Antinomianism, definition and a Question "is this you"?

[BobRyan]

Definition for "Antinomianism"

AI:

Antinomianism
is a term used in Christian theology to describe the belief that, because salvation is granted by divine grace through faith, believers are not bound by the moral law of God, including the Ten Commandments. The word itself comes from the Greek anti ("against") and nomos ("law"), literally meaning "against the law"

R.C. Sproul

What Are Legalism and Antinomianism?

Legalism and antinomianism undergird all forms of false teaching and heresy.

learn.ligonier.org

"Antinomianism says that God does not require a believer to obey the Law of God (the Ten Commandments)"

Antinomianism | Monergism

Antinomianism is a theological heresy that holds that, because of grace and faith in Christ, believers are no longer bound to obey the moral law of God. The

www.monergism.com

Antinomianism is a theological heresy that holds that, because of grace and faith in Christ, believers are no longer bound to obey the moral law of God. The term comes from the Greek words anti (against) and nomos (law), and it literally means “against the law.” Antinomianism falsely teaches that Christians, having been saved by grace, are free from the obligations of the moral law, leading to a rejection of the law’s role in the Christian life.

If you have read the threads on this particular forum then every now and then you will see someone arguing against the moral law of God , specifically the Ten Commandments. As James 2 says "he who is guilty of breaking one is guilty of breaking them all"

As Paul says in Eph 6:1-2 "Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. 2 Honor your father and mother (which is the first commandment with a promise), 3 so that it may be well with you, and that you may live long on the earth.

hint: What are the set of commandments in scripture where the first one in that list WITH a promise is the 5th commandment calling children to Honor father and mother.

 

[BobRyan]

much effort has been put into arguing against God's Ten commandments and if not that then a focus on arguing against one of the TEN.

James 2 claims those two are the same thing.

Do you agree with James 2?

 

[Tom8907]

Sadly too common today and if you obey Chrust you're a "pharisee".

 

[BobRyan]

Recent thread comments on this forum are consistently bringing out the "no more TEN Commandments" teaching... mentioned in this thread.

 

[DamianWarS]

Definition for "Antinomianism"

AI:

Antinomianism
is a term used in Christian theology to describe the belief that, because salvation is granted by divine grace through faith, believers are not bound by the moral law of God, including the Ten Commandments. The word itself comes from the Greek anti ("against") and nomos ("law"), literally meaning "against the law"

R.C. Sproul

What Are Legalism and Antinomianism?

Legalism and antinomianism undergird all forms of false teaching and heresy.

learn.ligonier.org

"Antinomianism says that God does not require a believer to obey the Law of God (the Ten Commandments)"

Antinomianism | Monergism

Antinomianism is a theological heresy that holds that, because of grace and faith in Christ, believers are no longer bound to obey the moral law of God. The

www.monergism.com

Antinomianism is a theological heresy that holds that, because of grace and faith in Christ, believers are no longer bound to obey the moral law of God. The term comes from the Greek words anti (against) and nomos (law), and it literally means “against the law.” Antinomianism falsely teaches that Christians, having been saved by grace, are free from the obligations of the moral law, leading to a rejection of the law’s role in the Christian life.

If you have read the threads on this particular forum then every now and then you will see someone arguing against the moral law of God , specifically the Ten Commandments. As James 2 says "he who is guilty of breaking one is guilty of breaking them all"

As Paul says in Eph 6:1-2 "Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. 2 Honor your father and mother (which is the first commandment with a promise), 3 so that it may be well with you, and that you may live long on the earth.

hint: What are the set of commandments in scripture where the first one in that list WITH a promise is the 5th commandment calling children to Honor father and mother.

