Antinomianism

For the term in politics describing socialist movements, see Autonomism.

{{citation}}: Empty citation (help) Antinomianism (a term coined by Martin Luther, from the Greek ἀντί, "against" + νόμος, "law"), is a belief or tendency in all religions that some therein consider existing laws as no longer applicable to themselves. The term originated in the context of a minority Christian view that since faith itself alone is sufficient to attain salvation, adherence to religious law is not necessary, and religious laws themselves are set aside or "abrogated" as inessential. While the concept is related to the foundational Protestant belief of Sola Fide where justification is through faith alone in Christ; it is taken to an extreme. It is seen by some as the opposite of the notion that obedience to a code of religious law earns salvation: legalism or works righteousness. An antinomian theology does not necessary imply the embrace of ethical permissiveness; rather it usually implies emphasis on the inner working of the Holy Spirit as the primary source of ethical guidance.

While there is wide agreement within Mainstream Christianity that "antinomianism" is heresy, what constitutes antinomianism is often in disagreement. The term "antinomian" emerged soon after the Protestant Reformation (c.1517) and has historically been used mainly as a pejorative against Christian thinkers or sects who carried their belief in justification by faith further than was customary. For example, Martin Luther preached justification by faith alone, but was also an outspoken critic of antinomianism, perhaps most notably in his Against the Antinomians (1539). Few groups or sects, outside of Christian Anarchism or Jewish anarchism, explicitly call themselves "antinomian".

While the term originated in early controversies of Protestant doctrine, and has its roots in debates over the Synoptic Gospels and the Pauline Epistles and the issue of Paul of Tarsus and Judaism and the Biblical Greek terms anomia and anomos which are generally translated lawlessness and lawless respectively, it can be extended to any religious group believing they are not bound to obey the laws of their own religious tradition.

Antinomianism in the Old Testament

The Hebrew Bible emphasizes the importance of Israel keeping the Mosaic Law, and seems to argue against the doctrine of antinomianism. For example, Daniel 7:24-25 states as a warning that a certain king who will speak great words against God and wear out the saints will also go so far as to try to change times and laws:

(24) And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise: and another shall rise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings. (25) And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time. KJV (speaking of the "Little horn" in Daniel 7:8 believed by many Biblical scholars to be Antiochus Epiphanes)

In the Deuterocanon or Biblical apocrypha, the Books of the Maccabees are another example of opposition to not observing the Mosaic Law. The text describes the Maccabean revolt (165 BCE) against the Hellenization of the Jews by the Seleucid king Antiochus Epiphanes and argues strongly against erosion of adherence to the Law of Moses in Jewish culture. For example:

Not long after this the king [Antiochus] sent an Athenian senator to force the Jews to abandon the customs of their ancestors and live no longer by the laws of God

— 2 Macc 6:1 (NRSV)

And:

So they built a gymnasium in Jerusalem, according to Gentile custom, and removed the marks of circumcision, and abandoned the holy covenant. They joined with the Gentiles and sold themselves to do evil.

— 1 Macc 1:14–15 (NRSV)

Antinomianism in the New Testament

See also: Split of early Christianity and Judaism, Christianity and Judaism, and Biblical law in Christianity

Icon of James the Just, whose judgment was adopted in the Apostolic Decree of Acts 15:19–29, c. 50 AD.

Obligation to follow the Mosaic Law was a point of contention in the Early Christian Church. Many early converts were Greek and thus had less interest in adherence to the Law of Moses than did the earliest Christians, who were primarily of Jewish descent and already accustomed to the Law. Thus, as Christianity spread into new cultures, the early church was pressured to decide which laws were still required of Christians, and which were no longer required under the New Covenant. The New Testament, (especially the book of Acts, but see also Historical reliability of the Acts of the Apostles) is interpreted by some as recording the church slowly abandoning the "ritual laws" of Judaism, such as circumcision, Sabbath and kosher law, while remaining in full agreement on adherence to the "divine law", or Jewish laws on morality such as the Ten Commandments. Thus, the early Christian church incorporated ideas sometimes seen as antinomian or parallel to Dual-covenant theology, while still stalwartly upholding the traditional laws of moral behavior.

The first major dispute over Christian antinomianism was a dispute over whether circumcision was required of Christians. This happened at the Council of Jerusalem, which is dated to about 50 AD and recorded in the book of Acts 15:5.

