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=254&letter=J&search=Jesus Jewish Encyclopedia: Jesus]</ref> notes: "Jesus, however, does not appear to have taken into account the fact that the Halakah was at this period just becoming crystallized, and that much variation existed as to its definite form; the [[Hillel and Shammai|disputes of Bet Hillel and Bet Shammai]] were occurring about the time of his maturity." In the [[Gospel of Mark]], Jesus's disciples were picking [[grain]] for food on [[Biblical Sabbath|Sabbath]] ({{bibleref2|Mark|2:23-28}}). When the [[Pharisees]] challenged Jesus over this, he pointed to Biblical precedent and declared that "the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath". Some claim Jesus rejected complete adherence to the [[Torah]]. Most scholars hold that Jesus did not reject the law, but directed that it should be obeyed in context. e.g., [[E. P. Sanders]] notes, "No substantial conflict between Jesus and the Pharisees with regard to Sabbath, food, and purity laws .... The church took some while to come to the position that the Sabbath need not be kept, and it is hard to think that Jesus explicitly said so."<ref>E. P. Sanders, ''Jesus and Judaism'', 1985 SCM Press ISBN 0-334-02091-3, pages 264-9.</ref> There may be passages where the words of Jesus have been misinterpreted and were not really in contradiction with the Jewish law.<ref>[http://jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=245&letter=N&search=Gospel#703 Jewish Encyclopedia: New Testament: Misunderstood Passages]</ref> |
The [[List of capital crimes in the bible|Torah prescribes the death penalty]] for [[Sabbath breaking|desecrating Sabbath]] by working ({{bibleverse||Exodus|31:14-17}}). To avoid any possibility of breaking the [[613 mitzvot|Torah commands]], the [[Pharisees]] formulated strict interpretations and numerous traditions which they treated as ''laws'', see [[Halakha]]. According to the [[Christians]], [[Jesus]] criticized the Pharisees for this ({{bibleref2|Mark|7:7-9}}). The [[Jewish Encyclopedia]] article on ''Jesus''<ref>[http://jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=254&letter=J&search=Jesus Jewish Encyclopedia: Jesus]</ref> notes: "Jesus, however, does not appear to have taken into account the fact that the Halakah was at this period just becoming crystallized, and that much variation existed as to its definite form; the [[Hillel and Shammai|disputes of Bet Hillel and Bet Shammai]] were occurring about the time of his maturity." In the [[Gospel of Mark]], Jesus's disciples were picking [[grain]] for food on [[Biblical Sabbath|Sabbath]] ({{bibleref2|Mark|2:23-28}}). When the [[Pharisees]] challenged Jesus over this, he pointed to Biblical precedent and declared that "the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath". Some claim Jesus rejected complete adherence to the [[Torah]]. Most scholars hold that Jesus did not reject the law, but directed that it should be obeyed in context. e.g., [[E. P. Sanders]] notes, "No substantial conflict between Jesus and the Pharisees with regard to Sabbath, food, and purity laws .... The church took some while to come to the position that the Sabbath need not be kept, and it is hard to think that Jesus explicitly said so."<ref>E. P. Sanders, ''Jesus and Judaism'', 1985 SCM Press ISBN 0-334-02091-3, pages 264-9.</ref> There may be passages where the words of Jesus have been misinterpreted and were not really in contradiction with the Jewish law.<ref>[http://jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=245&letter=N&search=Gospel#703 Jewish Encyclopedia: New Testament: Misunderstood Passages]</ref> |
||
Revision as of 23:49, 19 June 2012
Part of a series on the |
Bible |
---|
![]() |
Outline of Bible-related topics![]() |
Antinomianism (a term coined by
Although the concept is related to the foundational
While there is wide agreement within
While the charge of antinomianism can and often does apply to those who reject the keeping of any
Although the term originated in early controversies of Protestant doctrine in the 16th century, it has its roots in debates over the
Christianity
Antinomianism has been a point of doctrinal contention in the
And truly, I wonder exceedingly, how it came to be imputed to me, that I should reject the Law or ten Commandments, there being extant so many of my own expositions (and those of several sorts) upon the Commandments, which also are daily expounded, and used in our Churches, to say nothing of the Confession and Apology, and other books of ours.
