Seems to be a lot of discussion on the distinction between the Law and the Gospel around these parts lately. Hopefully this will answer the charges.
Posted on 02/01/2011 6:37:05 PM PST by Gamecock
Fear is a powerful motivator. We’ve grown used to it being used in politics to argue for (or against) certain economic, immigration, or military proposals. We sometimes don’t recognize its misuse in the church. This week, the fear of antinomianism (which means the rejection of God’s Law as a standard of righteous action required of God’s covenant people) has been raised. There have been genuine antinomians in church history. There are many today, who set aside God’s law as the standard for God’s righteous judgment, usually substituting their own prescriptions. However, accusations have been raised over the last few days that target people who are decidedly not antinomian. In a recent Christianity Today article by Jason Hood, the antinomian charge was directed at contemporary Reformed preachers and writers. Elsewhere, the White Horse Inn was rebuked for encouraging this false teaching.
There’s no point in responding to accusations point by point. Anyone who subscribes Lutheran or Reformed confessions is conscience-bound to repudiate antinomianism as a perversion of biblical teaching. We do not deny the abiding role of God’s moral law in exposing our sin (first use) and guiding us in grateful and godly living (third use). So if Reformation Christianity is “antinomian” (the perennial charge from Roman Catholic and Arminian quarters), then it would help if critics would let us know the new definition.
The conventional wisdom in many Christian circles is that “we need to find the right balance between law and grace, so that we don’t fall into legalism or license.” Although this counsel has a long history, its most recent expression was urged in Jason Hood’s article. The author expresses concern that too many Reformed Christians today are encouraging antinomianism—or at least reveling in the charge. The author especially criticizes appeals to the point made by Martyn Lloyd-Jones (on the basis of Romans 6:1) that if we aren’t accused of antinomianism, we haven’t preached the gospel properly. In that verse, Paul asks the rhetorical question that he assumes his treatment of the gospel thus far will provoke: “What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound?” The author of this article points out that Paul immediately answers in the strongest possible terms, “By no means!” Yet his article implies that those of us who invoke Lloyd-Jones’ point might answer otherwise.
This misunderstanding can be cleared up easily by looking at what Lloyd-Jones goes on to say in that Romans commentary. It could also be cleared up by looking at the sharp denunciations of antinomianism in the Lutheran Book of Concord and the Reformed (Belgic Confession, Heidelberg Catechism, Canons of Dort) and Presbyterian standards (Westminster Confession and Catechisms), as well as the Savoy (Congregationalist) and the London Baptist confessions. With Paul, we answer without hesitation,
By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life (vv 2-4).
What’s striking is that Paul answers antinomianism not with the law but with more gospel! In other words, antinomians are not people who believe the gospel too much, but too little! They restrict the power of the gospel to the problem of sin’s guilt, while Paul tells us that the gospel is the power for sanctification as well as justification.
The danger of legalism becomes apparent not only when we confuse law and gospel in justification, but when we imagine that even our new obedience can be powered by the law rather than the gospel. The law does what only the law can do: reveal God’s moral will. In doing so, it strips us of our righteousness and makes us aware of our helplessness apart from Christ and it also directs us in grateful obedience. No one who says this can be considered an antinomian. However, it’s not a matter of finding the right “balance” between law and gospel, but of recognizing that each does different work. We need imperatives—and Paul gives them. But he only does this later in the argument, after he has grounded sanctification in the gospel.
The ultimate antidote to antinomianism is not more imperatives, but the realization that the gospel swallows the tyranny as well as the guilt of sin. It is enough to save Christians even in their failure and not only brings them peace with God in justification, but the only liberation from the cruel oppression of sin. To be united to Christ through faith is to receive everything that we need not only to challenge legalism but antinomianism as well.
Seems to be a lot of discussion on the distinction between the Law and the Gospel around these parts lately. Hopefully this will answer the charges.
Reporting for duty, not as anti-nomian, but as necronomian.
Dead to the law.
Antinomianism is the polar opposite of legalism, the notion that obedience to a code of religious law earns salvation.
I do not let a chartered religious institution define my
relationship with God or Christ by their rules or my attendance to their building. I am saved from all sins by the sacrifice of Jesus and belief in him as the Son of God. By the way, for those not fully confident that salvation is free and we must live “sin free”, please define “sin” for me in such a way as we may then make a full list of sins of commission and omission and live my life accordingly. You will bog down in a sea of ambiguity. For example ,”Thou shalt not kill” .Does this apply in self defense? War? Accident?