But some believers who belonged to the sect of the Pharisees stood up and said, 'It is necessary for them to be circumcised and ordered to keep the law of Moses.'

— NRSV

The apostles and elders met at Jerusalem, and after a spirited discussion, their conclusion, later called the Apostolic Decree, possibly a major act of differentiation of the Church from its Jewish roots (the first being the Rejection of Jesus), was recorded in Acts 15:19–21:

Acts:(19) Wherefore my [James] sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: (20) But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. (21) For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.

— KJV

Beginning with Augustine of Hippo, many have seen a connection to Noahide Law, while some modern scholars reject the connection to Noahide Law and instead see Lev 17-18 as the basis.

James here sets out a preliminary list of commands which Gentiles should obey. Gentiles were not required to be circumcised, but were required to obey the four beginning requirements to be part of the larger congregation. This passage shows that the remainder of the commandments would follow as they studied "Moses" in the Synagogues. If Gentiles did not follow this reduced requirement, they risked being put out of the Synagogue and missing out on a Torah education (See Leviticus 17 and 20). James's list still includes some dietary commands, but many of those also passed out of some Christian traditions quite early. Acts 10:9–16 describes the following vision, which was used to excuse early gentile Christians from the Mosaic dietary laws.

(9) ...Peter went up upon the housetop to pray about the sixth hour: (10) And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance, (11) And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth: (12) Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air. (13) And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat. (14) But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean. (15) And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common. (16) This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven.

— KJV

Though the Apostolic Decree is no longer observed by many Christian denominations today, it is still observed in full by the Greek Orthodox.

Pauline passages supporting antinomianism

Artist depiction of Saint Paul Writing His Epistles, 16th century (Blaffer Foundation Collection, Houston, Texas). Most scholars think Paul actually dictated his letters to a secretary.

See also: Pauline Christianity and Paul of Tarsus and Judaism

Paul of Tarsus, in his Letters, claims several times that believers are saved by the unearned grace of God, not by good works, "lest anyone should boast", and placed a priority on orthodoxy (right belief) before orthopraxy (right practice). The soteriology of Paul's statements in this matter has always been a matter of dispute (for example, see 2 Peter 3:16); the ancient gnostics interpreted Paul to be referring to the manner in which embarking on a path to enlightenment ultimately leads to enlightenment, which was their idea of what constituted salvation. In what has become the modern Protestant orthodoxy, however, this is interpreted as a reference to justification simply by trusting Christ. See also New Perspective on Paul.

Paul used the term freedom in Christ, for example, Galatians 2:4, and it is clear that some understood this to mean lawlessness (i.e. not obeying Mosaic Law). For example, in Acts 18:12–16 Paul is accused of "persuading .. people to worship God in ways contrary to the law." In Acts 21:21 James the Just explained his situation to Paul:

And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.

— KJV

Colossians 2:13–14 is sometimes presented as proof of Paul's antinomistic views. For example, the NIV translates these verses: "...he forgave us all our sins, having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross." However, the NRSV translates this same verse as: "...he forgave us all our trespasses, erasing the record that stood against us with its legal demands. He set this aside, nailing it to the cross." This latter translation makes it sound as though it is a record of trespasses, rather than the Law itself, that was "nailed to the cross." The interpretation partly hinges on the original Greek word χειρόγραφον which according to Strong's G5498 literally means "something written by hand" which is variously translated as "written code" or "record", as in a record of debt.

2 Corinthians 3:6-17 says "Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away: How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious? For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory. For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth. For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious. Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech: And not as Moses, which put a veil over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished: But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ. But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart. Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away. Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." (KJV)

Some cite Acts 13:39: "And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses." But this is more about Justification (theology) than antinomianism.

Romans 6 states twice that believers are not under the law: Romans 6:14 "For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace." and Romans 6:15 "What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.". KJV

Galatians 3:1–5 describes the Galatians as "foolish" for relying on being observant to the Law: "(1) O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you? (2) This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? (3) Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh? (4) Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain. (5) He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?" KJV

Galatians 3:23–25 says that the purpose of the Law was to lead people to Christ, once people believe in Christ, they are no longer under the Law: "(23) But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. (24) Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.(25) But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster." KJV

Christians believe that Jesus is the mediator of the New Covenant (see Hebrews 8:6). Depicted is his famous Sermon on the Mount in which he commented on the Law. Some scholars (see Antithesis of the Law) consider this to be an antitype of the proclamation of the Ten Commandments or Mosaic Covenant by Moses from the Biblical Mount Sinai.

