1. Historical Overview
Rev J R Tallach
The word antinomianism is composed of two words: anti meaning against, and nomos the law. The law in this context means the ten words delivered by God to Moses on Mount Sinai, written with God’s own finger on the two tables of stone which were subsequently laid up in the ark. Reformed opinion generally is that the law has three uses in these latter days of the Church of God. First, the law is that which condemns the sinner and brings him in guilty before God. “Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law; for sin is the transgression of the law” (1 Jn 3:4). Second, it is by the law the sinner comes to an end of himself and is led to Christ. “Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith” (Gal
1The first part of a paper given at the Theological Conference in Inverness in 2012.
3:24). Third, the law is a rule and guide to the believer throughout his wilderness journey in this world. The Lord upon whom he leans in coming up out of the wilderness says, “If ye love me, keep My commandments” (Jn 14:15).
Calvin is his usual succinct self when he writes, “The third use of the law (being also the principal use, and more closely connected with its proper end) has respect to believers in whose heart the Spirit of God already flourishes and reigns. For although the law is written and engraven on their hearts by the finger of God, that is, although they are so influenced and actuated by the Spirit that they desire to obey God, there are two ways in which they still profit in the law. For it is the best instrument for enabling them daily to learn with greater truth and certainty what that will of the Lord is which they aspire to follow, and to confirm them in this knowledge. . . .
“None have as yet attained to such a degree of wisdom, as that they may not, by the daily instruction of the law, advance to a purer knowledge of the divine will. Then, because we need not doctrine merely, but exhortation also, the servant of God will derive this further advantage from the law: by frequently meditating upon it, he will be excited to obedience, and confirmed in it, and so drawn away from the slippery paths of sin. In this way must the saints press forward, since, however great the alacrity with which, under the Spirit, they hasten toward righteousness, they are retarded by the sluggishness of the flesh and make less progress than they ought. The law acts like a whip to the flesh, urging it on as men do a lazy, sluggish ass. Even in the case of the spiritual man, inasmuch as he is still burdened with the weight of the flesh, the law is a constant stimulus, pricking him forward when he would indulge in sloth.”2
James Buchanan points to a very helpful distinction between Antinomian theory, where Antinomian beliefs are defined and defended, and an Antinomian tendency,3 which is the natural and inveterate bias of the natural heart and the law in one’s members, which Paul mourned over in Romans 7. “There is only one heresy, and that is Antinomianism,” says Rabbi Duncan.4 He thus puts his finger on the truth that the carnal mind is incapable of subjection to divine law.
The present paper is divided into the following sections:
- A history of Antinomianism from Apostolic times.
- John Eaton, “father of Antinomianism”.
- A theological / biblical view of the matters raised.
- Some practical observations.
2John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 2.7.12 (Beveridge translation).
3See his The Doctrine of Justification, p 167.
4John Duncan, Colloquia Peripatetica, p 70.
1. Historical Overview.5 (1.) The Apostolic period. Though the term Antinomianism does not occur in the New Testament it is evident from the writings of the Apostles that this matter became a serious issue in their time. Having referred to the sins of the flesh, Paul goes on to say, “Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience” (Eph 5:6). Peter writes, “There were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them and bring upon themselves swift destruction” (2 Pet 2:1). “Do we then”, Paul asks, “make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law” (Rom 3:31). The Nicolaitans held to the doctrine of Balaam (Rev 2:6,14,15), allowing fornication and moral licence in things they considered indifferent.
(2.) The Patristic Period. Gnosticism was a continual danger to the infant Church. Antinomianism developed from this error because of speculative views of the manner in which evil arose and the nature of evil itself. Gnostics taught that the bodily nature was so intrinsically evil that it was beyond the control of the spirit and therefore the actions of the body were indifferent. A community of goods and women was advocated by some of this sect, and they thought the Fall constituted an advance in Man’s knowledge. An apocryphal Gospel of Judas was said to be the only source of truth. A Syrian Gnostic called Cerdo (c. 150 AD) denied that the Old Testament Creation was the Father of Jesus, and his most famous disciple Marcion removed the law from his canon of the Bible and falsely opposed law and love.