Thou shalt not bear false witness? How many lies do you tell each day? “I’m fine, thank you “ when your not. “I’ll get right on it!” (when you won’t). How about stealing? Oh,
Well ,you get my drift. Why did Christ come? Because all are sinner and fall short of the glory of God!
Learn about us :http://antinomianism-salvation.blogspot.com/
Why are you screaming?
Of the Law of God
1. God gave to Adam a law, as a covenant of works, by which he bound him and all his posterity to personal, entire, exact, and perpetual obedience, promised life upon the fulfilling, and threatened death upon the breach of it, and endued him with power and ability to keep it.
2. This law, after his fall, continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness; and, as such, was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai, in ten commandments, and written in two tables: the first four commandments containing our duty towards God; and the other six, our duty to man.
3. Beside this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel, as a church under age, ceremonial laws, containing several typical ordinances, partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, his graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits; and partly, holding forth divers instructions of moral duties. All which ceremonial laws are now abrogated, under the new testament.
4. To them also, as a body politic, he gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the State of that people; not obliging any other now, further than the general equity thereof may require.
5. The moral law doth forever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof; and that, not only in regard of the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God the Creator, who gave it. Neither doth Christ, in the gospel, any way dissolve, but much strengthen this obligation.
6. Although true believers be not under the law, as a covenant of works, to be thereby justified, or condemned; yet is it of great use to them, as well as to others; in that, as a rule of life informing them of the will of God, and their duty, it directs and binds them to walk accordingly; discovering also the sinful pollutions of their nature, hearts, and lives; so as, examining themselves thereby, they may come to further conviction of, humiliation for, and hatred against sin, together with a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ, and the perfection of his obedience. It is likewise of use to the regenerate, to restrain their corruptions, in that it forbids sin: and the threatenings of it serve to show what even their sins deserve; and what afflictions, in this life, they may expect for them, although freed from the curse thereof threatened in the law. The promises of it, in like manner, show them God's approbation of obedience, and what blessings they may expect upon the performance thereof: although not as due to them by the law as a covenant of works. So as, a man's doing good, and refraining from evil, because the law encourageth to the one, and deterreth from the other, is no evidence of his being under the law; and, not under grace.
7. Neither are the forementioned uses of the law contrary to the grace of the gospel, but do sweetly comply with it; the Spirit of Christ subduing and enabling the will of man to do that freely, and cheerfully, which the will of God, revealed in the law, requireth to be done. (Westminster Confesion of Faith, Chap. 19)
I think you join us. http://antinomianism-salvation.blogspot.com/ God Loved us. He saved us.He is real. Please believe that Jesus is his Son and our savior. Get away from guilt. Get away from rules . Drop to your knees and thank Father God and you will change immediately. I promise!!
yessssssssssssssssssssssssssssss!
THOSE WHO DENY THE POWER AND THE BLOOD OF JESUS CHRIST YESHUA AND SALVATION ALONE IN JESUS CHRIST YESHUA ARE CHRIST DENIERS ! THEY ARE ANTI-CHRISTS !
I do not let a chartered religious institution define my relationship with God or Christ by their rules or my attendance to their building.
Are you a member of a church?
A few problems, here. To start with, while Christians honor and respect Hebraic laws, statutes and judgments, technically Jesus dispensed with those (supersessionism), which is why Christians no longer follow kosher law, for example.
An argument around this is that Christians became “the new Hebrews”, so embrace the major covenants, but can disregard the statutes and judgments, which were superseded.
Jews, however, do not see Christians as having done this, so they are gentiles, and Mosaic laws, statutes and judgments never applied to them in the first place. They would even dispute that anybody else even comes under Davidic or Abrahamic law. The Muslims claim descent from Abrahamic law, which likewise the Jews would dispute.
Therefore, from their point of view, everyone else comes under the Noahide Laws, which are universal among mankind. As long as everybody follows these laws, the Jews have no problem with them, and they can do anything else they want.
So the bottom line for Christians should include familiarity with, and adherence to, those covenants through those of Jesus, those parts which he would clearly *not* supersede, as leading to a fuller understanding of which rules still apply.
Yes . Did Jesus “die” for nothing ? Did he hang on the cross for 8 hours to bleed out and suck bits air with his lungs full of fluid? FOR NOTHING? He was the Son of God who was sick of sin and sick of the loss of those He created.HE imputed righteousness to your sorry existence.He asked ONE THING-— Believe that MY son did this for you. That is it. That is all . It is over. BELIEVE!!
I am the member of Ekklesia.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.