If antinomianism (lit. against law) is regarding no longer being bound by the "moral law of God" then the critical question is what is the "moral law of God". This is not terminology found in scripture, so there is no biblical way to isolate what this moral law of God is and what it is not, which begs the question: Is this responsible terminology/should we be using it? Scripture doesn't bifurcate law, and when the subject of law is raised, law is treated as whole units defined within covenants. Some indeed have more of a moral foundation and others ceremonial/ritual or symbolic, but the law doesn't separate itself to sub categories like this, that's a post-biblical thing to do. So the real question is what aspects of the law of the old covenant should we consider universally moral? The answer, as it applies to the legal code, is nothing. The legal code is meant for the covenant and those outside the covenant are not bound by it (that's how covenants work). That isn't to say they are not based on a universal moral framework but they are not universal themselves, which is an important distinction. Instead, the framework they are based on is universal, which is more foundational to the character and root of God than a covenantal law ever can be.

Even a commandment like "Do not murder," which sounds perfectly agreeable, is not a moral foundation of the NC. The moral foundation of the NC is not about passive resisting evil like murdering, stealing, lying, sleeping with your neighbour's wife, etc... but instead is about actively seeking love and is primarily guided by the Spirit. It's actually pretty easy to resist murdering my neighbour (I haven't done it yet), but I may still cross the street and ignore him when I see he needs help. In doing so, I do not break the 10, which just exposes the limits of the 10, but not the moral framework they are based on.

So what's the moral framework that's better than these laws (better than the 10)? Fortunately, Jesus spells it out in Mat 22:37-40 "And he said to him,“You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.” He says it right there, that all the law and prophets are based on these two commandments, so this is the moral framework the 10 are based on. There is no list here, and it operates more like a heuristic approach requiring active critical involvement in our actions. NT authors also affirm this same law. Paul calls it "Christ's law (1 Cor 9). James calls it "the Royal law." (Jam 2)

So if by "moral law" we mean the moral framework that law is based on, then Christ spells it out, and this is fundamental to NC teaching. But I suspect "moral law" is a code word for smuggling in the 10 commandments. so if antinomianism in practice means "no longer bound by the 10 commandments" then or course I affirm this. For some reason, people seem to think that without the 10 we will steal, murder, lie and have sex with everyone we see. This plainly is not true, one, we have the Spirit in us to guide us (this is critical), and I have confidence in the Spirit's mechanism given by God. The Spirit is the sign of the NC agreement, so it is crucial to our worldview operating as followers of Christ and we need the Spirit to understand the lens of God. There is no other way around this, and the 10 commandments do not accomplish this the way the Spirit can. The 10 operate several levels in so highly contextualized, where the Spirit is the direct source. but we also have Christ's law to help align ourselves (as well as a host of NT teaching), the product of which will not be murdering, stealing, lying, etc... but now loving our neighbour as ourselves, which is a foreign product of the 10 but a critical part of the NC. The OC focuses on morality from the outside in. eg. I do X, Y, Z therefore I am good. But the NC is focused on an inward outflowing, where our moral expressions and worship are from an outflowing from the heart. As a Christian, that outflowing is rooted by the Spirit, not by the 10 commandments. This is the meaning of "laws written upon our heart" (2 Cor 3) it is not the 10 commandments smuggled in the NC, but the quality of the Spirit impacting our core and overflowing to all actions. We are not dependent upon lists in the NC, we are dependent upon the leading of the Spirit. Even if the outflow looks "good" without the Spirit as its source, it can be that of a clanging symbol. I'm not sure why anyone would argue with this, as it is fundamental to NC teaching. I am spirit-led, not stone-led. Is the output the same? It doesn't matter because it is not a "both x AND y" system. I am emphatically Spirit-led.

 

[BobRyan]

If antinomianism (lit. against law) is regarding no longer being bound by the "moral law of God"

so then if the dictionary and history of the NT church is correct?

then the critical question is what is the "moral law of God".

yep. Hence all the confessions of faith addressing that very point and even the definition for antinomianism pointing to the TEN Commandments

which begs the question: Is this responsible terminology/should we be using it?

It is probably a bit uncomfortable if one is used to posting in opposition to the Ten Commandments, given how the definition for antinomianism reads.