(3.) The Medieval Period. In the Middle Ages, Antinomian influences arose from pantheistic6 and mystical movements. A pantheistic society in Paris in the thirteenth century taught that all laws were at an end in the reign of the Holy Spirit. In the same century a group called the Brethren of the Free Spirit in Strasbourg taught that the Spirit led, apart from the law. A mystical group, the Family of Love, or the Familiars, (fifteenth and sixteenth centuries) denied imputed righteousness and concerned themselves entirely with inner experience. The law, as well as the gospel, was said to be of help at a lower level of experience, but both were abolished by love. Both the literal truth and the historical basis of the gospel disappeared in a cloud of “spirituality” which blotted out everything else.
(4.) Luther and Agricola. Johannes Agricola of Eisleben (1492-1566) was
5This section is based on an article by Edwin H Palmer published in The Encyclopedia of Christianity, vol 1, NFCE, 1964.
6Pantheism teaches that the entire universe is the ever-changing form of one single universal substance, which is God (see A A Hodge, Outlines of Theology, pp 50,51).
a close associate of Luther during the Reformation who developed a distorted view of justification by faith which Luther termed “Antinomian”. Among other dangerous tenets, Agricola taught that: when you are in the midst of sin, you only have to believe and you are in the midst of salvation; the law is not worthy to be called the Word of God; a believer is above all law and all obedience. Luther took issue with Agricola, who finally recanted, but damage was done. Luther taught three uses of the law: (1) to manifest sin; (2) to instruct as a schoolmaster to Christ; (3) “that the saints might know what works God requires, in which they can exercise obedience towards God”. These uses of the law were settled as Lutheran doctrine in the Formula of Concord of 1577.
(5.) Calvin and the Libertines. The Libertines in Geneva, led by Antoine Pocquet, contended with Calvin. Among other errors they taught a form of spiritual pantheism and a Christian liberty which made all things lawful. Calvin repudiated their teaching that God was in all things equally, in such a way as to obliterate all right or wrong, God being the Author of all. For the Libertines, mortification of sin consisted in ignoring it. They taught that wives and goods may be held in common and that the resurrection was past. Calvin wrote against the Libertines and was successful in confining their malign influence to parts of Holland.
(6.) Puritan England. During the seventeenth century, Antinomianism sprang up among the Puritans. The practical consequences of the doctrine of justification were the occasion of this flare up, just as it had been the occasion for Antinomianism on the Continent during the sixteenth century. Tobias Crisp (c1600-1643), Rector of Brinkworth, promoted Antinomianism but was said to do so with a view to exalting Christ alone. His writing and actions bore no evidence of a spirit of licence. However he did write, “Sin does no manner of hurt to believers, and . . . a believer, immediately after committing the most atrocious crime, is as much assured of pardon, as he can be after the deepest humiliation”. Another prominent Antinomian was John Saltmarsh (died 1647) Rector of Brasted and chaplain to General Fairfax. Claiming to have had a revelation of his own eternal election, and having had several moral lapses of which he made light, he was deemed to be either mentally unbalanced or a religious imposter.
The various strands of Antinomianism are deemed difficult to unravel and define and some of them may simply reflect verbal ambiguity. Crisp taught that sin itself, not merely guilt, was laid on Christ. Samuel Rutherford pointed out that this confusion between “fault” and “guilt” vitiated the very doctrine of imputed righteousness, as well as that of progressive sanctification. Antinomianism even raised the issue of perfectionism, when the sins of justified
persons were denied to be sins before God. A high assurance, apart from self-examination as to the presence of marks of grace, was another feature of Antinomianism. Assurance was held to be of the essence of justifying faith, since justifying faith had already resulted in the justification of the believing sinner. This evangelical Antinomianism was tied to the concept of the free offer of the gospel to “sinners as sinners” without any preparatory work of the Spirit being evident in heart or life. The fear here was that this would lead to universal redemption. This was the apprehension that led to opposition to The Marrow of Modern Divinity by seventeenth and eighteenth century theologians, on account of Arminianism as well as Antinomianism.
(7.) Puritan New England. Mrs Anne Hutchinson, a member of John Cotton’s congregation, taught Antinomian and libertine opinions in her home under the guise of going over the sermon. The following quotations are attributed to her: “In the conversion of a sinner, the faculties and workings of the soul in things pertaining to God are destroyed”; “The law, and preaching of it, are of no use to drive men to Christ”; “The Christian is not bound to the law as a rule of his Christian walking”; “In the saints there is no inherent grace, but Christ is all”; “Sanctification rather darkens justification. The darker my sanctification is, the more evident my justification”.