In Galatians 4:21–31, Paul compares the old covenant with the New Covenant, see also Supersessionism. In this comparison, he equates each covenant with a woman, using the wives of Abraham as examples. The old covenant is equated with the slave woman, Hagar, and the new covenant is equated with the free woman Sarah.(Galatians 4:22–26). He concludes this example by saying that we are not children of the slave woman, but children of the free woman. In other words, we are not under the old covenant, we are under the new covenant. "(22) For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. (23) But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. (24) Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. (25) For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. (26) But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all." KJV (Galatians 4:30–31)

Romans 10:4 is also sometimes translated: "For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth." (KJV) The key word here is telos (see also Strong's G5056). Robert Badenas argues that telos is correctly translated as goal, not end, so that Christ is the goal of the Law. Andy Gaus' version of the New Testament translates this verse as: "Christ is what the law aims at: for every believer to be on the right side of [God's] justice."

Also cited is Ephesians 2:15: "Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace" KJV. Another passage cited is Romans 7:1–7, especially Romans 7:4 "Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God." and Romans 7:6 "But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter." KJV

In Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews (Hebrews 7:11–28), which most scholars don't think was actually written by Paul, it is written that under the Old Testament Law, priests had to be from the tribe of Levi, Aaron and his sons. (See Exodus 29:8–9 "Bring his sons and dress them in tunics and put headbands on them. Then tie sashes on Aaron and his sons. The priesthood is theirs by a lasting ordinance. In this way you shall ordain Aaron and his sons.") It is pointed out that Jesus was from the tribe of Judah, and thus Jesus could not be a priest under the Old Testament Law, as Jesus is not a descendant of Aaron. It states that the Law had to change for Jesus to be the High Priest: "For when there is a change of the priesthood, there must also be a change of the law." (Hebrews 7:12)

It then compares the first covenant (made with Israel, as recorded in the Old Testament) with the new covenant in Hebrews 8–9. In Hebrews 8:6-7: "But the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, and it is founded on better promises. For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another." It goes on to say that the problem with the first covenant was with the people who were supposed to keep it, and that in the new covenant: "I will put my laws into their minds, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people." Hebrews 8:10

It is written that the first covenant was obsolete, and would soon disappear: "By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear." Hebrews 8:13. It clearly identifies the first covenant which is disappearing in Hebrews 9:1–5. Of particular note are the "stone tables of the covenant" in Hebrews 9:4, referring directly to the Ten Commandments, which however most Christians believe are still valid. "Now the first covenant had regulations for worship and also an earthly sanctuary. A tabernacle was set up. In its first room were the lampstand, the table and the consecrated bread; this was called the Holy Place. Behind the second curtain was a room called the Most Holy Place, which had the golden altar of incense and the gold-covered ark of the covenant. This ark contained the gold jar of manna, Aaron's staff that had budded, and the stone tablets of the covenant. Above the ark were the cherubim of the Glory, overshadowing the atonement cover." (Hebrews 9:1-5)

Pauline passages opposing antinomianism

On the other hand, Paul also wrote or spoke in support of the law, for example: Romans 2:12–16, 3:31, 7:12, 8:7–8, Galatians 5:3, Acts 24:14, 25:8 and preached about Ten Commandment topics such as idolatry: 1 Corinthians 5:11, 6:9–10, 10:7, 10:14, Galatians 5:19–21, Ephesians 5:5, Colossians 3:5, Acts 17:16–21, 19:23–41.

Theological views

The Catholic Encyclopedia article on Judaizers notes: "Paul, on the other hand, not only did not object to the observance of the Mosaic Law, as long as it did not interfere with the liberty of the Gentiles, but he conformed to its prescriptions when occasion required (1 Corinthians 9:20). Thus he shortly after the Council of Jerusalem circumcised Timothy (Acts 16:1–3), and he was in the very act of observing the Mosaic ritual when he was arrested at Jerusalem (21:26 sqq.)."

