The Exegetical, Theological, and Practical Expressions of Antinomianism (both personally and corporately) (Part One)
Introduction
Christians of all people should be the ones who can get along the most. Sadly, interpretations and applications of the Scripture itself is what causes divisions. Not only these areas but the way we identify and respond to those who disagree is another problem entirely. Just consider what you think to be essential and nonessential theological positions and how our consciences interact with one another, especially in regard to the law. Personally, I would rather have the scriptures in my own language, regardless of if its resultant disagreements, at least I can read a Bible for myself. So again, in the spirit of Romans 12:18, "as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men," instead of labeling people with ad homiems let's wrestle through the nuances of Antinomianism.
So, before we can begin any discussion of an idea or disagree on its applications, we need to have a definition of the term. It is much easier to fabricate a definition and accuse others of sinning against my own contrived definition either in belief or practice or simply to fire off ad hominem attacks, but I'd rather wrestle with the text. Here is part of the problem, emotionally charged terms like lawlessness, legalism, antinomianism, license, or worldliness are very nuanced and don't apply consistently across the board. However, our mission today is to discuss the concept of antinomianism. On a basic level, you can see it is a compound word combining "anti-" and "nomian." The first idea should be simple: "anti" means to be "against" something. The second term is a transliteration of the Greek term for "law" or "custom." But is that really helpful? Antinomian means to be against law. In a way it means "lawlessness." Still not all that helpful but a decent starting point. The scriptures themselves identify this term "law" with multiple nuances--the entire Old Testament, part of the Old Testament, or maybe even the Ten Commandments explicitly, to suggest a few.
I would like to suggest being most helpful we need a nuanced understanding of the terms such as Legalism and Antinomianism. Historically, we have wrestled with understanding "law" in nuanced fashions such as a civil, ceremonial, and moral law. Even this understanding creates push back that the law must be understood as all or nothing (see James 2:10, "offend in one point, he is guilty of all") or defined in a manner in which Christ fulfilled it, "For Christ is the end of the law" (Rom 10:4). But there must be some more nuances or principles behind it because the "law" is still referenced hundreds of times by New Testament writers. So, I would like to suggest this concept of Antinomianism can likewise be understood in a nuanced fashion from a Biblical perspective. I think we have room to argue here since the term does not show up in the scriptures and we need to do a better job than simply accusing other Christians of obeying and/or applying less verses than I do (be it decalogue, Mosaic law, or Old Testament as a whole). I do wish to take Christ's warnings seriously from Matthew 5:19, "Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach me so, he shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven...." So, I would like to tread carefully before I thrown out about 2/3 of my Bible or say it doesn't matter or apply to me in 2023.
Argument Proper
With that introduction and basic understanding of law and some of its nuances I would like to suggest based on the title of this article at least three nuances to the concept of Antinomianism. And I think you'll see there is more to grasp than simply saying "against law." These three categories are exegetical, theological, and practical Antinomianism. It would not be fair to call someone an Antinomian without nuancing what I actually mean especially since I know there are good and godly Christian people holding to other positions on this issue than myself. That in itself should cause me to want to, even if we don't always, show charity toward other Christians in this area. And as we shall see the terms: antinomianism and legalism are closely the opposite sides of the same coin.
I must admit to a degree, definitional nuances are almost like splitting hairs but for our purpose it is necessary. Let's define our three aspects and focus on each individually. Worst case I don't want to be accused of definitional hedging, which is always a danger, but here we go. First, exegetical antinomianism is an understanding of law which sees the law like a dimmer switch. Second, theological antinomianism is an understanding of law which sees the law like an on/off switch. Lastly, practical antinomianism is an understanding of law in which a person is living without law. The greater struggle I hope to show is that these categories overlap and there is a point in which a person's relationship to the law also parallels their relationship to Jesus Christ. Please understand I will unpack the three categories giving each a separate and fuller explanation and I will do my best to reference modern day authors wrestling with these issues.
Exegetical Antinomianism
First, what does an exegetical antinomian look like? What theological positions might they oppose? This is the Christian in my diagram below in the far-left blue circle (no political association just for example purposes). To this person their understanding and relationship to the law (be it OT, Decalogue, imperatives, rules) functions as a dimmer switch. A dimmer switch by reminder can be turned on but you can typically slide it up/down or left/right making changing the level of light in the room. For quick application, these Christians do believe the law does apply today but in different ways and in different nuances. Each scriptural text is interpreted and applied personally and corporately with the understanding that the law is somehow and someone still functioning today (hence in our diagram there is an overlap with those who believe the law is either on or off). And yes, this applies to both dispensationalists and covenant theologians but in different forms of emphasis, nuance, and application.
Theological Antinomianism
Second, what does a theological antinomian look like? How do they view their relationship to the law. Back again to our diagram, the theological antinomian is the Christian in the center circle (the one in red). Please note according to the diagram, a theological antinomian tends to view the law as an on/off switch. Simply put the law is still in effect or it is not. Please note also that those of this understanding overlap two different positions. One, they overlap the exegetical antinomian to their left and the practical antinomian to their right. Again, this position as we will discuss in future articles has an interpretive grid providing for convenient applications such as "that was for Israel" or "this applies to the church" way of thinking. Please note also this grid has a 2000-year bridge to cross. Just like the dispensationalist and covenant theologian they still have to wrestle with what can be identified with labels such as: descriptive, prescriptive, or normative.
Practical Antinomianism
Lastly, what does a practical antinomian look like? How do they view the law? What do they think of its application to them? Refer to our diagram, the practical antinomian believes they are not under the law in any form or fashion. Please note the green circle above overlaps the theological antinomian to their left. So, there are clearly people in this camp who believe and interpret scripture as though it does not apply to them in many or most aspects of life. They may tend to minimize doctrine and emphasize more often than not that particular texts only applied to the original audience. Much of wrestling with this group will involve how we identify the overlapping portion with the red/green circles and conversely how might we tend to label those who do not overlap the red in any way. At what point do we truly and honestly start using phrases such as: worldliness, licentious, without rules, slaves to the flesh, or unbeliever.
Conclusion
In conclusion, we have discussed some introductory basics on Christianity and it's understanding of and application of the law. We've discussed the law has multiple facets: OT, decalogue, imperatives, or simply rules. This author has also started a hopefully charitable understanding of differently nuanced positions on the law: Exegetical antinomianism, theological antinomianism, and practical antinomianism. In future articles we shall wrestle honestly as possible with each positions' understandings of and application of the law.
As always thoughts and comments encouraged.
