is a big word. In fact, if you're willing to throw this 50 center around, then you'd also better be prepared to explain its meaning.
I'm ready.
Antinomianism is the belief that the gospel of grace releases Christians from adherence and obedience to any scriptural, civil or moral law of God. The outworking of this philosophy is seen especially in the postmodern belief that moral laws are only relative in meaning and application.
Or, even more simply put, antinomianism is man's chief problem where he doesn't want God to be in charge as the lawgiver so he goes his own way and pursues his own means.
Some forms of antinomianism are these:
1) Dualistic: the disregard of law and the exercise of disregarding law. IOW, thinking and doing actual lawlessness. I think of the Old West movies for illustration of this one. Man doing as he pleases when and how he pleases unless someone faster with a trigger stops him.
2) Spirit-centered: thinking that the spirit overrides the law. The "spirit" can be your own personal spirit feeling place or what you are calling Holy Spirit guidance. Key in seeing this error is when your own personal feeling place or what you are calling Holy Spirit guidance contradicts the actual written Word of God.
3) Christ-centered: this is the argument that God sees no sin in a professing believer's life because she is hidden in Christ, and therefore, can do as she pleases in disregarding obedience. This illustration makes me think of my sister as a toddler covering her eyes and telling us, "You tan't sees me." Truth, only she was blinded.
4) Dispensational: here exists the belief that our relationship to God's law belonged only to another dispensation of time and space and existence. IOW, if you weren't born in them thar OT days, you don' have to obey. Need it be said how this disregards an unchangeable God?
5) Philosophical: this is one of the most intriguing ones to me because I'm reminded of my Governor's School philosophy class where the professor daily baited us to "prove" that the table he was sitting upon, walking upon, and pounding upon "really" existed. I wanted to whack him on the head with a common sense stick. The idea in this form is what Karl Barth espoused as neo-orthodoxy. He stated that yes, the Bible contained the Word of God and if you're really, really smart, you might could find it, but the Bible was not really the Word of God. Gnostic roots are all over this one like a plantar's wart.
6) Situational: I see this one all the time in our warm and fuzzy postmodern age. This says that if the motive of a professing believer is love, then, that is all that is required. Of course, the definition of "love" is up for grabs as well as the definition of "believer" and "professing" and "motive". Essentially, there's nothing to moor an anchor upon, other than a bed of jello. This group treats the 10 Commandments as suggestions and opinions that might with everyone receiving the proper nutrition and education promote a world peace movement.
Now, those are some things to chew on.
Thanks for such a clear definition!! Glad you're back from your bloggy-break...Hope it was restful/productive/enjoyable... :)
ReplyDeleteI LOVE the way you make a point:
ReplyDelete"This illustration makes me think of my sister as a toddler covering her eyes and telling us, “You tan’t sees me.” Truth, only she was blinded."
and
"Gnostic roots are all over this one like a plantar’s wart."
and my favorite -
"This group treats the 10 Commandments as suggestions and opinions that might with everyone receiving the proper nutrition and education promote a world peace movement."
again - WELCOME BACK!
Well, I wouldn't reduce dispensationalism to those lines or include it as an example of antinomianism. Dispensationalists -- at least the ones I know -- don't believe that there is nothing we have to obey and do believe that God has and always will be the same, as has the way of salvation, but that He has required different things at different stages (much like I do of my children.)
ReplyDeleteExamples: We don't have the same requirement Adam and Eve did (the requirement of obedience is still the same, but more is required of us than was of them as far as commands go). We're not under the OT sacrificial commands because all of that was fulfilled in Christ. The laws about unclean animals seem to be revoked per Acts 10 and I Tim. 4:3-4. The "cities of refuge" are no longer needed because capital punishment has been given to government (Romans 13:1-5).
I would have felt the same about that professor (or felt like pulling the table out from under him and then asking if he noticed a difference. :) )
Excellent post. Thanks, Elle.
ReplyDeleteHi Barbara,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comment. I've responded to you via email and then copied that response here as well.
The dispensational type of antinomianism is not intended nor can it be a definition for the movement of dispensationalism. I did not intend the describing of this type of antinomianism to represent the whole movement. I agree with your examples as well as your illustration of requiring different things from our children at different stages of maturity. Scripture supports that principle particularly strongly where Jesus communicates to His disciples in Mt 13 that more is required of them, in understanding and obedience, because more has been given to them, for understanding and obedience. My definition for this post though is confined only to the aspect of antinomianism that some purport excuses them from ALL obedience to God's Word because of being born at a different time in the flow of history.
These definitions came from my sermon notes. My pastor referenced J.I. Packer's Concise Theology for his teaching. A post on antinomianism by Nathan White at Shepherd the Flock went up yesterday as well. While I read Nathan's blog, I did not know that he was planning a similar post. His explanation is quite more scholarly and may very well clear up any fogginess I inadvertently caused. I appreciate that your comment gave me an opportunity to clarify.