The Jewish Encyclopedia article on Gentile: Gentiles May Not Be Taught the Torah notes the following reconciliation: "R. Emden, in a remarkable apology for Christianity contained in his appendix to "Seder 'Olam," gives it as his opinion that the original intention of Jesus, and especially of Paul, was to convert only the Gentiles to the seven moral laws of Noah and to let the Jews follow the Mosaic law—this explains the apparent contradictions in the New Testament regarding the laws of Moses and the Sabbath."

The Tübingen school of historians founded by F. C. Baur holds that in Early Christianity, there was conflict between Pauline Christianity and the Jerusalem Church led by James the Just, Simon Peter, and John the Apostle, the so-called "Jewish Christians" or "Pillars of the Church" although in many places Paul writes that he was an observant Jew, and that Christians should "uphold the Law" (Romans 3:31). In Galatians 2:14, part of the Incident at Antioch, Paul publicly accused Peter of judaizing. Even so, he does go on to say that sins remain sins, and upholds by several examples the kind of behaviour that the church should not tolerate (e.g., Galatians 5:19–21, 1 Cor 6:9–10). In 1 Corinthians 7:10–16 he cites Jesus' teaching on divorce ("not I but the Lord") and does not reject it, but goes on to proclaim his own teaching ("I, not the Lord"), an extended counsel regarding a specific situation which some interpret as not in conflict with what the Lord said. However, this may mean he received direct knowledge of what the Lord wanted him to teach through the Holy Ghost (Galatians 2:6–10).

Paul versus James

The Epistle of James, in contrast, states that our good works justify before men, our faith after salvation, and we are to obey the Law of God, that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone, that faith without works is dead (James 2:14–26). Historically, the presence of this statement has been difficult for Protestants to reconcile with their belief in justification by faith alone. Martin Luther, believing that his doctrines were refuted by this passage, suggested that the Epistle might be a forgery, and relegated it to an appendix in his Bible (although he later came to accept its canonicity, see also Antilegomena). Though this may be interpreted through the word "justified." It speaks that faith in Jesus Christ is the first step and that faith is justified through good works, he goes on to say that without spreading your love and faith, it is dead. See also Law and Gospel, article on James 2:20 , 2:6 Romans 2:6, Ephesians 2:8–10, Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification.

It should be noted that James also wrote: "For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. For he who said, 'Do not commit adultery,' also said, 'Do not murder.' If you do not commit adultery but do commit murder, you have become a lawbreaker." James 2:10–11. Essentially, people who want to keep the Old Testament Law must perfectly keep all of the Law—an impossible task that James appeals to his readers to follow the "Royal Law of Love" instead in the preceding verses (James 2:8-9). However, some scholars such as Alister McGrath, purport that James was the leader of a Judaizing party that taught that Gentiles must obey the entire Mosaic Law. See also Circumcision controversy in early Christianity#Jewish background. For the critique of partial observance of the law, see Cafeteria Christianity.

Finally, Paul did make at least one statement that demonstrates agreement with James, that both faith produced as a result of repentance (the initial requirement for justification) and works (the evidence or proof of true faith) must exist together: "So then, King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the vision from heaven. First to those in Damascus, then to those in Jerusalem and in all Judea, and to the Gentiles also, I preached that they should repent and turn to God and prove their repentance by their deeds." Acts 26:19-20 (NIV)

Jesus and antinomianism

The Torah prescribes the death penalty for desecrating Sabbath by working (Exodus 31:14–17). To avoid any possibility of breaking the Torah commands, the Pharisees formulated strict interpretations and numerous traditions which they treated as laws, see Halakha. According to the Christians, Jesus criticized the Pharisees for this (Mark 7:7–9). The Jewish Encyclopedia article on Jesus notes: "Jesus, however, does not appear to have taken into account the fact that the Halakah was at this period just becoming crystallized, and that much variation existed as to its definite form; the disputes of Bet Hillel and Bet Shammai were occurring about the time of his maturity." In the Gospel of Mark, Jesus's disciples were picking grain for food on Sabbath (Mark 2:23–28). When the Pharisees challenged Jesus over this, he pointed to Biblical precedent and declared that "the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath". Some claim Jesus rejected complete adherence to the Torah. Most scholars hold that Jesus did not reject the law, but directed that it should be obeyed in context. e.g., E. P. Sanders notes, "No substantial conflict between Jesus and the Pharisees with regard to Sabbath, food, and purity laws .... The church took some while to come to the position that the Sabbath need not be kept, and it is hard to think that Jesus explicitly said so." There may be passages where the words of Jesus have been misinterpreted and were not really in contradiction with the Jewish law.

