Antinomianism and you

[ICONO'CLAST]

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.

Dave repeats the error of some who deny the 4th commandment.

 

[klutedavid]

Abstaining from intentional sin is now defined as self righteousness?

Your boast of not killing someone, of not committing that sin, is what defines self righteousness accurately.

We boast in Christ and not in our ability to abstain from sin. We freely confess our sin to one another.

1 John 1:10
If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us.

No one should ever make any personal boast about being free from sin.

 

[ICONO'CLAST]

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

You have no idea what you are talking about on this topic at all. You are in over your head. Christians are law keepers

 

[HTacianas]

I would interpret that somewhat differently.

To not walk in the Spirit is walking in the flesh and that is automatic.

To hate someone is a work of the flesh, being cranky with someone is walking in the flesh.

We are called to joy and peace in the Spirit and that is twenty four seven. Producing the fruit of the Holy Spirit is the opposite of the works of the flesh.

There is no venial or even mortal sin after the death and resurrection of Jesus. There is really only one sin that leads to death.

Once again the power of sin has been broken.

Your interpretation produces a fatal contradiction in scripture:

1Jo 1:10 - If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us.

And then:

1Jo 3:6 - Whoever abides in Him does not sin. Whoever sins has neither seen Him nor known Him.

No, because having been freed from the condemnation of the Law, Christ makes us servants of our neighbor.

To believe anything else marks out a goat and not a sheep of the Shepherd.

Well hold on now. You said being angry at my neighbor is the same as murdering him. Now you seem to be saying none of it matters.

 

[Oldmantook]

Did you say "obsolete"?

Hebrews 8:7, 13
7 For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. ...
13 By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear.

Indeed obsolete. Why do you ignore the context of that verse? The chapter starts out by referencing Jesus as our great high priest who is the mediator of a better covenant. No more need for priests to offer sacrifices on our behalf since Jesus is not only our great high priest but also the lamb who was sacrificed on our behalf. The old covenant was thus made obsolete because as I wrote earlier it was INSUFFICIENT to obtain our redemption. Jesus said he is the FULFILLMENT of the law and not the abolishment of the law as you mistakenly assert. I prefer to believe Jesus.

 

[HTacianas]

Your boast of not killing someone, of not committing that sin, is what defines self righteousness accurately.

We boast in Christ and not in our ability to abstain from sin. We freely confess our sin to one another.

1 John 1:10
If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us.

No one should ever make any personal boast about being free from sin.

I don't see abstaining from murder as a case of self righteousness. I see it as doing what I've been told.

Now are we entering into the realm of "hyper-antinomianism" where we should "continue in sin so grace might abound"?

 

[FireDragon76]

Y
Well hold on now. You said being angry at my neighbor is the same as murdering him. Now you seem to be saying none of it matters.

Of course it matters, becaues my neighbor's life and dignity matters to him.

Lutheranism places ethics within the human sphere, it's not the result of arbitrary divine decrees, but a new relationship that God adopts us into where we are freed by grace to love God and our neighbor.

Murder is self-evidently bad, even pagans understand this. One does not have to be a Christian to understand that. That is why the true message of the Gospel is the forgiveness of sins, not obedience to the law. Obedience to the law is written on the human heart, and that is what condemns us.

H, if we could become righteous through our works of obedience, why would the Orthodox pray "Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me a sinner"? As Luther said, be a real sinner, not an imaginary one... because God only forgives real sinners. Own your sinner-ness and be confident that in Christ, you are forgiven.

 

[HTacianas]

Direct from the dictionary:

Antinomian
relating to the view that Christians are released by grace from the obligation of observing the moral law.

So are we or are we not "released by grace from the obligation of observing the moral law"?

 

[FireDragon76]

I don't see abstaining from murder as a case of self righteousness. I see it as doing what I've been told.

Now are we entering into the realm of "hyper-antinomianism" where we should "continue in sin so grace might abound"?

People are not sinners by choice, but by birth. Human beings are fallen creatures and can only choose between sinful choice A and sinful choice B.

So it's not "hyper-antinomian", it's realistic. Life here below is tragic and we await true righteousness in the next world. Whereas Catholics and Orthodox both are prone to thinking of ethics in terms of legalism, "What must I do to be saved?" type thinking. Instead, the one who goes away justified simply prays "Lord Jesus Christ , Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner".

Your interpretation produces a fatal contradiction in scripture:

1Jo 1:10 - If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us.

And then:

1Jo 3:6 - Whoever abides in Him does not sin. Whoever sins has neither seen Him nor known Him..

