One of the more arresting claims in recent theological discussions is that an emphasis on the forensic nature of justification can nurture antinomianism. This claim looks amazingly unreal given the traction that various forms of transformationalism have among conservative Reformed Protestants – from Doug Wilson’s defense of Constantinianism, the Baylys’ war with Reformed “pacifists†in the culture wars, to Tim Keller’s conception of word and deed ministry. If anything, the conservative Reformed world is awash with various expressions of neo-nomianism and legalism – not antinomianism.
What is even more amazing is that the concern with antinomianism would ever classify Lutheranism as a wing of Christianity that disregards the law. In point of fact, the real antinomians around the time of the Westminster Assembly were not Lutherans but Quakers. I know conservative Presbyterians (myself included) don’t get out much. But it is important to remember sometimes the wider setting in which the Reformed faith has grown. The people who believed they had the Spirit so truly – in Luther’s words, swallowing the Holy Ghost “feathers and all†– were not his followers in Germany but on the radical fringes of the Puritan movement.
For this reason, it may be useful to remember what Lutherans actually profess about good works and their importance for the Christian life, and compare those teachings with the musing of the Quakers.
How One is Justified before God, and of Good Works.
What I have hitherto and constantly taught concerning this I know not how to change in the least, namely, that by faith, as St. Peter says, we acquire a new and clean heart, and God will and does account us entirely righteous and holy for the sake of Christ, our Mediator. And although sin in the flesh has not yet been altogether removed or become dead, yet He will not punish or remember it.
And such faith, renewal, and forgiveness of sins is followed by good works. And what there is still sinful or imperfect also in them shall not be accounted as sin or defect, even [and that, too] for Christ’s sake; but the entire man, both as to his person and his works, is to be called and to be righteous and holy from pure grace and mercy, shed upon us [unfolded] and spread over us in Christ. Therefore we cannot boast of many merits and works, if they are viewed apart from grace and mercy, but as it is written, 1 Cor. 1:31: He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord, namely, that he has a gracious God. For thus all is well. We say, besides, that if good works do not follow, faith is false and not true. (Smalcald Articles, XIII [1537])
And now for something completely different. This is from the 1655 letter of John Lilburn, a Quaker, held captive in England for the better part of a decade for his religious convictions and their legal and political implications.
. . . the contrariety is so great between the foresaid two Kings and Masters, that whatsoever in the King, or Ruler in the Kingdom of the world, (or fallen, or unrenewed man) and the Subjects thereof, is esteemed highly or excellent, is an abomination in the sight of God: And therefore this spiritual King having purchased all his Subjects and Servants with a glorious price, (as the greatest demonstration of love) of his own blood, by his spiritual Command requires them not to be the servants of men, but to glorify him both in body and soul; and therefore his grown up servant Paul, declares himself to be no man-pleaser, avowing himself that if he were a man-pleaser, he should, nor could not be the servant of Christ.
And therefore the same apostle, by the infallible spirit of the Lord, requires the spiritual Subjects of this spiritual King Jesus, to present their bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which (says he) is your reasonable service; and do not be conformed to this world (the kingdom of the Prince of darkness, but be you transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good, and acceptable and perfect will of a God; and therefore when any man once becomes a spiritual subject of this spiritual King Christ, and dwells in him, he becomes a new creature, and old things in him are passed away, and all things in him are become new, spiritual and savoury, yes even his very thought and his words are found few and divine, his behaviour righteous and solid, his deeds upright, and free like God from all respect of persons: and although there be such a perfect and absolute contrariety between all the laws and constitutions of these two Kings or Masters, and a continual and perpetual war between the Subjects thereof, yet the weapons of the warfare of Christ’s Spiritual, Heavenly, and glorious Kingdom, handled and used by his Servants and true Subjects, who although they do walk in the flesh, yet do they not war after the flesh, and therefore their weapons of warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God, to the pulling down of strongholds, casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, and brings into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ. . .
Of course, this doesn’t sound very antinomian. In fact, it reads a lot like those anti-2k folks who wail and gnash their teeth over the moral failings of the United States, and also insist that Christians need to take back the nation for Christ because the antithesis between believers and non-believers is so great, and the moral gulf between the saints and pagans so wide, and the denial of Christ’s lordship so great, that we cannot trust civil affairs to the likes of Obama, Kerry, or Gore.