— Martin Luther, [4]
In his Introduction to Romans, Luther stated that saving faith is,
a living, creative, active and powerful thing, this faith. Faith cannot help doing good works constantly. It doesn’t stop to ask if good works ought to be done, but before anyone asks, it already has done them and continues to do them without ceasing. Anyone who does not do good works in this manner is an unbeliever...Thus, it is just as impossible to separate faith and works as it is to separate heat and light from fire!
— [5]
The Westminster Confession of Faith states:
Faith, thus receiving and resting on Christ and His righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification; yet it is not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but works by love.
— [6]
The classic
The Gospel proclaims liberty from the ceremonial law: but binds you still faster under the moral law. To be freed from the ceremonial law is the Gospel liberty; to pretend freedom from the moral law is Antinomianism.
— [7]
Likewise on on Titus 1:16 ("They profess that they know God; but in works they deny, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate." KJV):
Full of a pretended faith, while utterly destitute of those works by which a genuine faith is accredited and proved.
— [8]
To which the Presbyterian commentator
Mathew Henry concurs: "There are many who in word and tongue profess to know God, and yet in their lives and conversations deny and reject him; their practice is a contradiction to their profession."— [9]
Though historically a general consensus has been evident as to which laws of the Old Testament pertain to the category of moral law which Christians are enjoined to keep, (see
Contemporary
- Dualistic Antinomianism (Gnostic) This view sees salvation as for the soul only, and bodily behavior as irrelevant both to God’s interest and the soul’s health…
- Spirit-centered Antinomianism …puts such trust in the Holy Spirit’s inward prompting as to deny any need to be taught by the law how to live. Freedom from the law as a way of salvation is assumed to bring with it freedom from the law as a guide to conduct.
- Christ-centered Antinomianism …argues that God sees no sin in believers, because they are in Christ, who kept the law for them, and therefore what they actually do makes no difference, provided that they keep believing.
- Dispensational Antinomianism …denies that biblical law is God’s direct command and affirms that the Bible’s imperative statements trigger the Word of the Spirit, which when it comes may or may not correspond exactly to what is written.
- Situationist Antinomianism …says that a motive and intention of love is all that God now requires of Christians, and the commands of the Decalogue and other ethical parts of scripture, for all that they are ascribed to God directly, are mere rules of thumb for loving, rules that love may at times disregard.[10]
Gnosticism
Lutheranism
The term "antinomianism" was coined by
First Antinomian Controversy
As early as 1525,
In contrast,
Shortly after Melanchthon drew up the 1527 Articles of Visitation in June, Agricola began to be aggressive toward him, but
Luther, with reluctance, at last saw himself constrained to hold public disputations against antinomianism and its promoters in 1538 and 1539.[13] Agricola apparently yielded, and Luther's book Against the Antinomians (1539)[14] was to serve as Agricola's recantation. This was the first use of the term Antinomian.[15][16] But the conflict flared up again, and Agricola even sued Luther, alleging that Luther had slandered him in his disputations, Against the Antinomians, and in his On the Councils and Churches (1539). But before the case could be brought to trial, Agricola, though he had bound himself to remain at Wittenberg, left the city and moved to Berlin, where he had been offered a position as preacher to the court. After his arrival there, he made peace with the Saxons, acknowledged his "error", and gradually conformed his doctrine to that which he had before opposed and assailed, though still employing such terms as gospel and repentance in a different manner.[11]
Second Antinomian Controversy
The antinomian doctrine, however was not eliminated from Lutheranism. Melanchthon and those that agreed with him, called Philippists were checked by the Gnesio-Lutherans in the Second Antinomian Controversy during the Augsburg Interim. The Philippists ascribed to the Gospel alone the ability work repentance to the exclusion of the law. They blurred the distinction between Law and Gospel by considering the Gospel itself to be a moral law. They did not identify Christ's fulfillment of the law with the commandments humans are expected to follow.[11]
As a result of this, antinomianism is dealt with in the last
Calvinism
From the latter part of the 18th century, charges of antinomianism were frequently directed against
Quakers
Jesuits
Charges against other groups
Other Protestant groups that have been accused of antinomianism include the
Old Testament
The Hebrew Bible emphasizes the importance of Israel keeping the
(24) And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise: and another shall rise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings. (25) And he shall speak great words against the
Antiochus Epiphanes)
In the
Not long after this the king [Antiochus] sent an
NRSV
And:
So they built a
NRSV
New Testament
Obligation to follow the Mosaic Law was a point of contention in the
The first major dispute[21] over Christian antinomianism was a dispute over whether circumcision was required of Christians. This happened at the Council of Jerusalem, which is dated to about 50 AD and recorded in the book of Acts 15:5.