There are various tensions within the scriptures, and that is one. Because later he says, "whoever says they have no sin deceives themselves and the truth is not in them".

 

[HTacianas]

People are not sinners by choice, but by birth. Human beings are fallen creatures and can only choose between sinful choice A and sinful choice B.

So it's not "hyper-antinomian", it's realistic. Life here below is tragic and we await true righteousness in the next world. Whereas Catholics and Orthodox both are prone to thinking of ethics in terms of legalism, "What must I do to be saved?" type thinking. Instead, the one who goes away justified simply prays "Lord Jesus Christ , Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner".



There are various tensions within the scriptures, and that is one. Because later he says, "whoever says they have no sin deceives themselves and the truth is not in them".

That is the point of 1 John. "whoever says they have no (venial) sin deceives themselves and the truth is not in them".

And then "anyone who continues to sin (mortally) has neither seen him nor known him".

 

[FireDragon76]

That is the point of 1 John. "whoever says they have no (venial) sin deceives themselves and the truth is not in them".

And then "anyone who continues to sin (mortally) has neither seen him nor known him".

That's a bankrupt method of interpetation, since it involves a substantial amount of eisegesis. But then a great deal of medieval Christianity succumbed to adopting Aristotilian virtue ethics in place of biblical soteriology.

 

[HTacianas]

That's a bankrupt method of interpetation, since it involves a substantial amount of eisegesis. But then a great deal of medieval Christianity succumbed to adopting Aristotilian virtue ethics in place of biblical soteriology.

There is nothing "bankrupt" about it. That has been the teaching of Christianity since the beginning. That your later tradition disagrees is something you have to reconcile for yourself.

 

[FireDragon76]

There is nothing "bankrupt" about it. That has been the teaching of Christianity since the beginning. That your later tradition disagrees is something you have to reconcile for yourself.

I believe the Scriptures alone are sufficient in instructing us in salvation. Jesus himself seemed to think so, as well.

Appeal to tradition is simply another man trying to put you into spiritual bondage to a a wax nose that is shaped to suit the fallen flesh of sinners (typically powerful and oppressive sinners). As Luther stood on Scriptures and clear reason, so do I. Even human philosophers recognize appeals to tradition as a logical fallacy.

 

[HTacianas]

I believe the Scriptures alone are sufficient in instructing us in salvation. Jesus himself seemed to think so, as well.

Appeal to tradition is simply another man trying to put you into spiritual bondage to a a wax nose that is shaped to suit the fallen flesh of sinners (typically powerful and oppressive sinners). As Luther stood on Scriptures and clear reason, so do I. Even human philosophers recognize appeals to tradition as a logical fallacy.

Luther distinguished between mortal and venial sin.

 

[FireDragon76]

So all of them received honor and greatness, not through themselves or their own deeds or the right things they did, but through his will. And we, therefore, who by his will have been called in Jesus Christ, are not justified of ourselves or by our wisdom or insight of religious devotion or the holy deeds we have done from the heart, but by that faith by which almighty God has justified all men from the very beginning. To him be glory forever and ever. Amen. (Clement, Clement's First Letter, 32.3-4)

Justification by faith, and not works of the Law, has always been true apostolic teaching, going all the way back to St. Paul. It was not until the Babylonian Captivity under the anti-Christ popes that another doctrine came about, one imported from Aristotle.

 

[FireDragon76]

Luther distinguished between mortal and venial sin.

The few Lutheran scholastics that speak of mortal and venial sins do so in a way opposite to what Rome preaches. Those sins whom people consider venial, are most likely mortal. And the mortal sins are most likely venial. And I believe, they were speaking allegorically, because as Luther said, nothing can separate us from the Lamb. Christ's righteousness is reckoned to us by faith alone.

 

[klutedavid]

I don't see abstaining from murder as a case of self righteousness. I see it as doing what I've been told.

Now are we entering into the realm of "hyper-antinomianism" where we should "continue in sin so grace might abound"?

We don't continue in sin as Christians, we have been crucified with Christ, we die to self so that we can be raised with Christ.

Yet we will never be perfect but that does not stop us from holding the attitude of sinless perfection.

The goal of all Christian teaching is nothing more than love from a pure heart. I would love to be sinless but the higher calling is pure agape love.

1 John 4:8
The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love.

 

[klutedavid]

Luther distinguished between mortal and venial sin.

Yes but Luther was a Catholic.

You won't find mortal and venial sin in the scripture. That is more of a theological explanation, a theological attempt to understand sin, to define sin.

