Antinomianism and you

Excerpt from the Antinomian Bible: And after healing the man, Jesus said "Sin some more!"

hedrick said:

Right. The difficulty is that antinomianism is ambiguous. For many it implies that there are no standards for behavior.

But in this discussion it has a narrower meaning, rejection of the Mosaic Law.

My understanding of both Paul and Acts 15 is that that Law is not binding on us. Lutheran and Reformed teach the third use of the Law, which is as a guideline for behavior. We can certainly learn something about God from seeing the Law for the Jewish people. But that Law as a legal body isn't binding on us, because it was part of a covenant that we aren't a party to.

That does not mean that there are no standards for us. Jesus' teachings act as a standard, and Paul's letters give an example of applying that to his congregations' situation.

I don't think you can divide the OT Law into moral and ceremonial parts, and leave the moral parts as laws for us. They are all part of a covenant that we aren't part of. But it is certainly true that the OT Law reflects basic moral principles.

The problem with a division is that none of the NT treatments of the Law use it. Paul never makes that division. He speaks of the Law as a unit. He certainly holds Christians to moral standards, but he doesn't say that those standards due to a part of the OT Law that he considers moral.

Acts 15 doesn't say anything about a division of the Law either. It is generally thought to be based on the Jewish concept of the Noahic law. This is a set of moral principles that apply to all of humanity, because they date to Noah, and thus precede the Mosaic covenant.

Click to expand...

Acts 15:21 does not refer to the Noahic law but instead cites the Mosaic law. Taken in proper context the prohibitions announced by James in vs. 19-20 are those sins & practices that the gentiles needed to cease immediately which is joined by the conjunction "For" in v.21 which implies that as the gentiles attend synagogue every Sabbath, they would continue to learn more about the law. In other words, the prohibitions are just the starting point in order to make the law not initially burdensome for them but as the law is read every Sabbath in the synagogue, the gentiles would learn more and begin to apply other aspects of Torah to their lives.

HTacianas said:

Just so I understand you, are you claiming that the entirety of the law is abolished?

Click to expand...

I differentiate (as does the Apostle Paul) between God's law and "the law".
Since you asked about "the law", I will address that first.

I define "the law" as the law that God gave to the Israelites alone through Moses.
That law has been abolished. Notice the words "before", "until", and "now" in this scripture.

Galatians 3:23-25
Before the coming of this faith, we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed. 24 So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. 25 Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.

Saint Steven said:

Are you claiming that we are under the law?

Galatians 3:23-25
Before the coming of this faith, we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed. 24 So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. 25 Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.

Click to expand...

These verses state the law was our guardian/instructor/tutor before faith came through Jesus Christ. Before faith came, we we held in custody under the law (v.23) however the law (though insufficient to impart righteousness, v.21) is not antithetical to faith in Christ as the law is not contrary to the promises of God (v.21). Thus, though insufficient for the attainment of righteousness, the law was not nullified but fulfilled through Jesus Christ. We are under the law but grace through Christ enables us to obey the law.

HTacianas said:

Because I do not advocate violating the moral law. All those things we are to abstain from: Murder, theft, fraud, idolatry, etc.

Click to expand...

One cannot abolish laws against bribery, drunkenness, afflicting widows and orphans, e.t.c., unless one is antinomian.

Dave L said:

The Ten Commandments were the Old Covenant, replaced by the New. Believers are now under the Two Great Commandments of love for God and people. And only use the Ten for commentary and instruction. But by living in harmony with the Two Great Commandments, we naturally keep the moral aspects of the Ten without trying.

Click to expand...

Dave,

If these commandments fulfill far more than what the Decalogue states, wouldn't it mean that we do obey them anyways? You're statement doesn't really make sense.

Tree of Life said:

We are under the law in the sense that we are being conformed to the image of Christ and we are called to obey God. But we are not under the law as a means of justification.

Click to expand...

How does the law conform us to the image of Christ? Is Christ in the image of the law? (nope)

Tree of Life said:

You don't think that "Ye shall not lie" and "Ye shall not steal" are broad enough to cover fraud?

Click to expand...

I am saying it is specific to the law outside the TCs.

Leviticus 19:13
“‘Do not defraud or rob your neighbor. “‘Do not hold back the wages of a hired worker overnight.

Oldmantook said:

These verses state the law was our guardian/instructor/tutor before faith came through Jesus Christ. Before faith came, we we held in custody under the law (v.23) however the law (though insufficient to impart righteousness, v.21) is not antithetical to faith in Christ as the law is not contrary to the promises of God (v.21). Thus, though insufficient for the attainment of righteousness, the law was not nullified but fulfilled through Jesus Christ. We are under the law but grace through Christ enables us to obey the law.

Click to expand...

That is not correct.
This says that the law was a guardian until Christ came. Now we are no longer under the guardianship of the law.

Galatians 3:23-25
Before the coming of this faith, we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed. 24 So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. 25 Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.

Saint Steven said:

How does the law conform us to the image of Christ? Is Christ in the image of the law? (nope)

Click to expand...

The Law does not conform us to the image of Christ. The Holy Spirit does. But Christ is the embodiment of the Law. So to be conformed to Christ is also to be conformed to the demands of the Law.

Saint Steven said:

Are you referring to the Ten Commandments, or something else?
(fraud is outside the TCs)

Click to expand...

Paul was quite clear in that he believed that the Law was good and holy and instituted by God to show His standards of holiness. He said that the Law was insufficient to permanently justify anyone because of sin. In other words, the Law was good, but no one was able to keep it.