But some believers who belonged to the sect of the Pharisees stood up and said, 'It is necessary for them to be circumcised and ordered to keep the law of Moses.'
— NRSV
The
Acts:(19) Wherefore my [James] sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the
synagogues every sabbath day.— KJV
Beginning with
James here sets out a preliminary list of commands which Gentiles should obey. Gentiles were not required to be circumcised, but were required to obey the four beginning requirements to be part of the larger congregation. This passage shows that the remainder of the commandments would follow as they studied "Moses" in the Synagogues. If Gentiles did not follow this reduced requirement, they risked being put out of the Synagogue and missing out on a Torah education (See Leviticus 17 and 20). James's list still includes some dietary commands, but many of those also passed out of some Christian traditions quite early. Acts 10:9–16 describes the following vision, which was used to excuse early gentile Christians from the Mosaic dietary laws.
(9) ...Peter went up upon the housetop to pray about the sixth hour: (10) And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance, (11) And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth: (12) Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air. (13) And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat. (14) But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean. (15) And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common. (16) This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven.
— KJV
It is interesting to note that Peter was perplexed about the vision in Acts 10, and then his subsequent explanation of the vision in Acts 11 gives no credence to antinomianism as it relates to the inapplicability of the Mosaic dietary laws.
Though the Apostolic Decree is no longer observed by many
In the
Supporting Pauline passages
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ec/File%22-Saint_Paul_Writing_His_Epistles%22_by_Valentin_de_Boulogne.jpg/200px-File%22-Saint_Paul_Writing_His_Epistles%22_by_Valentin_de_Boulogne.jpg)
Paul used the term freedom in Christ, for example, Galatians 2:4, and it is clear that some understood this to mean lawlessness (i.e. not obeying Mosaic Law). For example, in Acts 18:12–16 Paul is accused of "persuading .. people to worship God in ways contrary to the law." In Acts 21:21
And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the
Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcisetheir children, neither to walk after the customs.— KJV
Colossians 2:13–14 is sometimes presented as proof of Paul's antinomistic views. For example, the
2 Corinthians 3:6-17 says "Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away: How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious? For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory. For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth. For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious. Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech: And not as Moses, which put a veil over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished: But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ. But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart. Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away. Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." (
Some cite Acts 13:39: "And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses." But this is more about Justification (theology) than antinomianism.
Romans 6 states twice that believers are not under the law: Romans 6:14 "For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace." and Romans 6:15 "What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.". KJV
Galatians 3:1–5 describes the Galatians as "foolish" for relying on being observant to the Law: "(1) O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you? (2) This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? (3) Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh? (4) Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain. (5) He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?" KJV
Galatians 3:23–25 says that the purpose of the Law was to lead people to Christ, once people believe in Christ, they are no longer under the Law: "(23) But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. (24) Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.(25) But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster." KJV
In Galatians 4:21–31, Paul compares the
Romans 10:4 is also sometimes translated: "For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth." (KJV) The key word here is telos (see also Strong's G5056).[31] Robert Badenas[32] argues that telos is correctly translated as goal, not end, so that Christ is the goal of the Law. Andy Gaus' version of the New Testament[33] translates this verse as: "Christ is what the law aims at: for every believer to be on the right side of [God's] justice."