We die because Adam introduced death into the world, all die because all sinned, the depth of sin is not mentioned. Christ alone granted the free gift of immortal life to those who ask for it, without consideration of venial or mortal sin.

The degree or depth of sin is not what Christ's reconciliation is concerned with. All sin is forgiven in Christ, the penalty of death has been removed in Christ.

Christ is the solution to sin and death, be it mortal sin or otherwise.

 

[HTacianas]

Yes but Luther was a Catholic.

You won't find mortal and venial sin in the scripture. That is more of a theological explanation, a theological attempt to understand sin, to define sin.

We die because Adam introduced death into the world, all die because all sinned, the depth of sin is not mentioned. Christ alone granted the free gift of immortal life to those who ask for it, without consideration of venial or mortal sin.

The degree or depth of sin is not what Christ's reconciliation is concerned with. All sin is forgiven in Christ, the penalty of death has been removed in Christ.

Christ is the solution to sin and death, be it mortal sin or otherwise.

Mortal and venial sin is found throughout the old testament. Sacrifices in the temple were offered for "sins of ignorance" and not for intentional sins. There was no sacrifice for mortal sins, including murder or adultery. They required the death of the sinner. They were mortal.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

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.

With the exception of the Sabbath command, 9 out of the 10 commandments were moral laws.

God's moral laws came into existence for man and would forever exist for him after the Fall of Adam and Eve (after they received the knowledge of good and evil). A Moral Law is any law telling you to do good without a specific law telling you that such a thing is so (See Romans 2:14). These moral laws existed before the Law of Moses.

In the New Covenant (or New Testament) these Moral Laws (like: “Do not murder,” “Do not steal,” Do not covet,” “Do not commit adultery,” etc.) are repeated from the 613 laws within the Law of Moses and they still in effect (i.e. They have been carried over into the New Testament). However, the Old Testament Law of Moses as a whole or package deal is no more (contractually speaking). Ceremonial commands: Things like the commands on circumcision, animal sacrifices, the Saturday Sabbath, etc. are no longer binding under the New Covenant. This is because the written Law given to Israel is no longer in effect (as a whole). How so?

Here are a list of verses (showing us the Old Law is no more):

7 "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:
8 How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious?
9 For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory.
10 For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth.
11 For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious." (2 Corinthians 3:7-11).

“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.” (2 Corinthians 3:14).

"When God speaks of a "new" covenant, it means he has made the first one obsolete. It is now out of date and will soon disappear." (Hebrews 8:13) (NLT).

”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.” (Romans 7:4).

"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." (Romans 7:6).

"Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;" (Colossians 2:14).

20 "Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances,
21 (Touch not; taste not; handle not;
22 Which all are to perish with the using; ) after the commandments and doctrines of men?
23 Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body: not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh."
(Colossians 2:20-23).

“By abolishing in His [own crucified] flesh the enmity [caused by] the Law with its decrees and ordinances [which He annulled]; that He from the two might create in Himself one new man [one new quality of humanity out of the two], so making peace.” (Ephesians 2:15) (AMPC).

"The old [former] rule [commandment; regulation] is now set aside [nullified; abolished], because it was weak and useless [ineffective]." (Hebrews 7:18) (EXB).

9 “Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience;
10 Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.” (Hebrews 9:9-10).

16 “For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.” (Hebrews 9:16-17).

”And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament…” (Hebrews 9:15).

27 “And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.” (Matthew 26:27-28).

50 “Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.
51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; “ (Matthew 27:20-51).

8 “Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;
9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.” (Hebrews 10:8-9).

“And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.” (Acts of the Apostles 15:1).

“But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.” (Acts of the Apostles 15:5).

“Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment” (Acts of the Apostles 15:24).

28 "For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;
29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well." (Acts of the Apostles 15:28-29).


The Old Covenant says this about circumcision:

"And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant." (Genesis 17:14).

Yet, the New Covenant says this about circumcision:

"Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing." (Galatians 5:2).

The Old Covenant says this about the Sabbath:

32 "And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day.
33 And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and Aaron, and unto all the congregation.
34 And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done to him.
35 And the Lord said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp.
36 And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the Lord commanded Moses." (Numbers 15:32-36).

Yet, the New Covenant says this about the Sabbath:

"Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:" (Colossians 2:16).

So it appears things have changed.

This makes sense because Hebrews 7:12 says the Law has changed.

"For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law." (Hebrews 7:12).

“For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.” (John 1:17).