What is antinomy?

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.

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.

And yet, Paul enters into this question in some detail — not in an accusing spirit, of course, but to provide a solid defence of the sovereignty of God. That this sovereignty does not take away one milligram of man’s responsibility is made very clear by the same author in the same letter (1:17–18), as well as by many other verses from the same and other inspired writers (e.g. John 3:16, 18, 36; 5:24; 1 John 5:10). However, in this article we only have space to offer a few thoughts on the other side of the coin: namely the sovereignty of God, as set out in Romans 9.

See further Luke 21:36 and 1 Cor. 10:12, which, in harmony with other passages, establish the standing in responsibility (obnoxious to Calvinists) alongside of that in grace (obnoxious to Arminians). The statement of Norris that Justification is complete, though liable to be forfeited" ("Rudiments of Theology," p. 125), is misleading: cf. Rom. 8:30 and 1 Tim. 2:4, which strike one note with 1 Thess. 2:12, which strikes another. "Probation," recognized in the New Testament (1 Cor. 9:27, etc.), has to do with standing in responsibility. The Holy Spirit would jealously guard such a scripture as Acts 13:39 from an interpretation admitting of antinomianism in any shape or form. See 2 Peter 3:16; 1 Cor. 10:11 f., etc.

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.

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.

353 But the Anglican catholics do worse; they attribute all the privileges of the true body of Christ to the outward, baptized professors, and the truth of divine operation in the soul, all moral power, all reality in the religion of Christ, is lost. The soul has nothing to say to God in being saved. Christianity becomes a mummery of ordinances, making righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost — the true moral reconciliation with God in a new nature, by the Holy Ghost, in a conscience purged by the blood of Christ — immaterial to the possession of the privileges of Christianity. It is really gross antinomianism with all its legality. Eternal life and union with Christ are acquired without any consciousness of real change in the person: this is simply of Satan. For the kingdom of God is in power; it is righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. The true Christian is really reconciled to God; there is a renewing of the Holy Ghost, which is shed on us abundantly.

Now the analysis just quoted from cannot, as to this section at any rate, on Soteriology, be said to be an unskilful one. Particularly clear is the confession of the baselessness of the charge of antinomianism so often laid against "the Brethren's" doctrine of justification. And so in measure as to their definition of the term "righteousness of God." It is not theirs only, no doubt. The same, or a similar interpretation, had been given before, but had fallen into disfavour in presence of that which made it to be, in the words of the reviewer, "God's gift of righteousness." But there is in his second negative — "Neither is it God's attribute of righteousness" — an implication, if taken absolutely, to which some will demur. Mr. Kelly may perhaps seldom have, in so many words, used the term "God's attribute of righteousness"; but it is questionable if he or Mr. Darby, of whom he is here said to be the interpreter, would, either of them, have been satisfied with the definition from which it was thus peremptorily ruled out.

In fine*, we have neither peace, nor salvation, nor law, nor grace, and certainly not holiness. Such is the really Antinomian law-gospel of Dr. Steele.