The personal and corporate expressions of exegetical, theological, and practical Antinomianism

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.

 

A Review and Recommendation of The Ology: Ancient Truths Ever New By. Marty Machowski

The Ology: Ancient Truths Ever New
By Marty Machowski

A Review on Reformed Forum is available here.
A Review at Redeemed Reader is available here.  

The Author's site and other available books are available here. 

My family just completed all 71 chapters in 2019 during our family worship time. The book was originally published in 2015. It is sprinkled with beautiful illustrations. Some funny and some more serious. The topics covered cover the full spectrum of really any systematic theology textbook. It can easily be used for children of all ages. I am including a basic breakdown of the table of contents. An excellent gem and highly recommended for children.

Table of Contents

The Ology of God (Chapters 1 thru 8)

The Ology of People (Chapter 9 thru 11)

The Ology of Sin (Chapters 12-19)

The Ology of the Promise and the Law (Chapters 20-26)

The Ology of Christ (Chapters 27-35)

The Ology of the Holy Spirit (Chapters 36-38)

The Ology of Adoption into God's Family (Chapter 39-44)

The Ology of Change (Chapter 45-51)

The Ology of the Church (Chapters 52-58)

The Ology of the End Times (Chapters 59-65)

The Ology of God's Word (Chapters 66-71)

The book also includes review study questions for each chapter in a Question and Answer format. It also includes a small glossary of terms that you may or may not know. 

Amazon's Summary: 

The Ology by best-selling children's author Marty Machowski is a stunningly illustrated beginner's theology book to help kids of all ages understand who God is and how we, as his children, relate to him.

Arranged within a traditional systematic theological framework, each truth in The Ology is also connected to the larger redemptive story of Scripture. This storybook of systematic theology takes abstract concepts in the Bible and makes them easier to understand with the use of creative examples, illustrations, and analogies.

The Ology is a starting point to learning theology and aims to create a hunger and desire in children to learn more as they grow older. Designed for six-year-olds through preteens, this flexible resource includes built-in adaptations so the entire families can enjoy it together.

The story begins in the cellar of the old stone cathedral, where Carla and Timothy uncover a life-changing treasure: a carefully wrapped, ancient book known as The Ology. Young readers will discover a tale of adventure, mystery, and wonder, which will lead them to the truth about God, themselves, and the world around them.

As a father to six children, Machowski knows how to intentionally create a vivid resource, full of analogies and word pictures to help kids grasp difficult theological concepts. Read The Ology to preschoolers; read it with grade-school kids, and let older kids discover the "hidden" truths by reading the corresponding Scripture passages for each section.

However you read it, The Ology will give your children a gift that will last a lifetime—a solid foundation of transformative biblical truth that will point them to the God who loves them and gave himself for them.

There is also a companion album to The Ology by Sovereign Grace Music that celebrates these wonderful theological truths through worship music that the whole family can enjoy.

An excellent book and worthy of reading.

Again, read, comment, enjoy. 

Principles for Disagreeing with Others by Tim Keller (My Personal Applications to the Text and Translation Debates)

Principles for Disagreeing with Others by Tim Keller 

(My Personal Applications to the Text and Translation Debates)

I've come across several books that include means and/or different methods for disagreeing with other people's theological positions. I would suggest these could be equally applied to other people's theological applications (at the risk of ad hominem name calling). Today I'm attempting to apply six principles from Tim Keller to the Bible text and translation debate. These six principles are taken from Tim Keller's book Center Church: Doing Balanced, Gospel-Centered Ministry (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012), pp. 376-38. Keller's points are in bold and my comments follow each point. These principles are as follows:

1. Take full responsibility for even unwitting misrepresentation of others' views.

I'm am fully convinced it is not possible to perfectly reflect the views of others no matter how hard we try. Perhaps you are able to do this. But it seems as though no matter what is written down, said, or practiced, there are always a series of caveats to every definition. For example try arguing with a dispensationalist on some issue (and I'm one of them), even listing off scores of quotes by leading dispensationsalists of the past. It seems as though there is a continual shift to "that's not  what I believe." Transfer this to the text and translation issue, phrases used by the KJV only position leave you wondering what they actually believe and practice. I have repeatedly requested individuals to clarify what they actually mean when they say, "we believe the KJV is God's preserved word for the English-speaking people" and no response given. Its hard not to understand things any other way without clarification in both writing and practice. This doesn't sound like preference, familiarity, or a Greek text argument. If your argument is simply, one Greek text is preferred and then we should produce translations from that text, then let's be consistent and produce a modern English translation from that text you believe is correct. If not then you really are in practice KJV only. I am left with no other acceptable alternative then to think that preaching from the ESV, NASB, or NIV is wrong to these people. This is not a difference of opinion or liberty but to them it is erroneous. If simply a preference, then why all the fuss? Is it remotely possible that a secondary or tertiary preference or application has been raised to a point of orthodoxy or the only acceptable practice? If I'm wrong in this understanding, please tell me what it means. Please explain to me in history when this different understanding (both belief and practice) started. I would suggest neither one Greek text nor the language of English has ever been a historical standard for the doctrine of preservation.

2. Never attribute an opinion to your opponents that they themselves do not own.

I personally have a hard time trying to apply this point to the text and translation issue. It seems as though over the years there are so many versions of the King James Only position its getting harder and harder to figure out at what point error actually begins. As point one above tried to express it is very hard to understand a person's view if they will not elaborate on it. Obviously, we don't want to appeal to straw man arguments (see #4 below), definition hedging, or the like but this example phrase is directly from multiple websites, "we believe the KJV is God's preserved word for the English language."  How else can I understand this? I am left to believe that the doctrine of preservation not only depends on the English language, but also on a 400+ year old version in English. I have tried contacting many of them but to no avail nor clarification. Where does error begin? 