Scripture doesn't bifurcate law

Until you read Heb 10 where "He takes away the first to establish the second" vs 4-10 where it is explicitly speaking of "animal sacrifice and offerings" all the while "The Commandments of God" are strongly affirmed in 1 Cor 7:19 where "Honor your father and mother is the first commandment with a promise" Eph 6:1 in that still valid unit of TEN

So apparently the definition for Antinomianism is indeed accurate in what it says happened in first century church history

, and when the subject of law is raised, law is treated as whole units defined within covenants. Some indeed have more of a moral foundation and others ceremonial/ritual or symbolic,

No wonder the Baptist Confession of Faith sectn 19, and the Westminster Confession of Faith sectn 19 , and D.L. Moody's sermon on the Ten Commandments, and R.C. Sproul, and C.H. Spurgeon affirm the TEN as included in the moral law of God




Almost every Christian denomination on Earth affirms the continued *"unit of TEN" for Christians today

[*]The Baptist Confession of Faith section 19
[*]The Westminster Confession of Faith section 19
[*]Voddie Baucham
[*]C.H. Spurgeon
[*]D.L. Moody
[*]Dies Domini by Pope John Paul II
[*]D. James Kennedy
[*]R.C. Sproul
[*]many others as well..

* - 10 as-is or else in edited form

 

[DamianWarS]

Sadly all the Confessions of Faith of major Christian groups claim you are wrong.

so then if the dictionary and history of the NT church is correct?

yep. Hence all the confessions of faith addressing that very point and even the definition for antinomianism pointing to the TEN Commandments

It is probably a bit uncomfortable if one is used to posting in opposition to the Ten Commandments, given how the definition for antinomianism reads.

church history supports a position that you ultimately reject. which is changing the Sabbath to Sunday. maintaining Sabbath on the 7th day is simply not a popular held view throughout the history of the church. if you wish to use church history as your model it is coupling two values of gathering on the 1st day and the sabbath. more recent views like that of SDA have shifted this coupling to the 7th day but the gathering part for worship is not the quintessential value of the day according to the letter of the law. SDA will find scripture to endorse their positions but refuse to accept that fundamentally their starting point was adopting main stream Christian Sunday values and shifting them to the 7th over adopting biblical values. essentially what you get is a Sunday-worship-version on the 7th day. these values don't have to compete with each other, and that's not what I'm saying, but SDA doctrinal positions are clearly influenced are cultural trends to set the values of the day and loosely biblical values.

Until you read Heb 10 where "He takes away the first to establish the second" vs 4-10 where it is explicitly speaking of "animal sacrifice and offerings" all the while "The Commandments of God" are strongly affirmed in 1 Cor 7:19 where "Honor your father and mother is the first commandment with a promise" Eph 6:1 in that still valid unit of TEN

a comprehensive study of a Hebrew will show that it does not flatten law in the sense of one aspect is done away with (like the sacrafice) every aspect is done away with. this can lead to some contrasting claims on how we categorize these laws. but the 10 commandments are not an endorsed category that stands alone and there certainly is no label on the 10 commandments calling it "God's Moral Law" all of which are biblical injection. there are moral and monthesitic claims that reaffirm their counterparts in the 10 but the 4th is not one them. it instead speaks of Sabbath as something beyond a human requirement of physical rest but a rest found in God. it's claim is beyond external keeping of the law and reframing it to entering God's rest. it's reference of Sabbath is not of a physical day, but of a mode or state of rest coupling ideas of God's completed work ushering in this rest like that of creation. the reframing shifts the focus to God's action over shaping the new covenant over our actions where the quintessential moment is now, not a specific day.

No wonder the Baptist Confession of Faith sectn 19, and the Westminster Confession of Faith sectn 19 , and D.L. Moody's sermon on the Ten Commandments, and R.C. Sproul, and C.H. Spurgeon affirm the TEN as included in the moral law of God

You mean they affirm that Sunday is the Sabbath? I'm not an advocate for that, but it would seem a counterpoint to your argument, yet you copy and paste it like a mic drop. your list affirms X and Y, you reject X and affirm Y but don't see this as a conflict. if they are right about Y (which you both agree) doesn't this add to the credibility of their claim of coupling it with X? or if they are wrong about X doesn't this question the credibility of the claim made on Y? But your not interested in critically approaching this, you only take what you want and throw out the rest which shows a highly biased view.