In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus is sometimes portrayed as referring to people he sees as wicked with the term ergazomenoi tēn anomian (ἐργαζόμενοι τὴν ἀνομἰαν) - e.g. Matthew 7:21–23, Matthew 13:40–43. Due to this negative context the term has almost always been translated as evildoers, though it literally means "workers of lawlessness". Lawlessness, in Hebrew, would directly imply Torahlessness. In other words, Matthew appears to present Jesus as equating wickedness with encouraging antinomianism. Scholars view Matthew as having been written by or for a Jewish audience, the so-called Jewish Christians. Several scholars argue that Matthew artificially lessened a claimed rejection of Jewish law so as not to alienate Matthew's intended audience. However, Jesus called for full adherence to the commandments (Matthew 5:19–21) He declared: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them" (Matthew 5:17). A parallel verse to Matthew 7:21 is James 1:22.

See also Expounding of the Law, Great Commission, Hyperdispensationalism

1 John 3:4 states: "Everyone who commits sin is guilty of lawlessness; sin is lawlessness."

Antinomian Controversy in Christianity

Antinomianism has been a point of doctrinal contention in the history of the Christian Church, especially in Protestantism. Given the Protestant belief of justification through faith alone; most Protestant Christians consider themselves saved even without conformity to the many commandments of the Mosaic Law as a whole. However, those teachings known vaguely as the moral law are retained in almost all sects of Christianity. Deciding which laws of the Old Testament are important to retain and which can be ignored is somewhat subjective (see also Cafeteria Christianity). Christian sects and theologians who feel that they are freed from more laws than is customary are often called "antinomian" by their critics. Theological charges of antinomianism typically imply that the opponent's doctrine leads to various sorts of licentiousness, and imply that the antinomian chooses his theology in order to further a career of dissipation. However, the conspicuous austerity of life among many sects accused on antinomianism,(such as Anabaptists or Calvinists) suggests that these accusations are often, or even mostly, made for rhetorical effect. Accusations of antinomianism have also been used more loosely to criticize doctrines that erode the authority of the church, or to criticize teachings perceived as hostile to government and civic law.

In Gnosticism

Early Gnostic sects were accused of failure to follow the Mosaic Law in language that suggests the modern term "antinomian". Some Gnostic sects did not accept parts of the Old Testament moral law. For example, the Manichaeans held that their spiritual being was unaffected by the action of matter and regarded carnal sins as being, at worst, forms of bodily disease. Marcionism, though technically not gnostic, rejected the Hebrew Bible in its entirety. Such deviations from the moral law were criticized by proto-orthodox rivals of the Gnostics, who ascribed various aberrant and licentious acts to them. A biblical example of such criticism can be found in Revelation 2:6–15, which criticizes the Nicolaitanes, an early Gnostic sect.

Antinomian Controversies in Lutheranism

See also: Luther § Anti-Antinomianism

The term "antinomianism" was coined by Martin Luther during the Reformation, to criticize extreme interpretations of the new Lutheran soteriology. The Lutheran Church benefited from early antinomian controversies by becoming more exact in distinguishing between Law and Gospel and justification and sanctification. Martin Luther developed 258 theses during his six antinomian disputations, which continue to provide doctrinal guidance to Lutherans today.

First Antinomian Controversy

As early as 1525, Johannes Agricola, in his commentary on Luke, advanced his idea that the law was a futile attempt of God to work the restoration of mankind. He maintained that while non-Christians were still held to the Mosaic law, Christians were entirely free from it, being under the gospel alone. He viewed sin as a malady or impurity rather than an offense rendering the sinner guilty and damnable before God. Instead, the sinner was the subject of God's pity rather than of his wrath. To Agricola, the purpose of repentance was to abstain from evil rather than the contrition of a guilty conscience. The law had no role in repentance, which came about after one came to faith and was caused by the knowledge of the love of God alone.

