Paul's Passing Thoughts

“Please note: the forte of the antichrist will not be legalism, but rather lawlessness.”

In Phil Johnson’s “The History of Heresy: Five Errors that Refuse to Die” he says the following in the introduction: “In this seminar, we will look at five major heresies that have plagued the church again and again throughout history. Here are the five heretical groups we’ll talk about: the Judaizers, the Gnostics, the Arians, the Pelagians, and the Socinians.” Johnson’s thesis is that most heresies throughout church history fit into one of these five, or a combination thereof.

First on his list is by far the most recognized, legalism (Judaizers): “The apostles’ war with legalism permeates the book of Acts and most of the epistles.” Though this is somewhat true, the following is more accurate: heresies that promote disobedience; namely, antinomian type heresies, dwarf legalism throughout the Scriptures. The Bible begins with a deception that led to disobedience (Eve in the garden, Genesis 3:1-19), and ends accordingly ( Revelation 20:7-10). The Scriptures are also saturated with accounts of the same heretical endeavor between Genesis and Revelation.

In fact, legalistic heresies are barely mentioned in the Old Testament, if at all, and really don’t occupy that much of the New Testament, especially when compared to Antinomianism. By the way, in contrast to the popular myth of our day, the Lord’s contention with the Pharisees was not legalism, but rather replacing God’s Law with their own traditions which led to a disregard for the Law: “Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5: 19 ESV). Rather than “break” (KJV), to modify, relax (ESV), dissolve, or melt is a better rendering, and this is exactly what the Pharisees did by mixing God’s Law with their traditions (Matthew 15:3-9).

The following excerpt does a good job of explaining what Antinomianism is, and how much this subject is spoken of in Scripture:

SO WHAT’S IT MEAN?

‘Antinomian’ is pronounced [an-ta-nome´-ee-ann]. The word itself can be traced back to the Greek of the New Testament. It comes from putting two Greek words together: `anti (anti) and nomos (nomos). The first word “anti” taken by itself means, “over against or instead of”, and corresponds to our English word “anti”, which means “opposed to”.

The second half of the word ‘Antinomian’, which is the word “nomos”, means: (1) a law, rule, standard; (2) a rule of life or moral conduct. This is the same word that is translated “law” in “Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.”-KJV. Rom. 3:31. Consequently, when these two Greek words are combined, it gives the meaning: lawlessness; without, opposed to or against laws, standards, or rules of moral conduct.

IS ‘ANTINOMIAN’ A BIBLE WORD?

Yes, it most certainly is (in the Greek Language, that is).  It can be found in the following form 25 times throughout the New Testament.  This time it again comes from taking the Greek word “nomos”, but prefixing it with the negative particle “a” to give the Greek word “anomos”.  The Greek word “nomos” was previously defined as: a law, rule, standard; a rule of life or moral conduct.  When the negative article “a” is prefixed to it, the exact same meaning as our English word ‘Antinomian’ is derived.  The Greek translation for this New Testament word is: lawlessness; the condition of being without law; having contempt for law.

It is usually translated (Strongs # 458, 459) using vague words like ‘iniquity’, ‘wicked’, ‘unrighteousness’ or ‘transgressor’ (in the Authorized Version-KJV). It’s even more vague in all the newer translations. Only 6 times was it clearly translated (KJV) as ‘without law’, ‘lawless’, etc., in 3 verses only. However, understanding this word’s true meaning, brings new meaning and clarity to all verses that contain it. Even though it is found translated ‘iniquity in Matt. 7:23, the words ‘Antinomian’ or ‘lawlessness’ could rightfully be put there instead. It would then read, starting at verse 21, “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from Me, ye that work “lawlessness” (Antinomianism).

Other verses that condemn Antinomians to hell are: “The Son of man shall send forth His angels, and they shall gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and them which do ‘Antinomian(ism)‘.” “And because ‘Antinomians‘ shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.” “Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with ‘Antinomians‘? and what communion hath light with darkness?” “For the mystery of ‘Antinomian(ism)’ doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.” “Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all ‘Antinomian(ism)’, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good work (Matt.13:41; Matt. 24:12; 2 Cor. 6:14; 2 Thess. 2:7; Titus 2:14) [ see full article: goo.gl/hkoP ].

Therefore, though legalism is a big problem, the constant representation of legalism as the primary foe of the church is unmerited and misleading, and is often a ploy by the Antinomians themselves. Church history would agree with this as well. The apostle Paul said the mystery of Antinomianism was already at work during his time, and would be culminated by the appearing of the sultan of Antinomianism, the antichrist, or who he called the “lawless one” ( 2Thess. 2:7-12). Likewise, the apostle John said that in his time “many antichrists have come” and “antichrist is coming” (1John 2:18). John also said this is how we know that we are in the last age; it will be dominated by a spirit of lawlessness (1John 2:26- 3:10). In addition, Christ said the last days will be earmarked by cold hearts resulting from “lawlessness” (Matthew 24:12). Interesting, cold hearts don’t cause lawlessness; cold hearts are “because” of lawlessness. Something to think about. Please note: the forte of the antichrist will not be legalism, but rather lawlessness. And the present handy-work of his minions does not result in a climate of legalism, but rather lawlessness. This is undoubtedly what Samuel Rutherford had in mind when he entitled his treatise against Antinomianism, “A Survey of Spiritual Antichrist.”