Also cited is Ephesians 2:15: "Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace" KJV. Another passage cited is Romans 7:1–7, especially Romans 7:4 "Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God." and Romans 7:6 "But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter." KJV
It then compares the first covenant (made with Israel, as recorded in the Old Testament) with the new covenant in Hebrews 8–9. In Hebrews 8:6-7: "But the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, and it is founded on better promises. For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another." It goes on to say that the problem with the first covenant was with the people who were supposed to keep it, and that in the new covenant: "I will put my laws into their minds, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people." Hebrews 8:10
It is written that the first covenant was obsolete, and would soon disappear: "By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear." Hebrews 8:13. It clearly identifies the first covenant which is disappearing in Hebrews 9:1–5. Of particular note are the "stone tables of the covenant" in Hebrews 9:4, referring directly to the Ten Commandments, which however most Christians believe are still valid. "Now the first covenant had regulations for worship and also an earthly sanctuary. A tabernacle was set up. In its first room were the lampstand, the table and the consecrated bread; this was called the Holy Place. Behind the second curtain was a room called the Most Holy Place, which had the golden altar of incense and the gold-covered ark of the covenant. This ark contained the gold jar of manna, Aaron's staff that had budded, and the stone tablets of the covenant. Above the ark were the cherubim of the Glory, overshadowing the atonement cover." (Hebrews 9:1-5)
Opposing Pauline passages
Those who oppose antinomianism invoke Paul[34] as upholding obedience to the law, in living out their saving faith:
- "For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law; (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified." Romans 2:12–13 KJV
- "Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law." Romans 3:31 KJV
- "Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God." Romans 8:7–8 KJV
- "While he answered for himself, Neither against the law of the Jews, neither against the temple, nor yet against Cæsar, have I offended any thing at all." Acts 25:8 KJV
- "Say I these things as a man? or saith not the law the same also? For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen? " 1Corinthians 9:8–9 KJV
- "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law." 1Corinthians 14:34 KJV
Included in this support is that the apostle preached obedience to laws of the Ten Commandments as binding upon Christians, and condemning those who broke them and remained impenitent:
- "But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat." 1Corinthians 5:11 KJV
- "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God." 1Corinthians 6:9–10:26 KJV
- "Neither be ye idolaters, as were some of them; as it is written, The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play." 1Corinthians 10:7 KJV
- "The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord." 1Corinthians 7:39 KJV
- "Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry." 1Corinthians 10:14 KJV
- "Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God." Galatians 5:19–21 KJV
- "For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience. " Ephesians 5:5–6 KJV
- "Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry." Colossians 3:5 KJV
- "But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel." 1Timothy 5:8 KJV
- "Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right. Honour thy father and mother; (which is the first commandment with promise." Ephesians 6:1–2 KJV
Theology
The Catholic Encyclopedia article on Judaizers[35] notes: "Paul, on the other hand, not only did not object to the observance of the Mosaic Law, as long as it did not interfere with the liberty of the Gentiles, but he conformed to its prescriptions when occasion required (1 Corinthians 9:20). Thus he shortly after the Council of Jerusalem circumcised Timothy (Acts 16:1–3), and he was in the very act of observing the Mosaic ritual when he was arrested at Jerusalem (21:26 sqq.)."
The
The
Paul versus James
The
It should be noted that James also wrote: "For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. For he who said, 'Do not commit adultery,' also said, 'Do not murder.' If you do not commit adultery but do commit murder, you have become a lawbreaker." James 2:10–11. One interpretation is that people who want to keep the Old Testament Law must perfectly keep all of the Law—an impossible task that James appeals to his readers to follow the "Royal Law of Love" instead in the preceding verses (James 2:8-9). However, some scholars such as
Finally, Paul did make at least one statement that demonstrates agreement with James, that both faith produced as a result of repentance (the initial requirement for justification) and works (the evidence or proof of true faith) must exist together: "So then, King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the vision from heaven. First to those in Damascus, then to those in Jerusalem and in all Judea, and to the Gentiles also, I preached that they should repent and turn to God and prove their repentance by their deeds." Acts 26:19-20 (
Jesus
The
In the
See also
1 John 3:4 states: "Everyone who commits sin is guilty of lawlessness; sin is lawlessness."
Antinomianism in Buddhism
Among Buddhists there are three main types of 'antinomianism' which may act as a gloss for 'left-handed attainment' (Sanskrit: Vamachara): naturalist/spontaneous antinomianism, ritualist/philosophical antinomianism, and empirical antinomianism.[citation needed] There may also be those who subscribe to all or some combination of these three types.
Naturalist antinomians believe that enlightened beings may spontaneously break
Ritualist antinomians, such as some Tantric Buddhists, may practice which seemingly may appear to be breaking the codes of conduct in specific religious rituals designed to teach non-duality or other philosophical concept. (refer Panchamakara; Ganachakra).