In contrast, Philipp Melanchthon urged that repentance must precede faith, and that knowledge of the moral law is needed to produce repentance. He later wrote in the Augsburg Confession, that repentance had two parts. "One is contrition, that is, terrors smiting the conscience through the knowledge of sin; the other is faith, which is born of the Gospel, or of absolution, and believes that for Christ's sake, sins are forgiven, comforts the conscience, and delivers it from terrors."

Shortly after Melanchthon drew up the 1527 Articles of Visitation in June, Agricola began to be aggressive toward him, but Martin Luther succeeded in smoothing out the difficulty at Torgau in December 1527. However, Agricola did not actually change his ideas, and later on depicted Luther as disagreeing with him. After Agricola moved to Wittenberg, he still maintained that while the law must be used in the courthouse, it must not be used in the church, and that repentance comes from hearing the good news only and does not precede but rather follows faith. He continued to disseminate this doctrine in books, despite receiving various warnings from Luther.

Luther, with reluctance, at last saw himself constrained to hold public disputations against antinomianism and its promoters in 1538 and 1539. Agricola apparently yielded, and Luther's book Against the Antinomians (1539) was to serve as Agricola's recantation. This was the first use of the term Antinomian. But the conflict flared up again, and Agricola even sued Luther, alleging that Luther had slandered him in his disputations, Against the Antinomians, and in his On the Councils and Churches (1539). But before the case could be brought to trial, Agricola, though he had bound himself to remain at Wittenberg, left the city and moved to Berlin, where he had been offered a position as preacher to the court. After his arrival there he made peace with the Saxons acknowledged his “error,” and gradually conformed his doctrine to that which he had before opposed and assailed, though still employing such terms as gospel and repentance in a different manner.

Second Antinomian Controversy

The antinomian doctrine, however was not eliminated from Lutheranism. Melanchthon and those that agreed with him, called Philippists were checked by the Gnesio-Lutherans in the Second Antinomian Controversy during the Augsburg Interim. The Philippists ascribed to the Gospel alone the ability work repentance to the exclusion of the law. They blurred the distinction between Law and Gospel by considering the Gospel itself to be a moral law. They did not identify Christ's fulfillment of the law with the commandments humans are expected to follow.

As a result of this, antinomianism is dealt with in the last confession of faith of the Book of Concord. The Formula of Concord rejects antinominism in the fifth article, On the Law and the Gospel and in the sixth article, On the Third Use of the Law.

Charges against Calvinists

From the latter part of the 17th century, charges of antinomianism were frequently directed against Calvinists, primarily by Arminian Methodists, who subscribed to a synergistic soteriology that contrasted with Calvinism's monergistic doctrine of justification. The controversy between Arminian and Calvinistic Methodists produced the notable Arminian critique of Calvinism: Fletcher's Five Checks to Antinomianism (1771–75).

Charges against Quakers

Quakers were charged with antinomianism due to their rejection of a graduate clergy and a clerical administrative structure, as well as their privileging of the Spirit (as revealed by the Inner Light of God within each person) over the Scriptures. They also rejected civil legal authorities and their laws (such as the paying of tithes to the State church and the swearing of oaths) when they were seen as inconsistent with the promptings of the Inner Light of God.

Charges against Jesuits

Blaise Pascal accused the Jesuits of antinomianism in his Lettres provinciales, charging that Jesuit casuistry undermined moral principles.

Charges against other groups

Other Protestant groups that have been accused on antinomianism include the Anabaptists and Mennonites. In the history of American Puritanism, Roger Williams and Anne Hutchinson were accused of antinomian teachings by the Puritan leadership of Massachusetts. The Ranters of 17th century England were one of the most out-right antinomian sects in the History of Christianity

Antinomianism in Buddhism

Among Buddhists there are three main types of 'antinomianism' which may act as a gloss for 'left-handed attainment' (Sanskrit: Vamachara): naturalist/spontaneous antinomianism, ritualist/philosophical antinomianism, and empirical antinomianism. There may also be those who subscribe to all or some combination of these three types.

Naturalist antinomians believe that enlightened beings may spontaneously break monastic codes of conduct while living out a natural state of enlightenened mind. Another view is that an enlightened mind responds to circumstances based on Buddhist morality, rather than the legalism of the monastic codes, and that the "break" is not therefore spontaneous. There are tales of Buddhist masters throughout history who perform acts that appear to be bizarre or immoral, known in English as 'crazy wisdom' (Tibetan: yeshe chölwa). Vajrayana Buddhism which is also known as the Diamond Path is the highest form of practice that a practitioner can take as a path to enlightenment. The path is however fraught with danger in case the practitioner goes wrong, therefore finding the right teacher is also a very important part of the journey.