Thomas Shepherd’s comments were trenchant: those who “deny the use of the law to any that are in Christ” become “patrons of free vice under the mask of free grace”. Cotton himself held that those who looked to sanctification as evidence of their justification place their faith “not on Him that justifieth the ungodly (which is the faith of the godly) . . . but on Him which justifieth the godly; which is such a faith as Adam might have and so belongeth to the covenant of works”. However, eventually even Cotton felt obliged to disown Anne Hutchinson; she was banished to Rhode Island and shortly thereafter was killed by Indians.
(8.) Since the Puritan Era. Some of the English Baptists and Independents have exhibited Antinomian features. Though he renounced Antinomianism in later life, Joseph Hart clearly supported this error in his younger days. After his conversion, Hart’s motto was: “Pharisaic zeal and Antinomian security are the two engines of Satan with which he grinds the Church in all ages as between the upper and lower mill-stones. The space between them is much narrower and harder to find than most men imagine. It is a path which the vulture’s eye hath not seen, and none can show it us but the Holy Ghost.” William Huntington maintained a false antithesis between law and the precepts of the gospel. These tendencies may still be discerned in English Hyper-Calvinists, in that they deny the Lord’s command to preach the free offer of the gospel to all sinners, while being quite against Antinomianism in
its other expressions. J N Darby among the Brethren taught Antinomianism by separating law and gospel into two separate dispensations. Neo-orthodox7 and Evangelical Christians who exempt the believer from keeping the Sabbath are preaching and practising a form of Antinomianism.
Book Reviews
While the Bridegroom Tarries, by R B Kuiper, published by the Banner of Truth Trust, paperback, 159 pages, £6.25, obtainable from the F P Bookroom.
Professor Kuiper (1886-1966) was a respected teacher in Westminster Seminary in its earlier days. He would often ask when assessing his students’ discourses: “Does this sermon preach Christ?” This book consists of sermons he preached in 1919, when he was a minister in Grand Rapids. They were originally subtitled, Ten After-the-War Sermons on the Signs of the Times.
With the carnage of World War I in the immediate past, Kuiper was at pains to stress in the first of these sermons that “wars must be considered judgements of God upon sinful humanity”, and pointed beyond such judgements to Christ coming “as a thief” to the final judgement. He closed appropriately with the gospel call of Revelation 22:17: “And the Spirit and the bride say, Come . . .”.
One does have some reservations, however. While Kuiper does accept that the pope is an Antichrist, he does not believe that he is the Antichrist; he declares wrongly that “the personal Antichrist has not yet appeared”. He takes an Amillennial view of future prophecy and describes “so-called” Postmillennarians as teaching “that the world is gradually becoming better”. Certainly classical Postmillennarians do not so teach; they look for the gospel to be blessed by divine power, on a large scale, throughout the world. Yet there is much in these sermons that is helpful.
The Free Offer, Biblical & Reformed, by David Silversides, published by the Marpet Press, hardback, 128 pages, £4.95, obtainable from the F P Bookroom.
This book is intended to refute the views of the Protestant Reformed Churches. One of their writers is quoted as expressing discomfort even with the idea that God shows longsuffering “toward the wicked”. Another writer, in the denominational periodical, The Standard Bearer, has been rash enough to call Ebenezer Erskine an Arminian (possibly without reading a word of this godly Calvinist’s sermons).
7Neo-orthodoxy is “the teaching which professes to hold to orthodoxy but also teaches the necessity of a reappraisal of Reformation teachings” (W A Elwell, Evangelical Dictionary of Theology).