Empirical antinomians may break or disregard traditional ethical or moral rules that they believe are unconducive to the individual's contemplative life. They view such codification as having arisen in specific historical-cultural contexts and, as such, not always supportive of Buddhist training. Thus the individual and the community must test and verify which rules promote or hinder enlightenment.
Antinomianism in Islam
In Islam, the law—which applies not only to religion, but also to areas such as politics, banking, and sexuality—is called sharīʿah (شريعة), and it is traditionally organized around four primary sources:
- the Qurʾān, which is Islam's central religious text;
- the sunnah, which refers to actions practised during the time of the prophet Muḥammad, and is often thought to include the ḥadīth, or recorded words and deeds of Muḥammad;
- ʿulamāʾ, or class of Islamic scholars, on points of practice;
- Shīʿah Islam, ʿaql ("reason") is used in place of qiyās
Actions, behavior, or beliefs that are considered to violate any or all of these four sources—primarily in matters of religion—can be termed "antinomian". Depending on the action, behavior, or belief in question, a number of different
As an example, the 10th-century
Apart from individuals, entire groups of Muslims have also been called antinomian. One of these groups is the
The use of the antinomian idea in a secular context
In his study of late-20th-century western society the historian
In the 18th century, the term "antinomy" was used in the philosophy of Immanuel Kant, here used instead for a sort of paradox, where reason itself is violated.
See also
- Antinomy
- Arminianism
- Christian Anarchism
- Christian-Jewish reconciliation
- Christian liberty
- Council of Jerusalem
- Covenant (biblical)
- Expounding of the Law
- Free Grace theology
- Gnosticism
- Great Commission
- Heterodoxy
- Hyperdispensationalism
- Legalism (theology)
- Libertine
- Marcionism
- Minuth
- Montanism
- Biblical law in Christianity
- Supersessionism
- Upāya-kauśalya
- Do what thou wilt
Notes
- ^ Merriam-Webster Dictionary, "antinomianism"
- ^ a b Encyclopædia Britannica: Antinomianism
- ^ [“Essential Truths of the Christian Faith” http://books.google.com/books?id=DC-TRU4tEvsC&pg=PT211&dq=R.+C.+Sproul+Faith+and+Works&hl=en&ei=cBUkTo6aOuXb0QHH0tC3Aw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=R.%20C.%20Sproul%20Faith%20and%20Works&f=false] p. 191
- ^ "A Treatise against Antinomians, written in an Epistolary way"
- ^ Luther, "An Introduction to St. Paul's Letter to the Romans," Luther's German Bible of 1522 by Martin Luther, 1483-1546 Translated by Rev. Robert E. Smith from DR. MARTIN LUTHER'S VERMISCHTE DEUTSCHE SCHRIFTEN. Johann K. Irmischer, ed. Vol. 63 (Erlangen: Heyder and Zimmer, 1854), pp.124-125. [EA 63:124-125] August 1994
- ^ [Westminster Confession of Faith, CHAPTER XI. Of Justification. http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/wcf.htm]
- ^ The Adam Clarke Commentary, Gal. 5:13
- ^ The Adam Clarke Commentary, Titus 1
- ^ Matthew Henry Complete Commentary on the Whole Bible, Titus 1
- ^ Packer, Concise Theology, Pp. 178-180
- ^ a b c d e f Augustus Lawrence Graebner. “Antinomianism.” Lutheran Cyclopedia. New York: Scribner, 1899. p. 18
- ^ Augsburg Confession, Article XII: Of Repentance
- ^ An English translation of the text of the theses and disputations against the antinomians is available in M. Luther, Only the Decalogue Is Eternal (see references below).
- ^ [1]
- ^ Antinomianism
- ^ New Advent: Antinomianism
- ^ See the Epitome of the Formula of Concord, article five, Law and Gospel
- ^ See the Epitome of the Formula of Concord, article six, On the Third Use of the Law
- ^ The fourth commandment (Exodus 20:8) of the Decalogue is not repeated in the New Testament.
- ^ [Fossum, Jarl; Munoa, Phillip. Jesus and the Gospels. Thomson Learning, 2004]
- ^ In Acts 6:13–14 Saint Stephen is accused by "false witnesses" of speaking against the law, presumably a minor dispute.