Ritualist antinomians, such as some Tantric Buddhists, may practice which seemingly may appear to be breaking the codes of conduct in specific religious rituals designed to teach non-duality or other philosophical concept. They may, for example, engage in the act of sex while not succumbing to the pleasure of sex. The danger or the risk is not to give-in to the base pleasure of sex which will result in falling down to the lower realm of passion. Since ordinary people do not have the mental aptitude for such practice these exoteric practices are much misunderstood as antinomian by people of different faith. Ultimately such act is about liberating oneself from the worldly concepts and conditionings to self preservation which are acquired during our lifetime. due to the risk of giving in to base pleasure is which will result in bigger defilements instead of a religious rite (refer Panchamakara; Ganachakra) or perform some other ritual inversion of a rule, while such acts would be unacceptable to them outside the ritual context.

Empirical antinomians may break or disregard traditional ethical or moral rules that they believe are unconducive to the individual's contemplative life. They view such codification as having arisen in specific historical-cultural contexts and, as such, not always supportive of Buddhist training. Thus the individual and the community must test and verify which rules promote or hinder enlightenment.

Antinomianism in Islam

See also: Naskh (tafsir)

In Islam, the law—which applies not only to religion, but also to areas such as politics, banking, and sexuality—is called sharīʿah (شريعة), and it is traditionally organized around four primary sources:

1. the Qurʾān, which is Islam's central religious text;
2. the sunnah, which refers to actions practised during the time of the prophet Muḥammad, and is often thought to include the ḥadīth, or recorded words and deeds of Muḥammad;
3. ijmāʿ, which is the consensus of the ʿulamāʾ, or class of Islamic scholars, on points of practice;
4. qiyās, which—in Sunnī Islam—is a kind of analogical reasoning conducted by the ʿulamāʾ upon specific laws that have arisen through appeal to the first three sources; in Shīʿah Islam, ʿaql ("reason") is used in place of qiyās

Actions, behaviors, or beliefs that are considered to violate any or all of these four sources—primarily in matters of religion—can be termed "antinomian". Depending on the action, behavior, or belief in question, a number of different terms can be used to convey the sense of "antinomian": shirk ("association of another being with God"); bidʿah ("innovation"); kufr ("disbelief"); ḥarām ("forbidden"); etc.

As an example, the 10th-century Sufi mystic Mansur Al-Hallaj was executed for shirk for, among other things, his statement ana al-Ḥaqq (أنا الحق), meaning "I am the Truth" and, by implication—as al-Ḥaqq ("the Truth") is one of the 99 names of God in Islamic tradition—"I am God." Another individual who has often been termed antinomian is Ibn al-ʿArabi, a 12th–13th century scholar and mystic whose doctrine of waḥdat al-wujūd ("unity of being") has sometimes been interpreted as being pantheistic, and thus shirk.

Apart from individuals, entire groups of Muslims have also been called antinomian. One of these groups is the Ismāʿīlī Shīʿīs, who have always had strong millenarian tendencies arising partly from persecution directed at them by Sunnīs. Influenced to a certain extent by Gnosticism, the Ismāʿīlīs developed a number of beliefs and practices—such as their belief in the imāmah and an esoteric exegesis of the Qurʾān—that were different enough from Sunnī orthodoxy for them to be condemned as shirk and, hence, to be seen as antinomian. Certain other groups that evolved out of Shīʿah belief, such as the Alawites and the Bektashis, have also been considered antinomian. The Bektashis, particularly, have many practices that are especially antinomian in the context of Islam, such as the consumption of alcohol, the non-wearing of the ḥijāb ("veil") by women, and assembling in gathering places called cemevis rather than in mosques.

The use of the antinomian idea in a secular context

See also: Anarchism

In his study of late-20th-century western society the historian Eric Hobsbawm stated that there was a new fusion of "demotic and antinomian" characteristics that made the period distinct, and appeared to be likely to extend into the future. He did so without any particular focus on religion. He had started his academic life before World War II and is now and has always been a Marxist, and continued to see an historian's work as identifying causes of change. For him there is now a readiness by the mass of people to have little sense of obligation to obey any set of rules that they consider arbitrary, or even just constraining, whatever its source. This may be facilitated by one or more of several changes. These include: the tendency to live outside settled communities; the growth of enough wealth for most people to have a wide choice of styles of living; and a popularised assumption that individual freedom is an unqualified good.

