Antinomianism

[JM]

Does antinomianism damage the unity of the Bible?

 

[cygnusx1]

Does antinomianism damage the unity of the Bible?

it depends what you have in mind..............I am considered by some to be an AntiNomian , and I don't really mind.

It doesn't damage the unity of the Bible for me.

I believe you are either under Grace or under Law , and I don't think the 2 can mix....

greetings Brother Street Preacher

 

[bleechers]

Looking for "antinomians" or "nestorians"... here I am!

The derogatory term doesn't take away from the fact that you should never ever mix law with grace. Never ever, period. You cannot be under "part" of the Mosaic law. It is all or nothing.

Does that make me lawless? No. I am under the Law of Christ and the Law of Liberty.

 

[d0c markus]

Does antinomianism damage the unity of the Bible?

what is an antinomian?

 

[JM]

ANTINOMIANISM –– Literally, "anti-law." Theologically, it denotes those who oppose or dismiss God's law in the Bible. There are two classifications of antinomians. Explicit antinomians are the unconverted who display a flagrant disregard for the law of God (Rom. 1, 2). Implicit antinomians are professed Christians who hold that God's law is not relevant in the present era. They often substitute subjective, arbitrary standards like the so-called "leading of the Spirit" for God's written revelation.

The above is not my wording, it's quoted. I can neither confirm it's exactness or support it as a proper definition.

SP: John Kerry didn't support this ad.

 

[d0c markus]

SP: John Kerry didn't support this ad.

Good that means it still has some credibility.

 

[Jessica Lauren]

Good that means it still has some credibility.

ahh lol that was a good one

 

[bleechers]

professed Christians who hold that God's law is not relevant in the present era. They often substitute subjective, arbitrary standards like the so-called "leading of the Spirit" for God's written revelation.

Well, I guess that's one way to define it... Source please?

It is "lieterally anti-law", but the rest seems to reflect a particular school of thought. It is my contention that Paul was antinomian in the most vehement terms.

There are far too many verses dealing with both the inadequasies of the Law and the condemnations attached to the Law to post here. I will just point to two:

1 Timothy 1
9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers...

Galatians 3
10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.

The Church is not under the law. The majority of the book of Romans was written to make the case against the law in justification. The Book of Galatians continues that argument. Those who would try to put Christians under the law are the enemies of liberty and grace:

Acts 15
10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?... 24 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...

Galatians 5
12 I would they were even cut off which trouble you.
13 For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.

Be careful with labels that carry slanderous accusations. You cannot discuss a certain doctrines in the theology forum without the hue and cry attached to some "label" being used to cloud an issue. Arguments go unanswered once a charge is made. I spent 10-15 pages asking some folks to answer one simple, scriptural question and all I got for 10-15 pages was the repetition of a "label".

This is how the state-church in Europe persecuted the true church. The believers were tagged with labels that were false (Manicheans, Nestorians, Hussites, etc.) each carrying implications as defined by the accusers.

Galatians 5
11 And I, brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution? then is the offence of the cross ceased.

The easy way is teach both Christ and the Law. As Paul notes, expect charges and labels when you cling to Christ alone, grace alone, liberty alone. Paul was accused of teaching liscentiousness too. I'm not saying that has happened here, but if history holds true, it will come.

Galatians 2
4 And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage...

Galatians 5
1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.

That "yoke of bondage" is the law, in whole or in part.

 

[JM]

Hey bleechers, I found it on this site http://www.monergism.com/ I can't find the exact link but they do a good job at giving an apology for the belief. (I still disagree.)