What is antinomianism?

Strictly, those opposed to the inculcation of good works from a perverted view of the doctrines of grace; but the term is also falsely applied to those who know themselves free through the death of Christ from the law as given by Moses. Rom. 7:4; Gal. 2:19. One has but to read carefully the epistle to the Galatians to see that for Gentile believers to place themselves under the law is to fall from grace; and Paul exhorted them to be as he was, for he was (though a Jew by birth) as free from the law by the death of Christ as they were as Gentiles. They had not injured him at all by saying he was not a strict Jew, Gal. 4:12: in other words, they may have called him an antinomian, as others have been called, whose walk has been the most consistent. To go back to the law supposes that man has power to keep it. For a godly walk the Christian must walk in the Spirit, and grace teaches that, "denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in this present world." Titus 2:12. On the other hand, there have been, and doubtless are, some who deny good works as a necessary fruit of grace in the heart: grace, as well as everything else, has been abused by man. See LAW.

That state of mind will certainly produce antinomians—that is those who disgrace the free grace of God by careless lives, who say, Once saved, saved for ever; we can do what we like without imperilling our salvation. The word, antinomianism, comes from two Greek words: anti, against; nomos, a law.

The most obvious and striking division of the Word of truth is that between law and grace. Indeed, these contrasting principles characterize the two most important dispensations: the Jewish and Christian. "For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ" (John 1:17). It is not, of course, meant that there was no law before Moses, any more than that there was no grace and truth before Jesus Christ. The forbidding to Adam of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Gen. 2:17) was law, and surely grace was most sweetly manifested in the Lord God seeking His sinning creatures and in His clothing them with coats of skins (Gen. 3:21) - a beautiful type of Christ who "is made unto us... righteousness" (1 Cor. 1:30). Law, in the sense of some revelation of God's will, and grace, in the sense of some revelation of God's goodness, have always existed, and to this Scripture abundantly testifies. But "the law" most frequently mentioned in Scripture was given by Moses, and from Sinai to Calvary, dominates, characterizes, the time; just as grace dominates or gives its peculiar character to the dispensation which begins at Calvary and has its predicted termination in the rapture of the church. It is, however, of the most vital moment to observe that Scripture never, in any dispensation, mingles these two principles. Law always has a place and work distinct and wholly diverse from that of grace. Law is God prohibiting and requiring; grace is God beseeching and bestowing. Law is a ministry of condemnation; grace, of forgiveness. Law curses; grace redeems from that curse. Law kills; grace makes alive. Law shuts every mouth before God; grace opens every mouth to praise Him. Law puts a great and guilty distance between man and God; grace makes guilty man nigh to God. Law says, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth"; grace says, "Resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also." Law says, "Hate thine enemy"; grace says, "Love your enemies, bless them that despitefully use you." Law says, do and live; grace says, believe and live. Law never had a missionary; grace is to be preached to every creature. Law utterly condemns the best man; grace freely justifies the worst (Luke 23:43; Rom. 5:8; 1 Tim 1:15; 1 Cor. 6:9-11). Law is a system of probation; grace, of favor. Law stones an adulteress; grace says, "Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more." Under law the sheep dies for the shepherd: under grace the Shepherd dies for the sheep. Everywhere the Scriptures present law and grace in sharply contrasted spheres. The mingling of them in much of the current teaching of the day spoils both, for law is robbed of its terror, and grace of its freeness. The student should observe that "law" in the New Testament Scriptures, means the law given by Moses (Rom. 7:23 is an exception). Sometimes the entire law (the moral, or the Ten Commandments and the ceremonial) is meant; sometimes the commandments only; sometimes the ceremonial only. Among passages of the first type, Romans 6:14; Galatians 2:16, and 3:2 are examples. Of the second type, Romans 3:19 and 7:7-12 are examples. Of the third type, Colossians 2:14-17 is an example. It should be remembered also that in the ceremonial law are enshrined those marvelous types-the beautiful foreshadowings of the person and work of the Lord Jesus as priest and sacrifice, as in the tabernacle (Exod. 25-30) and levitical offerings (Lev. 1-7), which must ever be the wonder and delight of the spiritually minded. Expressions in the Psalms too, which would be inexplicable if understood only of the "ministration of death, written and engraven in stones" (2 Cor. 3:7), are made clear when seen to refer to Christ or to the redeemed. "But his delight is in the law of the LORD; and in his law doth he meditate day and night" (Ps. 1:2). "O how I love thy law! It is my meditation all the day" (Ps. 119:97). Three errors have troubled the church concerning the right relation of law to grace: Antinomianism- the denial of all rule over the lives of believers; the affirmation that men are not required to live holy lives because they are saved by God's free grace, "They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate" (Titus 1: 16). "For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation; ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ" (Jude verse 4). Ceremonialism- the demand that believers should observe the levitical ordinances. The modern form of this error is the teaching that Christian ordinances are essential to salvation. "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 15:1).