But what does make this quotation antinomian is that Quakers like Lilburne (along with Anabaptists) renounced by the sword and believed any government that used force was of the Devil. As such, they did not recognize the existing government as legitimate, thus making them antinomian (as in, against the established law and order).
Looks to me like there are lessons all around on the contrast between the true and false antinomians. In fact, it is hard to miss the irony that those who criticize 2k the most for being antinomian may harbor a good dose of the antithetical reading of humanity and civil authorities that put Quakers like Lilburne in jail.
Old Life 
I don’t think the quotations prove your point. The Quaker quotation sounded like a restatement of Augustine’s two cities idea. Where specifically does Lilburne address politics? I’m not much up on Quaker history, except I think one of them spent his time abusing Cromwell, who showed the miscreant undue patience, IMO. Quakers and politics would make for an interesting article…..
What do you think of federal funding of abortion in the new healthcare bill? Judge Napalitano says no presidential order can overturn an enacted law, so it’s in there. How does r2K address this issue?
LikeLike
Hi DGH!
Sometimes, I wonder if the angst over politics and morality is a lack of perspective. If I look at Jesus and the world he was born into with it’s paganism, immorality, pharisees , sadducees, living under the thumb of Roman rule, etc… and consider the early church’s persecuted life, the heresies, and etc…. our modern world doesn’t look that different from those times. There is no reason to get one’s knickers in a knot. Christ’s promises are secure, and 2K makes perfect sense.
But then again, I’m in the midst of Lent, and as I’ve said before, I think the observance of the church calendar with a prolonged gaze at our Savior solves a multitude of ailments. ‘O the joys of being one of those awful heterodox, antinomian. lager drinking Lutherans who buys into 2K. A blessed holy season to you, dgh. 🙂
LikeLike
On the article on Antinomianism.
Consider what is the Etymological root source of the word Antinomian. It’s a Hebraic term used by Jesus Christ in the Epistles as a heinous sin. (Matthew. 7:23) “I never knew you; depart from me you that work‚ (Greek Strong # 458) ANTINOMIAN.”
Let us peel off the theological bark and shine the spot light on this dogma to learn the bare truth of what Antinomianism is in the Greek Epistles (Strong # 458 Antanomia) what it really means. Greek Strong # 458 Antanomia i.e. Anomia, meaning Antinomian i.e. Antinomianism. As Jesus and others spoke about Antinomianism again occurs 16 times in the Epistles all as a public rebuke of sinful wickedness.
Just look at one verse (Matthew. 7: 21-23) Who are those that find themselves expelled by Jesus.? ? ? Who are these people? ? ? The Antinomians being talked about here that call Jesus “Lord” and even do good works in His name. These are church Antinomians involved in church activities. They expect to inherit eternal salvation, nevertheless find themselves expelled by Jesus from salvation.
The Greek word Anomia, in Greek one can use a singular “A” prefix letter to abbreviate for “no,” “not,” “without” and “ANTI.” “A” prefix letter attached to a Greek word gives the word a negative meaning, same as “A” prefix letter attached to English words as Amoral, Atheist, etc. The disposition exhibit in the meaning of this word is that those who consider themselves as antinomian are against IE anarchists of God’s Law, Scripture Law is the (Greek Strong’s # 3551 NOMOS.) Antinomianism is antithetical to God’s scripture sovereignty.
(Lev. 4:2) express this reprimanded sin as “Against the Commandments of Yahweh.” or Anti-commandments. The Torah (Hebrew Strong’s # 8451) meaning scripture Law, is interchangeable with the (Greek Strong’s # 3551 NOMOS) and the Greek NOMOS, is the word used by the translators of the Septuagint to translate the Hebrew word Torah. As used in (Hosea. 8:1) “They transgressed My covenant and transgressed against My law.” As Hosea express, Against Yahweh Covenant and Torah, is coined by the word Antinomian.