Jesus came and kept the Law, not for us, but for Himself, so He could be the sinless substitute to take God's punishment for our failure to keep the Law. Therefore He died as us, so that we could be as Christ in God's eyes. This is how the Scripture is true for us: "By grace are we saved through faith, and not of ourselves but it is the gift of God". So we are justified,not through keeping the Law, but through Christ who kept the Law and who suffered the wrath of God for our failure to keep it.

But sanctification is quite another matter. We now have the Holy Spirit in us to do the workmanship of Christ in us to conform us to the mind of Christ, and to develop our conduct to be more and more Christ-like each day. We are now mindful of keeping God's moral law, not to gain God's acceptance, because we already are accepted and without condemnation or expectation of punishment, but to live glorifying Christ, provide a testimony of changed lives to the world, and work with the Holy Spirit to get souls saved.

We now have a new heart in us that wants about all things to be holy and righteous before God, and the Law gives the guidance on how to achieve that. It was not by keeping the Law that we gained our new heart and quickened spirit. That was through the grace of God through our faith in Christ. But we make the effort to do what we can to live holy lives because we have the Law written on our hearts.

Paul says that seeing we are living in the Spirit (the grace through faith part), we must walk in the Spirit (our developing sanctification). If we refuse to walk in the Spirit, and continue living as we please, and sinning as we did before we were saved than that is antinomianism.

HTacianas said:

Antinomianism is a later term meaning "against the law". It doesn't mean some act that violates the law, but describes the idea that the entirety of the old testament law is abolished. Hence an individual who is against the law. If the law is abolished there is no sin, so a person can behave themself any way they want to and still be justified.

Is there anyone here who holds to that belief or do you know anyone who does?

Click to expand...

This has been going on off and on since the days of the New Testament (Nicolatianism, Gnosticism). There was a spike in it after the Reformation, where people starting to interpret the Bible for themselves and formulating their own theologies which today have been called things like hyper-grace, greasy-grace etc.

What's interesting to me is there now is a new school of thought I haven't heard of before until last week that divides up Jesus own words in terms of Law and Gospel. Essentially all the harsh words Jesus says about Sin fit under the Dispensation of Law and only were in force for the time before he died on the cross, but all the positive things remain still in effect.


As far as have I encountered such people? I've encountered a number online and I think you are likely to bump into people with these sort of attitudes because many people base their personal theology based on the sentiments of the times (Humanism) rather anything out of the Bible or a Catechism.

Tree of Life said:

The Law does not conform us to the image of Christ. The Holy Spirit does. But Christ is the embodiment of the Law. So the be conformed to Christ is also to be conformed to the demands of the Law.

Click to expand...

Do you wear tassels? (a demand of the law)

Oscarr said:

Jesus came and kept the Law, not for us, but for Himself, so He could be the sinless substitute to take God's punishment for our failure to keep the Law.

Click to expand...

I think he came to set the law aside. This says we are no longer under the law since Christ came.

Galatians 3:23-25
Before the coming of this faith, we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed. 24 So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. 25 Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.

Oscarr said:

Paul was quite clear in that he believed that the Law was good and holy and instituted by God to show His standards of holiness.

Click to expand...

Paul differentiates between God's law (Rom.7-8), "the law", and Christ’s law. Most notably in the scripture below.

1 Corinthians 9:20-22
To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. 21 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some.

Saint Steven said:

I think he came to set the law aside. This says we are no longer under the law since Christ came.

Galatians 3:23-25
Before the coming of this faith, we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed. 24 So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. 25 Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.

Click to expand...

I agree that we are not "under the law" by obligation to follow it. This is because we are "under" Christ through faith. But we now have a new heart and spirit and therefore we voluntarily abide in Christ and follow His example of holy living and cheerfully follow His commandments and instructions, not because we are forced by obligation, but we want to glorify His name in the world and not grieve or quench the Holy Spirit within us; or let demons in by sinful living.

Oscarr said:

I agree that we are not "under the law" by obligation to follow it. This is because we are "under" Christ through faith. But we now have a new heart and spirit and therefore we voluntarily abide in Christ and follow His example of holy living and cheerfully follow His commandments and instructions, not because we are forced by obligation, but we want to glorify His name in the world and not grieve or quench the Holy Spirit within us; or let demons in by sinful living.

Click to expand...

You had responded originally to my question about whether a poster was referring to "the law" as the Ten Commandments. (or what?) I'm not sure as to what law you are referring to. You eluded to Romans 7+8 earlier. (delight in God's law) Which is different than "the law".

Saint Steven said:

Do you wear tassels? (a demand of the law)

Click to expand...

No. But we may intelligibly differentiate between ceremonial aspects of the law, such as tassels, and moral aspects of the law - as the NT itself does. It's very poor exegesis and logical argumentation to say that because we no longer wear tassels that therefore we are not under the law in any sense.

Tree of Life said:

No. But we may intelligibly differentiate between ceremonial aspects of the law, such as tassels, and moral aspects of the law - as the NT itself does. It's very poor exegesis and logical argumentation to say that because we no longer wear tassels that therefore we are not under the law in any sense.

Click to expand...

What is ceremonial about tassels?
You are claiming we are under the law?

When Paul states that we are no longer under law but grace, he's referring to the demands of the law in justice toward sin and the need to be righteous, whereas by grace in Christ through faith we are both covered with his blood and justified in his righteousness...

We are still under the obligation of the moral law, even the two commandments falls under this same law.