Lawless Christianity Part II: Antinomianism Proper

Note: This is part 2 of 7. If you haven't read part 1, please do so before continuing, thank you! If you would like to contact the author you can email here: justin.hornbaker@gmail.com.

Antinomianism Proper

I will not be putting forward an exhaustive examination of antinomian theology. Many other well schooled pastors and teachers have already done that (see resources listed at the end; the one I recommend the most is Jerry Wragg’s lecture titled The New Antinomianism). What I will be doing is first giving a clarification of the basic conflicts this heresy creates with sound historical orthodox theology and then showing the result of the illogical self-contradicting conclusions that follow. Due to the subjective nature heresy takes on, I will also include some of the more unique ideas which I found are taught as a result of certain sects of antinomian teachers who closely follow Bob George (author of Classic Christianity). In doing this I hope to further display the irrationality of it.

GotQuestions.org has a helpful definition of Antinomianism to get us started:

The word antinomianism comes from two Greek words, anti, meaning "against"; and nomos, meaning "law." Antinomianism means “against the law.” Theologically, antinomianism is the belief that there are no moral laws God expects Christians to obey. Antinomianism takes a biblical teaching to an unbiblical conclusion. The biblical teaching is that Christians are not required to observe the Old Testament Law as a means of salvation. When Jesus Christ died on the cross, He fulfilled the Old Testament Law (Romans 10:4; Galatians 3:23-25; Ephesians 2:15). The unbiblical conclusion is that there is no moral law God expects Christians to obey.

To continue in our understanding of antinomianism, I have to lay out the three uses of God’s law. Here I will quote from the Lutheran Formula of Concord since it is very clear:

The law has been given to men for three reasons: (1) to maintain external discipline against unruly and disobedient men, (2) to lead men to a knowledge of their sin, (3) after they are reborn, and although the flesh still inheres in them, to give them on that account a definite rule according to which they should pattern and regulate their entire life.

It’s the third use of God’s Law stated above is the one which antinomians reject. This is also the clearest way to define or identify an antinomian. The men who I knew who were teaching this heresy did in fact openly reject the third use of the law as I defined it, but if you asked them if Christians were under any law, they would say we are under “Christ’s Law” or “The Law of Love.” The reason I have those in air quotes is because although I would agree with that on a surface level, what they meant by it was very different (more on this later). Much like the issue one runs into doing cult ministry, they had new definitions for both of those terms above.

So with that in mind, not all antinomians who teach this kind of error openly admit to rejecting a law for Christians, it seems that some might even say they agree with the third use of the law, but it may be that their teaching does not align with our understanding of the third use of the law. In Mark Jones’ Antinomianism: Reformed Theology’s Unwelcome Guest, Mr. Jones points I out:

“It is far too simplistic and historically naive to suggest that someone is antinomian only if he denies that the moral law has a place in the life of a believer.” Pg 12 

“...acknowledging a place for the moral law in the life of the believer may not be sufficient if other truths are either neglected (as is often the case) or denied (as is sometimes the case).” Pg 18

So with this reality, one needs to examine the teachings and not simply take a teacher’s word for it. A teacher of the Bible should be OK with a christian examining their theology, considering how strict the qualifications are for someone to teach in the Church. If a teacher is not OK with this, there is more going on than simply a false understanding of the truths found in God’s Word - there is a likely a pride problem there too.

Rejecting God’s Law for believers as a guide for which to model their life after leads to some confusing ideas. Not only that, but it also leads to some logical contractions in terms. To start, God’s law is vital in Christian sanctification (the process by which God grows us in his Holiness) the antinomian must move sanctification into the same category as justification. The consequence is a circular teaching which results in explaining away large portions of scripture as well as really really repetitive sermons. The antinomian finds himself staying away from the commands of scripture and focusing solely on the proclamations of victory. From here the antinomian is forced to get creative with the accounts of Biblical saints and even our Savior Himself. Sermons by such teachers can often become bewildering and difficult to make sense of. You’ll hear a lot about “love” without any real qualifications; it can get very burdensome for the thinking Christian since there is no specification of the expectations. This outcome of antinomianism claiming to be the solution to legalistic Christianity, yet being legalistic itself, is exactly what others have noticed:

“Sinclair Ferguson’s The Whole Christ is relevant and helpful to these matters of love, law, and gospel. He makes the important point that antinomianism (opposing and rejecting God’s law as Furtick does here) is—oddly, paradoxically, yet truly—an expression of legalism (earning your righteousness through God’s law apart from Christ). He says they are “nonidentical twins that emerge from the same womb.” He explains that “Antinomianism and legalism are not so much antithetical to each other as they are both antithetical to grace. This is why Scripture never prescribes one as the antidote for the other. Rather grace, God’s grace in Christ in our union with Christ, is the antidote to both.”” - Tim Challies, Did God Break The Law For Love?

Second, when God’s law is thrown out, something needs to take it’s place. This is where the subjective nature of this heresy begins to expose itself. As you could guess, if there is no specific expectations of Christ’s Law, and any clear-cut do’s or don'ts are to be eliminated, then all you really have left is a relativistic Christianity!

Relativism is the view that there is no objective truth, and that any “truth” is ultimately subjective. Anyone who has studied relativism knows the problem: the claim “there is no truth” is a truth claim, and so the very statement itself is contradictory. It’s the same way with an antinomian view of Christ’s Law or the “Law of Love” as they may put it. If you cannot specify anything under that “law”, and it’s “different for every Christian” (as the local men teaching it defined it), then what you have is a Christian Moral Relativism. That is, what is a law for one Christian to adhere to is not the same for the next Christian. What’s more, that very demand of “Christ’s Law” is a specific law that states all Christian law is subjective! This is a flat-out contradiction. The very statement commits suicide. It’s also far more burdensome because it leaves every follower in a fog of ambiguity. Any honest and thoughtful reflection on the matter brings frustration. It’s very unfortunate that such ideas are being taught as orthodox in some churches.



To be continued... (Part 2 of 7)



Originally titled "Antinomianism: A Self-Refuting Heresy."