On the whole, we are well pleased with Wesley's definition of antinomianism. According to its root idea ("against law,") the only scriptural definition must be "the doctrine which makes void the law through faith." (p. 38.) We have, then, to find the real Antinomian to take the New Testament doctrine of the law, and inquire who makes void the law? who refuses to take it for whatever purpose God has given it? who perverts it to any other use? who takes off the edge of its requirement? Searching along these lines, we can scarcely fail to find the Antinomian in the only proper sense.

On the whole, we are well pleased with Wesley's definition of antinomianism. According to its root idea ("against law,") the only scriptural definition must be "the doctrine which makes void the law through faith." (p. 38.) We have, then, to find the real Antinomian to take the New Testament doctrine of the law, and inquire who makes void the law? who refuses to take it for whatever purpose God has given it? who perverts it to any other use? who takes off the edge of its requirement? Searching along these lines, we can scarcely fail to find the Antinomian in the only proper sense.

What does antinomianism lead men to say? "I have it, I possess it all in Christ," and there it ends. But no! the gospel puts me there, to run the blessed race that is set before me, in ardent, earnest breathing of the soul to become like Christ.

Now, I do not deny that the Christian may be viewed as a sinner, yea, as the chief, looking back at what one had been, or at what one is in oneself apart from Christ — as the apostle Paul speaks of himself in 1 Tim. 1. But surely he did not mean that he was then going on in his sins? or in constant failures as a believer? This is the way many people use it; and I grieve to think that the object desired is to reduce the holy apostle to their own level as much as possible. Sad to say, they would like to get a license for a little sin out of the Bible. Hence, one party try to make sin only a violation of known law; others take advantage of the middle portion of Romans 7, and the ineffectual struggle against sin there described in a quickened but undelivered soul, as if it were the ordinary and normal state of a Christian here below. What can I call this but Antinomianism? And yet you will find that these evil thoughts reign most with a great many persons who think themselves the most opposed to Antinomians. But there is no one thing more remarkable in the present confusion than the fact that the very people who most fail take credit for what they least possess, and bandy charges against those too who, through the mercy of God, seek to be as far as possible from affording ground for them.

Beloved! let us remember that what is called "Antinomianism," i.e., the natural tendency to indulge flesh or nature (even in its legitimate affections) — contrary to God and His word, under plea of grace — has a broader margin than we think; and I fear there is far more in us of that kind of antinomianism than we suspect.

Christian Teaching. — Addressing himself to the first of these, he meets Antinomian teaching sought to be based on the freeness of divine grace. Two questions are asked (6:1, 15), the answers to which on the part of the Spirit of God not only leave an objector without excuse, but drive him, as it were, out of the field altogether. "Where sin abounded, grace did much more abound." Such is the teaching of the divine Word. Thereupon the first of the two questions is asked. "What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?" Antinomian teaching would suggest that Christian teaching refuses it, and refutes it. One simple question exposes the absurdity of such a proposition. "How shall we," asks the apostle, "that are dead (or, who died) to sin, live any longer therein" (6:2). How live in that to which you have died? Christians (for of them only is the apostle here writing) have died to sin. How, and when? Christ has died to sin (6:10). We are in Him who has died to it, and who has no more to do with it. Perfectly holy all His life, we need not say, He died to sin when He died on the cross. He appeared then to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. He will appear for them that expect Him the second time without sin to salvation (Heb. 9:26, 28). Apart from any question of sin will He appear, having nothing more to do with it, save the carrying out by divine power the putting of it away, full provision for which has been made by His sacrifice. He has died to sin — to every question of it. We, as in Him, have died to it, since the effect of the act of the Head reaches to every member of the race.

Now neither the Antimonians nor the Legalists understood these fundamental privileges of the Christian's standing in Christ, and I see no trace that they are one whit better known even by real Christians generally in our day. Hence the inability to appreciate truth on most subjects, particularly on such a question as the one before us, where Mr. T. admits "the evident desire of many of their writers to enforce a high standard of practical holiness" — a thing never true of real Antinomians. We may here again see shortly whose doctrine and logic are most at fault.