The Modern Face of Antinomianism: Looking at Antinomianism

Here are my notes from the second session of the conference 'The Modern Face of Antinomianism' by Richard Barcellos. I have entitled this session 'Looking at Antinomianism'. Notes from the first session are here.

Romans 3:31: ‘Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary we establish the law.’

The aim of the session is to answer two questions:
1) What is antinomianism?
2) What does antinomianism look like today?

1) What is antinomianism?
i) Literal meaning = ‘against law’

ii) Theological meaning:
‘The doctrine that it is not necessary for Christians to preach and obey the moral law of the OT.’
‘…the doctrine that the moral law is not binding upon Christians as a rule of life. In a wider sense it is applied to the views of fanatics who refuse to recognise any law but their own subjective law.’
‘A term used to characterise believers in the early church who thought that faith in Jesus Christ allows sin.’

iii) Degree’s of Antinomianism
2 types:
Practical/radical antinomianism. This is where someone promotes a sinful lifestyle under the banner of grace. It can be a form of Christian mysticism where it is said that the Holy Spirit guides the life as obedience.
Doctrinal/theological antinomianism. These people may claim that the law of Christ is better (has a greater degree of excellency) than the law of Christ. These people deny the third use of the moral law (see below).

The three uses of the law according to Calvin:
To point out our sin
To restrain public evil
To rule the life of the believer

2) What does antinomianism look like today?
New Covenant Theology is doctrinally antinomian. This does not mean that the New Covenant Theologians live a life of sin! Some NCT have a high view of the Lords’ day.

Some might say that only those commandments that are repeated in the NT are those to be obeyed.
NCT tends to be fuzzy about its position over the moral law. Don Carson has some affinity with NCT but he hasn’t fully described as such a theologian. Gregg Welty when writing on the Sermon on the Mount critiques Carson for some of his views.
NCT’s place a wedge between the moral law and the law of Christ. NCT’s say that the Sabbath is abolished in Christ.

We must make a distinction between particular laws and moral laws. In other words the law commanding Abraham to sacrifice his son was a particular law. It had a limited scope and was only intended for Abraham. The law is not of the moral type (I’m not implying that it was immoral in the context). The moral law (the 10 commandments) is for all people at all times everywhere!

The civil law was a positive law for a particular people at a particular time. It was meant for the Israelites at that time as a benefit for them. Our mediator is Christ not Moses. We don’t go look at the ceremonies for revelation about God. We look to Christ!

Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are not moral laws. They are particular laws for this time.

NCT confuse categories but not being particular with the use of the term ‘moral’.

NCT are not stupid. The historical reformed position is complicated and is partly created by implications of scripture. Meaning it is easy to reject.

The ground of our justification includes procured righteousness. This righteousness Adam never attained. Christ did attain it and gave it to us!

NCT sometimes have unclear views of Jeremiah 31:33 ‘my law’.
They claim that this law is the ceremonial and civil.

NCT’s accuse CT’s of having a narrow view of the Sabbath.
The Sabbath is a creation ordinance. The Sabbath was kept (by God!) before the 10 commandments were given.
The Sabbath is prophesied in Isaiah 56. The Son of Man is Lord even over the Sabbath. Christ kept the Sabbath and did not dismiss it.

NC Sabbath:
We remember He rose again on the Sabbath day
We look forward to the eternal state of rest.

The closest thing to the eternal Sabbath is the current Sabbath! Use it in happiness!

The Modern Face of Antinomianism: Looking at the Law

Yesterday I had the privalege of gong to Crawley to hear (nearly-doctor) Richard Barcellos speak on the use of the 10 commandments in the Christian Life.

The two lectures given addressed the issue of antinomianism. Literally the word means 'against law'. It's implications are that the moral law is not a binding rule for the Christian today. Barcello argued that the law is applicable today as it was for the Old Testament believers. Not that we attain our righteousness by the law. No, we receive righteousness through faith in Christ. But that the breaking any of the ten commandments is seen as sin in the eyes of God (1 John 3:4).

Here are my notes from the first session: Looking at the Law
1) Through the Baptist Confession of Faith (BCF)
2) Through Calvin
3) Through Scripture

1) Through the BCF

BCF 4:2 after words ‘having law of God written’ there’s a reference to Rom 2:14-15.
This text proves that there is somewhat a law written on the natural mans heart.

God wrote the basic elements of the 10 commandments on the hearts of Adam and Eve. After the fall our constitution changes although the revelation of the law gets through. This is the law that the religious man tries to satisfy (wrongly).
Law written on the hearts = the natural law.
A and E also received a positive law: ‘don’t eat from the fruit of the tree’. Obedience to this law can win Adam into a immutable state.
The obedience of Adam could have attained our righteousness

Adam and Eve transgressed the positive and moral law.
BCF 6:1
BCF 19:1-5 God gave Adam a law of universal obedience.
The moral law transcends covenants and cultures because it is originally written on our hearts at creation.

Jews got the law revealed to them on their heart and in the tablet.
Christians get the law via the scriptural canon, the natural heart, and at regeneration.

Moral law = the inscription of the natural law.
Natural law = the law on the heart.

The moral law is an administration of the natural law.

The fundamental law of the OC = the same law written on the hearts of men.
Besides this law God gives ceremonial and judicial laws to point to Christ.

2) Through Calvin

Calvin is not clear on some of the questions concerning the 4th commandment although it is clear that he believed in the law after creation as creation write the 10 commandments on the heart.

General rev = law on the hearts
Special rev = the 10 commandments

Calvin believes all 10 of the 10 commandments are relevant for Christians. See the institutes.
On Gen 2:3 Calvin comments that the creation Sabbath is incorporated into the NC.

According to Calvin the Sabbath is:
A day of public worship
A day of rest for servants

Calvin wasn’t clear on the absolute necessity of worshipping on the first day.

3) Through Scripture

This passage is evidently a prophecy of NT life.
Whenever ‘My law’ is used in Jeremiah it always refers to a law that had been previously revealed by God to Israel (6:19, 9:13, 16:11, 26:4, 31:33, 44:10).
Everyone in this covenant will have the same redemptive privileges.
God wrote the law explicitly with His finger (Exodus 31:18).
See 2 Corinthians 3:3 for a fulfilment of Exodus 31:18 and Jeremiah 31:31-33.
The 10 commandments don’t need to be repeated as they pre-date the OC and are based on creation.

Romans 13:8 proves that all commands for Christians can be summed up by love.
The commandments can be reduced to there bare essential elements see Romans 7:7.

It is the essence of the commandment that is morally binding not a particular form in which the commandment is expressed.

Notes from the 2nd session to be uploaded soon. Books by Barcellos