“Antinomian” has been alternative form of expression for over two millennia meaning against the scripture Lawgiver and His Law. It’s from the term in the Epistles {Greek Strong # 458 Antanomia i.e. Anomia.} (Heb. 1:9) “Love righteousness and hate (G Strong # 458) ANTINOMIAN.”
LikeLike
1. Neonomians (those like Richard Baxter) who say that the new covenant brings with it an easier law which we are now enabled to keep are also “antinomians”—they deny the strictness of God’s justice when they think that God will accept some sort of “equivalent”.
2. We should not accuse as Antinomians those who have a different view of the content of the law based on redemptive history. Ie, Theonomists should not accuse non-theonomists of being “antinomian”. Those who disagree about the ceremonial nature of the sabbath (day) should not accuse each other of being “antinomian”.
The problem is, Jack, as you well know, is when people who say “new covenant” (instead of “the covenant of grace”) go from that covenantal distinction to a false gospel in which we are saved (in part, in assurance or in sanctification) by being enabled to keep this “new law”.
At the end of the day, the law (including the Mosaic law and/or the law of Christ) is not only about convincing sinners of the need of grace. II Cor 3:7 speaks of the ministry of law as the ministry of death. The law was given to crush and kill us. Cheap law won’t do that. Law modified to be less strict won’t do that.
The law was not given only to increase our knowledge of our sin. The law was given to increase sin. Romans 5:20. When the law is used to motivate us to do good works, those “good works” are not good but sinful and selfish and self-righteous.
Forde—“Antinomianism is a theological attempt to bring the law to heel short of death.” Justification by Faith: A Matter of Death and Life
LikeLike
jack: Who are those that find themselves expelled by Jesus.? The Antinomians being talked about here call Jesus “Lord” and even do good works in His name. These are church Antinomians who expect to inherit eternal salvation, nevertheless find themselves expelled by Jesus from salvation.
mark: Ironically, people who talk about “cheap grace” tend to be antinomians. In order for grace to be cheap for us, grace would still have to cost us something. But true grace is free grace, earned in total for the elect alone by Christ. Those who talk of “cheap grace” seem to want a more expensive grace, but which is still somehow a combination of grace and law, which turns out to be neither grace nor law.
Flavel, God Does See Sin, Even in His Justified People
Numbers 23.21—”He hath not beheld iniquity in Jacob, nor seen perverseness in Israel.” Jeremiah 50.20, “In those days, and in that time, saith the Lord, the iniquity of Israel shall be sought for, and there shall be none; and the sins of Judah, and they shall not be found: for I will pardon them whom I reserve.”
It is true, and we thankfully acknowledge it, that God sees no sin in believers as a judge sees guilt in a malefactor, to condemn him for it. That is a sure and comfortable truth for us: but to say he sees no sin in his children, as a displeased father, to correct and chasten them for it, is an assertion repugnant to scripture.
(1.) It is injurious to God’s omniscience, Psalm 139.2, “Thou” (saith holy David), “knowest my down-sitting, and my up-rising, and understandest my thoughts afar off, and art acquainted with all my ways.” Job 28.24, “He looketh to the ends of the earth, and seeth under the whole heavens.” Prov. 15.3, “The eyes of the Lord are in every place, beholding the evil and the good.” Psalm 33.14,15, “From the place of his habitation he looketh upon all the inhabitants of the earth; he fashioneth their hearts alike, he considereth all their works.”
(2.) This assertion is inconsistent with God’s providential dispensations to his people. When David, a justified believer, had sinned against him in the matter of Uriah, it is said, 2 Sam. 11.27, “the thing that David had done displeased the Lord:” and, as the effect of that displeasure, it is said, chapter 12.15. “The Lord struck the child that Uriah’s wife bare unto David, and it was very sick.” Among the Corinthians some that should not be condemned with the world, were judged and chastened of the Lord for their undue approaches to his table, 1 Cor. 11.32.
Now, I would ask the Antinomians this question. Can it be denied, that David, under the Old Testament, and these Corinthians under the New, were justified persons; and yet the former stricken by God in his child, with its sickness and death; and the latter in like manner smitten by God in their own persons; and both for their respective sins committed against God; and yet God saw no sin in them?
LikeLike