- circumcision and sacrifice, was an absolutely necessary condition to be fulfilled by a proselyteto Judaism (Yeb. 46b, 47b; Ker. 9a; 'Ab. Zarah 57a; Shab. 135a; Yer. Kid. iii. 14, 64d). Circumcision, however, was much more important, and, like baptism, was called a "seal" (Schlatter, "Die Kirche Jerusalems," 1898, p. 70). But as circumcision was discarded by Christianity, and the sacrifices had ceased, Baptism remained the sole condition for initiation into religious life. The next ceremony, adopted shortly after the others, was the imposition of hands, which, it is known, was the usage of the Jews at the ordination of a rabbi. Anointing with oil, which at first also accompanied the act of Baptism, and was analogous to the anointment of priests among the Jews, was not a necessary condition."
- McGrath, Alister E., Christianity: An Introduction, Blackwell Publishing,(2006), ISBN 1-4051-0899-1, Page 174: "In effect, they [Jewish Christians] seemed to regard Christianity as an affirmation of every aspect of contemporary Judaism, with the addition of one extra belief — that Jesus was the Messiah. Unless males were circumcised, they could not be saved (Acts 15:1)."
- ^ Contra Faust, 32.13
- ^ For example: Joseph Fitzmyer, The Acts of the Apostles (The Anchor Yale Bible Commentaries), Yale University Press (December 2, 1998), ISBN 0-300-13982-9, chapter V
- ^ Genesis 9
- ^ Lev 17–18
- Contra Faustum, where he states that the Apostles had given this command in order to unite the heathens and Jews in the one ark of Noah; but that then, when the barrier between Jewish and heathen converts had fallen, this command concerning things strangled and blood had lost its meaning, and was only observed by few. But still, as late as the eighth century, Pope Gregory the Third (731) forbade the eating of blood or things strangled under threat of a penance of forty days. No one will pretend that the disciplinary enactments of any council, even though it be one of the undisputed Ecumenical Synods, can be of greater and more unchanging force than the decree of that first council, held by the Holy Apostles at Jerusalem, and the fact that its decree has been obsolete for centuries in the West is proof that even Ecumenical canons may be of only temporary utility and may be repealed by disuse, like other laws."
- Joseph Barber Lightfoot in his Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians writes: "At this point [Galatians 6:11] the apostle takes the pen from his amanuensis, and the concluding paragraph is written with his own hand. From the time when letters began to be forged in his name (2 Thessalonians 2:2; 2 Thessalonians 3:17) it seems to have been his practice to close with a few words in his own handwriting, as a precaution against such forgeries... In the present case he writes a whole paragraph, summing up the main lessons of the epistle in terse, eager, disjointed sentences. He writes it, too, in large, bold characters (Gr. pelikois grammasin), that his handwriting may reflect the energy and determination of his soul."
- ^ Strong's G5498
- ^ Strong's G5056
- ^ Bandas, Robert. Christ the End of the Law, Romans 10.4 in Pauline Perspective, 1985, ISBN 0-905774-93-0
- Unvarnished New Testament, 1991, ISBN 0-933999-99-2
- ^ Law and Grace
- ^ Catholic Encyclopedia: Judaizers
- ^ Gentile: Gentiles May Not Be Taught the Torah
- ^ Emden, R. "Appendix to "Seder 'Olam," pp. 32b-34b, Hamburg, 1752
- ^ Catholic Encyclopedia: St. James the Less: "Then we lose sight of James till St. Paul, three years after his conversion (A.D. 37), went up to Jerusalem. ... On the same occasion, the "pillars" of the Church, James, Peter, and John "gave to me (Paul) and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the Gentiles, and they unto the circumcision" (Galatians 2:9)."
- ^ Catholic Encyclopedia: Judaizers see section titled: "THE INCIDENT AT ANTIOCH"
- ^ http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/james/james2.htm#v20 James 2:20
- ^ McGrath, Alister E., Christianity: An Introduction. Blackwell Publishing (2006). ISBN 1-4051-0899-1, page 174: "Paul notes the emergence of a Judaizing party in the region — that is, a group within the church which insisted that Gentile believers should obey every aspect of the law of Moses, including the need to be circumcised. According to Paul [reference is made to Galatians, but no specific verse is given], the leading force behind this party was James ... the brother of Jesus ..."