3. Take your opponents' views in their entirety, not selectively.

It is too common to make comments either positively or negatively about others writings but not comments on everything they say on the topic. Consider some examples, first in relation to MacArthur and term blood. Much ink has been spent by well-meaning conservatives on this issue. What becomes apparent is that these critics have not (for the most part) read everything he has written or said on this issue. A simple preview of every sermon or comment he has made on this issue is available (he actually has an entire page where he compiles all his comments on this issue). Perhaps ideas like hendiadys, synonym, or metaphor (you'll have to research this one) would help his detractors. Consider terms like repent or believe. Rarely do they occur in the same sentence in the biblical text. Yet at the same time they both are true and necessary for salvation. Or consider terms related to salvation such as Savior and Lord. Yet how often do people claim or deny one or the other because they simply don't reference every side of the coin every time the topic appears. Apply this to the text and translation issue and see where it leads you. How often do well-meaning people selectively pick words (present or not) or even verses to attack particular English translations or their particular translation philosophy? 

4. Represent and engage your opponents' position in its very strongest form, not in a weak "straw man" form.

I would suggest this is very similar to number one above. Trying to use the exact wording of the opposite position is usually not enough. There will always been a rebuttal to falsely representing the other position(s). I see this all the time (you probably have too). Try explaining a variant in the Greek or Hebrew text without getting accused of tampering with the scriptures. Try teaching your people on issues like this one. For example, try using the NIV as a Christian fundamentalist without getting that weird look (or even the NASB or ESV) in some circles. I've seen time and time again the same strategies used to attack the NIV as those who attack English translations printed after 1611. They quote some verses here or there then they criticize the translation for doing so--as if their (or my) academical credentials were asked to be on their committee (sarcasm intended). 

5. Seek to persuade, not antagonize--but watch your motives!

Unfortunately, past generations got more liberty here than we do today. Simply read past historical works by John Owen or Charles Spurgeon. People weren't always the most polite or congenial toward their opponents (who were professing believers too). Yes our mannerism count. Yes our speech counts. How many arguments (positions) get dismissed by a bad disposition. But even the best, well-organized arguments will face the same fate as the rest, "well that's your opinion." At what point in the text and translation issue are we willing to call historical errors and false teaching what it is? Error. We proudly call worldliness as such. We sadly in love have to correct disobedient professing believers in our churches. If this error festers in our own camp then shame on us for not trying to persuade them for not continuing down a road of error. To say nothing and to simply "agree to disagree" has done what for our local churches? Evangelicalism has moved on from this issue but it seems as though my bible-believing fundamental brothers are struggling with this one. Will the millennials share your view? Have they also moved on already to the NASB, ESV, or even NIV? 

6. Remember the gospel and stick to criticizing the theology--because only God sees the heart.

Clearly the text and translation issue has been raised by many to a gospel level issue even to the point of requiring that particular English translations be used alone for preaching, teaching, evangelism, and memorization (many other positions can be just as guilty). This appears is scores of churches. Just look at the multitudes of church, camp, and para-church ministry sites. On the other hand, if the gospel can be preached or taught from any translation in any country then why limit it to one English translation? Inspiration and preservation are historic doctrines defended throughout church history. But for the sake of your own personal research, I invite you to study the theological views of those who prefer a one English only position (see if can you notice any trends concerning the gospel itself). Carefully exegete the text and declare the gospel to all who will hear. Christ died for their sins according to the scriptures and he also bodily arose for their sins according to the scriptures. These scriptures are not limited to a translation in English, Spanish, or French.

With a clear conscience and pure heart motive preach and live the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Read. Enjoy. Comment.

Book Review and Recommendation: They Like Jesus But Not the Church (Insights from Emerging Generations) By. Dan Kimball

They Like Jesus But Not the Church: Insights from Emerging Generations. By. Dan Kimball (Zondervan: Grand Rapids), 2007.

Interesting read.  Came across this several years ago.  Take a look at his chapter titles.  It almost looks like it was written down political lines.

Truly if chapters five through ten are true for a majority of new evangelical churches then no wonder some many are confused along political lines.  Churches and pulpits are not doing a good job at all.  Everything is not okay just to say "sovereign grace" here there or anywhere.  Obviously based on the statistics youth are not taught and obviously as a result are not living right either.

This is only inflamed by a new evangelical "christian" culture that simply says what you believe is all that matters.  You can live however you want (think: voting morally and ethically here).

This book could have been easily titled "Reasons why I don't Believe the Bible" or perhaps "My theological gripes for leaving the Church."

I would suggest based on other trends appearing in larger "gospel-based" coalition groups, even they wouldn't adhere to the chapter beliefs.

Table of Contents:

Part One: Why Emerging Generations are Changing

Ch. 1  I probably wouldn't like Christians if I weren't one
Ch. 2  Why I escaped the church office
Ch. 3  Jesus as Son of God and plastic action figure
Ch. 4  Meeting those who like Jesus

Part Two: What Emerging Generations Think about the Church

Ch. 5  The church is an organized religion with a political agenda
Ch. 6  The church is judgmental and negative
Ch. 7  The church is dominated by males and oppresses females.
Ch. 8  The church is homophobic
Ch. 9  The church arrogantly claims all other religions are wrong
Ch. 10  The church is full of fundamentalists who take the whole Bible literally

Part Three: How the Church can Respond

Ch. 11 What they wish Church were like
Ch. 12  Out Two Biggest Barriers
Ch. 13  A Great Hope for the Future

This election year definitely will be a roller coaster of a year.

May God have mercy on our country and on His church.