Never the less, the thinking of the contemporary church is that Antinomianism is not the primary threat to the church’s purity. A few contemporary, and well noted teachers such as AW Tozar would disagree: “Fundamental Christianity in our times is deeply influenced by that ancient enemy of righteousness, Antinomianism” ( AW Tozar: “Paths to Power” WingSpread, 1964 ). Indeed, it seems that the mentality of our day is that Antinomainism disappeared after the great Antinomian controversies of the 17^th century. Church historians such as Tim Cooper have downplayed that controversy (and the Antinomian threat in general) by asserting that Richard Baxter, Samuel Rutherford, and others less notable, greatly exaggerated the threat (Tim Cooper: “Richard Baxter and Antinomianism” University of Cantebury, 1997). Of course, this is very unlikely when we consider what the apostles taught regarding lawlessness. It seems clear that the threat began in a significant way (the mystery of lawlessness) when Christ appeared, marking the beginning of the “last age” (Heb. 1:2), and will presumably increase with intensity until the “lawless one” appears. Therefore, we should expect that Antinomianism is very much alive and well in our present time as well as in times past.

In the great Antinomian controversy of the 17^th century, Richard Baxter and Samuel Rutherford took no prisoners and named names. The names were Robert Towne, William Dell, John Eaton, Tobias Crisp, John Traske, and John Saltmarsh. Like the Antinomians of our day, these men fiercely objected to the charge, but Baxter and Rutherford were not swayed, and Saltmarsh became a favorite target of Baxter till the end of his (Baxter’s) ministry. JC Ryle mentions this controversy in his “20 Letters on Holiness” which was Ryle’s own response to the Antinomian influences of his day in the 19^th century.

Without a doubt, the most distinguishing mark of Antinomians in the past and present is the synthesizing of justification and sanctification. James Durham said the following in regard to this point: “In some respects an opposite error to Popery, …the Antinomians … make all sanctification to be justification …” Tim Cooper, in the above cited dissertation, said this: “The Antinomians accepted that the Law should be preached to sinners, and both sides agreed that it played no part in the justification of those sinners, but the Antinomians refused to grant it a role in their sanctification” (p. 63). Another way of stating it would be “sanctification by faith alone,” just like justification is by faith alone. AW Tozar said the following in describing the Antinomian position: “What we do cannot matter as long as we believe rightly. The divorce between creed and conduct is absolute and final. The question of sin is settled by the Cross; conduct is outside the circle of faith and cannot come between the believer and God. Such in brief, is the teaching of the Antinomian.” JC Ryle said this in contending against the Antinomians of his day:

“It is thoroughly Scriptural and right to say “faith alone justifies.” But it is not equally Scriptural and right to say “faith alone sanctifies.” The saying requires very large qualification. Let one fact suffice. We are frequently told that a man is “justified by faith without the works of the law,” by St. Paul. But not once are we told that we are “sanctified by faith without the deeds of the law.” On the contrary, we are expressly told by St. James that the faith whereby we are visibly and demonstratively justified before man, is a faith which “if it has not works is dead, being alone” ( James 2:17).

How Antinomians have attempted to make this all fit together is varied, but necessarily accompanied by doublespeak and nuanced language because many of them throughout history have been, and are presently joined at the hip with orthodox Christianity. Such was the case with Dell, Towne, Saltmarsh et al. Tim Cooper, while downplaying the threat of Antinomianism during the 17^th century controversy, had this to say in regard to the Antinomians of that day:

“Yet it is not at all clear that this is what the Antinomians actually taught, and the confusion is not helped by their own ambiguity. For example, Robert Towne denied the law any place in sanctification, [by our efforts] while at the same time affirming “the use of the Morall Law to true beleevers. For it keeps them close in spirit and conscience through faith unto Christs righteousnesse” [In other words, it shows them what Christ did, or “Christs rightousnesse” in fulfilling the Law for us, since we are unable]. It was not the only place where he agreed that the law should be preached to believers, but his point was finely nuanced. “I wish that 1 be not mistaken, for 1 never deny the Law to be an etemall and inviolable Rule of Righteousness [ours? Or merely the “rule” itself?]: but yet affirme that its the Grace of the Gospel which effectually and truely confirmeth us thereunto” [Yes, because Christ also came (supposedly) to obey for us as well, and impute His obedience to us so that we don’t have to obey; this is considered to be part of the gospel by Antinomians]. Towne asserted that the law should be preached to believers because it set out the standard of righteousness, not forgetting that only the gospel of grace could ever bring the Christian to attain it. It was, perhaps, a subtlety that was lost on his opponents “(p.64) [not really, they knew what he was really saying].

Likewise, JC Ryle had this to say about the double-speaking Antinomians of his day:

“I may be told, in reply, that no one of course means to disparage ‘works’ as an essential part of a holy life. It would be well, however, to make this more plain then many seem to make it in these days.”

I do not believe that there has ever been a time in church history where the Dells and Townes have been missing, but in our day, the Baxters and the Ryles are nowhere to be found.

paul