George Orwell was a frequent user of “antinomian” in a secular (and always approving) sense. In his 1940 essay on Henry Miller, “Inside the Whale”, the word appears several times, including one in which he calls A. E. Housman a writer in “a blasphemous, antinomian, ‘cynical’ strain”, meaning defiant of arbitrary societal rules.

See also

• Arminianism
• Christian Anarchism
• Christian-Jewish reconciliation
• Council of Jerusalem
• Covenant (biblical)
• Expounding of the Law
• Free Grace theology
• Gnosticism
• Great Commission
• Heterodoxy

• Hyperdispensationalism
• Legalism (theology)
• Libertine
• Marcionism
• Minuth
• Montanism
• Old Testament - Christian View of the Law
• Supersessionism
• Upāya-kauśalya

References

• Badenas, Robert. Christ the End of the Law, Romans 10.4 in Pauline Perspective 1985 ISBN 0-905774-93-0 argues that telos is correctly translated as goal, not end, so that Christ is the goal of the Law, end of the law would be antinomianism.
• Bar-Asher, Me'ir Mikha'el and Kofsky, Aryeh. The Nuṣayrī-ʿAlawī Religion: An Enquiry into its Theology and Liturgy. Leiden: Koninklijke Brill NV, 2002. ISBN 90-04-12552-3.
• J. H. Blunt Dict. of Doct. and Hist. Theol. (1872)
• Chittick, William C. The Sufi Path of Knowledge: Ibn Al-Arabi's Metaphysics of Imagination. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1989. ISBN 0-88706-885-5.
• Clarence-Smith, W.G. Islam and the Abolition of Slavery. London: C. Hurst & Co. (Publishers) Ltd, 2006. ISBN 1-85065-708-4.
• Daftary, Farhad; ed. Mediaeval Ismaʿili History and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996. ISBN 0-521-45140-X.
• Dunn, James D.G. Jesus, Paul and the Law 1990 ISBN 0-664-25095-5
• Encyclopaedia of the Orient. "Isma'ilism". Retrieved 10 October 2006.
• Freedman, David Noel, editor. (1998). Anchor Bible Dictionary, article on Antinomianism by Hall, Robert W., ISBN 0-385-19351-3
• J. C. L. Gieseler, Ch. Hist. (New York ed. 1868, vol. iv.)
• G. Kawerau, in A. Hauck's Realencyklopadie (1896)
• Luther, Martin. Only the Decalogue Is Eternal: Martin Luther's Complete Antinomian Theses and Disputations. Minneapolis: Lutheran Press, 2008. ISBN 978-0-9748529-6-6
• Pratt, Douglas. The Challenge of Islam: Encounters in Interfaith Dialogue. Aldershot, Hampshire: Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2005. ISBN 0-7546-5122-3.
• Riess, in I. Goschler's Dict. Encyclop. de la théol. cath. (1858)
• Schimmel, Annemarie. Mystical Dimensions of Islam. ISBN 0-8078-1271-4.
• Weir, Anthony. "Differences Between Bektashism and Islamic Orthodoxy" in The Bektashi Order of Dervishes. Retrieved 10 October 2006.
• This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
• Peter Linebaugh and Marcus Rediker. The Many-Headed Hydra. Beacon Press, Boston, 2000

External links

• New Perspective on Paul
• Jewish Encyclopedia: Antinomianism
• Catholic Encyclopedia: Antinomianism
• Catholic Encyclopedia: Moral Aspect of Divine Law
• Catholic Encyclopedia: Mosaic Legislation
• Catholic Catechism on The Moral Law
• Henry Eyster Jacobs, Lutheran Cyclopedia p. 18, "Antinomianism"
• Antinomians in the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica
• Sermon on Antinomianism
• Jewish Encyclopedia: New Testament - For and Against the Law
• Jewish Encyclopedia: Jesus: Attitude Toward the Law
• Jewish Encyclopedia: Saul of Tarsus: Paul's Opposition to the Law
• Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge: Antinomianism