Well, first, Wikipedia is only as good and trust worthy as the sources they provide and as good and knowledgeable the author who is writing it. Wikipedia is not a religious website but it is a secular one (that writes facts based on the beliefs of others from their secular understanding). If you were to research religious websites, they refer to Antinomianism as an ignoring of the moral law. Yes, it is probably true that the first arrival of the word "Antinomianism" was in reference to ignoring the Law of Moses, but in time it the meaning of this word has changed to refer to an ignoring of the moral law (In fact, the article at Wikipedia appears to mention this fact, but they have not updated the first paragraph to reflect this change; Anyways, here is the paragraph at Wikipedia that tells us this).
"A general consensus has been historically reached as to which laws of the Old Testament Christians are still enjoined to keep. These moral laws, as opposed to civil or ceremonial laws, are derivative of what St. Paul refers to as the natural law (Rom. 2.14-15). Mosaic law has authority only insofar as it reflects the commands of Christ and the natural law. Christian sects and theologians who believe that they are freed from more moral constraint than is customary are often called "antinomian" by their critics."
~ Wikipedia.
Second, religious websites like Gotquestions, and Theopedia define Antinomianism as an ignoring of the moral law. Even the dictionary defines the word Antinomianism in such a way. So while the word "Antinomianism" might have had a meaning at one time as being in reference to ignoring the Law of Moses, the word has become to mean today in the religious world as a reference to ignoring God's moral law(s) in general.
http://www.gotquestions.org/antinomianism.html
Please take note that while Gotquestions says Antinomianism is unbiblical, it states that Eternal Security is true (Which is false).
http://www.gotquestions.org/eternal-security.html
http://www.theopedia.com/antinomianism
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/antinomianism
No. First, God does not give out commands to his people just so that He can turn around tell them to break them or to downplay their importance. That doesn't make any sense. In addition, such a concept ignores morality and God is not against morality but He is for it. God is good and He is not evil. God supports what is good, just, and righteous. For I should not even have to tell you this. Morality helps you to understand who the good guys vs. the bad guys are when you go out into the world, or when you watch a movie, or turn on the news. Without morals, one is lawless and evil.
Second, there was no system of Law alone type salvation in the Old Testament. Faith existed even in the Old Testament just as God's laws existed in the Old Testament. In fact, even before the giving of the Law of Moses, there was still the existence of God's laws. For sin is transgression of the Law (1 John 3:4). Meaning, the people in the global flood perished because of their wickedness or sin (i.e. because they broke God's laws). For Scriptures even says Noah was a preacher of righteousness. This is not in conflict with faith.
No. Paul is talking about how one is under a curse if they are seeking to go back to the Law of Moses so as to be justified. Paul was also addressing the fact that it is not Law alone whereby we are justified or saved but it is by God's grace. For it is the person of Jesus who ultimately saves us; And it is thru Jesus whereby we are saved both in Justification and in Sanctification.
The Law being referenced here is the Law of Moses and it is not in reference to the Commands in the New Testament (Put forth by Jesus, and Paul and the other apostles). If such were the case, then there would be many contradictions in Scripture (See 1 John 3:23, 1 Timothy 6:3-4, Luke 6:46, Matthew 7:21, Matthew 7:26-27).
In fact, we know that the Law mentioned in Galatians is in reference to the Law of Moses because Galatians 3:24 says,
"Therefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, "
(Galatians 3:24).
A school master was a teacher. This teacher is related to the Law that brought us UNTO Christ. So this is in reference to the Law of Moses because it says this type of Law brought us to Christ. But when Christ came, Jesus did not say that all law was abolished. Jesus says he came to fulfill the Law and not to destroy or abolish Law. Scripture says the Law has changed (Hebrews 7:12).
...
Sorry, but so much of what you say appears inherently contradictory. You reference http://www.gotquestions.org/antinomianism.html Yet they say, "Obeying the law of Christ is not a requirement to earn or maintain salvation." But you say it is a requirement. So are they antinomian? According to what you wrote they would be. So why give a link to them if they don't agree with your understanding of what "Antinomian" is? It's confusing.
Then you quote me saying:
So under the Old Covenant one would have faith in God and follow His regulations in order to be saved. A concept of which Paul calls "a Curse".
All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law." Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because, "The righteous will live by faith." The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, "The man who does these things will live by them." Gal 3:10-12
And then you say "No". "No" to what? There's not even a question in that statement. Are you saying that you disagree with what the apostle Paul says. You're very confusing.
Then you make the statement, "God does not give out commands to his people just so that He can turn around tell them to break them or to downplay their importance". But aren't you yourself doing that with the Law of Moses? And what does your diatribe that follows that have to do with Gal 3:10-12?
And then you go on to say, "there was no system of Law alone type salvation in the Old Testament". Of course there isn't. People would have faith that their compliance to the Law would justify them, which is what God promises concerning the Law of Moses, and which Paul is writing about in the Galatians passage, as well as in Romans. So, faith + Works, just like you advocate. For what is it that you advocate a person rely upon in order to maintain their salvation status? Their own performance. Their compliance to the "Moral" Law as you say.
And indeed you admit that the only difference in your salvation scheme with regards Gal 3:10-12 is simply that the Law of Moses was replaced with New Testament commands. Yet Paul's argument in Gal 3:10-12 still holds whatever law you insert in there, if the idea is that you lose your salvation everytime there's a violation of said law.
You could just as well say, "All who rely on observing the New Testament commands to maintain their salvation status are under a curse, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the New Testament." It's the same thing, if that were the case.
Fact is, that's not the case because justification is by faith apart from works. A person is saved by faith and then lives the Christian life, complies with New Testament commands, as a saved person.
In your scenario there is no one who is presently saved. They only have the potential to be saved and only will be saved if they end up being a "good Christian".
Upvote
0