- ^ Jewish Encyclopedia: Jesus
- ^ E. P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 1985 SCM Press ISBN 0-334-02091-3, pages 264-9.
- ^ Jewish Encyclopedia: New Testament: Misunderstood Passages
- NKJV: "you who practice lawlessness"
- ^ Pratt 72
- ^ Chittick 79
- ^ See, for example, "Isma'ilism" at Encyclopaedia of the Orient.
- ^ Daftary 47; Clarence-Smith 56
- ^ Bar-Asher & Kofsky, 67 ff.
- ^ Schimmel 338
- ^ Weir "Differences Between Bektashism and Islamic Orthodoxy"
- ^ Age of Extremes, 1992
References
- Badenas, Robert. Christ the End of the Law, Romans 10.4 in Pauline Perspective 1985 ISBN 0-905774-93-0 argues that telos is correctly translated as goal, not end, so that Christ is the goal of the Law, end of the law would be antinomianism.
- Bar-Asher, Me'ir Mikha'el and Kofsky, Aryeh. The Nuṣayrī-ʿAlawī Religion: An Enquiry into its Theology and Liturgy. Leiden: Koninklijke Brill NV, 2002. ISBN 90-04-12552-3.
- J. H. Blunt Dict. of Doct. and Hist. Theol. (1872)
- Chittick, William C. The Sufi Path of Knowledge: Ibn Al-Arabi's Metaphysics of Imagination. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1989. ISBN 0-88706-885-5.
- Clarence-Smith, W.G. Islam and the Abolition of Slavery. London: C. Hurst & Co. (Publishers) Ltd, 2006. ISBN 1-85065-708-4.
- Daftary, Farhad; ed. Mediaeval Ismaʿili History and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996. ISBN 0-521-45140-X.
- Dunn, James D.G.Jesus, Paul and the Law 1990 ISBN 0-664-25095-5
- Encyclopaedia of the Orient. "Isma'ilism". Retrieved 10 October 2006.
- Freedman, David Noel, editor. (1998). Anchor Bible Dictionary, article on Antinomianism by Hall, Robert W., ISBN 0-385-19351-3
- J. C. L. Gieseler, Ch. Hist. (New York ed. 1868, vol. iv.)
- G. Kawerau, in A. Hauck's Realencyklopadie (1896)
- Luther, Martin. Only the Decalogue Is Eternal: Martin Luther's Complete Antinomian Theses and Disputations. Minneapolis: Lutheran Press, 2008. ISBN 978-0-9748529-6-6
- Pratt, Douglas. The Challenge of Islam: Encounters in Interfaith Dialogue. Aldershot, Hampshire: Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2005. ISBN 0-7546-5122-3.
- Riess, in I. Goschler's Dict. Encyclop. de la théol. cath. (1858)
- Schimmel, Annemarie. Mystical Dimensions of Islam. ISBN 0-8078-1271-4.
- Weir, Anthony. "Differences Between Bektashism and Islamic Orthodoxy" in The Bektashi Order of Dervishes. Retrieved 10 October 2006.
- public domain: Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press.
{{cite encyclopedia}}
: Missing or empty|title=
(help)
This article incorporates text from a publication now in the - Peter Linebaugh and Marcus Rediker. The Many-Headed Hydra. Beacon Press, Boston, 2000
External links
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/99/Wiktionary-logo-en-v2.svg/40px-Wiktionary-logo-en-v2.svg.png)
- New Perspective on Paul
- Jewish Encyclopedia: Antinomianism
- Catholic Encyclopedia: Antinomianism
- Catholic Encyclopedia: Moral Aspect of Divine Law
- Catholic Encyclopedia: Mosaic Legislation
- Catholic Catechism on The Moral Law
- Henry Eyster Jacobs, Lutheran Cyclopedia p. 18, "Antinomianism"
- Antinomians in the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica
- Sermon on Antinomianism
- Jewish Encyclopedia: New Testament - For and Against the Law
- Jewish Encyclopedia: Jesus: Attitude Toward the Law
- Jewish Encyclopedia: Saul of Tarsus: Paul's Opposition to the Law
- Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge: Antinomianism