The form of the discussion in this book is largely determined by the views the author is opposing, and this does not make the book as helpful to most readers as it might otherwise have been. One would have liked to see stress laid on the divine command as the basis for the free offer of the gospel to sinners. A A Hodge brings out this point clearly: “As to the warrant for the ministerial offer of salvation to all, it must be found alone in the great commission with which every minister is sent out by the authority of the Master Himself. . . . No servant has any right to go back of his commission and insist upon understanding his Master’s secret purposes or aims. No matter what else is true or not true, the command to ‘go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature’ is the entire and all-sufficient warrant for the ministerial offer.”1
An important chapter on “The Warrant of Faith” is helpfully subdivided as follows: “1. The warrant of faith is not the knowledge of our election. 2. The warrant of faith is not the knowledge that ‘Christ died for me’. 3. The warrant of faith is not conviction of sin. 4. The warrant of faith is the indiscriminate gospel offer addressed to every sinner who hears.” The author quotes liberally from reliable writers from the Reformation period onwards, and these alone make the purchase of the book eminently worthwhile.
Rome and the Threat to Our Protestant Faith, by Matthew Henry, published privately, booklet, 40 pages, distributed without charge by Settle Graphics, Providence Place, Prospect Terrace, Settle, BD24 9BL.
When commenting on the scripture, “Which have said to thy soul, Bow down, that we may go over” (Is 51:23), Matthew Henry says, “Herein the New Testament Babylon treads in the steps of that old oppressor [ancient Babylon], tyrannising over men’s consciences, giving law to them, putting them upon the rack, and compelling them to sinful compliances. Those that set up an infallible head and judge, requiring an implicit faith in his dictates and obedience to his commands, do in effect say to men’s souls, ‘Bow down, that we may go over’.”
Several years later, in 1712 (less than two years before his death), Henry preached from these words to his congregation in London (to which he had been called that year). This booklet gives us the whole sermon, of substantial length and originally published under the title Popery, a Spiritual Tyranny. It was preached on the anniversary of the Gunpowder Plot, and when the government of the day was trying to remove the Protestant succession so that James Edward Stuart (“The Old Pretender”), a devoted Romanist, might occupy the throne. “We are this day giving God thanks,” Henry said, “for the deliverance of our land from Popery; its first deliverance at the Refor-
1A A Hodge, The Atonement, Evangelical Press reprint, 1974, p 419.
mation . . . [and] particularly, its deliverance from that base and barbarous design of blowing up the Parliament house with gunpowder.”
The “doctrine” of the sermon is: “It is an unspeakable mercy to be delivered from those who usurp a dominion, and exercise a tyranny, over the souls and consciences of men”. He then shows the tyrannical nature of Popery in being an “invasion” (1) upon the prerogatives of Christ the King and (2) upon the rights and liberties of Christians.
As there are certain parallels between the time when the sermon was first published and our own day, its present republication is timely. Not only is the image of Popery being enhanced today under the populist skills of the new pontiff, but also the British Deputy Prime Minister has tabled a Bill that would, in effect, repeal the Act of Settlement 1701, which underlies our Protestant throne. Already, the Succession to the Crown Bill, which has been given royal assent and will be implemented as soon as it is approved by the members of the Commonwealth, allows a member of the Royal Family to marry a Roman Catholic and not be excluded from the line of succession to the throne.
We warmly commend this instructive and practical booklet, which will be a help in seeking to contend and pray that the Protestant constitution of the throne be maintained.
(Rev) N M Ross
Protestant View
Serious Failure in Addressing Abuse Scandal
Alan Draper, a lecturer in ethics and a former child protection adviser to the Roman Catholic diocese of Motherwell, under Bishop Joseph Devine, has criticised the way the Church has handled cases of abuse by priests and has called its procedures a sham. One report states that he knows of 20 abuse cases where no action was taken. Mr Draper alleges that during his seven years working for the diocese, the Church did not produce the annual audits of abuse claims it promised in 1996, or give any details of a proper policy.
He resigned in 2003 because his advice was repeatedly ignored, he alleges, and he did not get the support he needed from the Church authorities when he tried to implement good practice. The Church is not denying his allegations or calling his truthfulness in question.
It is also significant that Bishop Devine’s mismanagement of the diocese seems to be the cause of his resignation being accepted by the Vatican recently despite no successor having been found. Although he tendered his resignation last year, he was to remain in post for up to two years.
If what Mr Draper alleges is true, it confirms again the incurable corruption of Romanism. Only the coming of Christ’s kingdom and the complete demolition of the whole structure will bring an end to the abuse suffered by its numerous victims. “Thy kingdom come.” NMR
Papal Ambassador in Scotland
The BBC reported at the end of May that the Vatican ambassador to the UK had been in Scotland in connection with the resignation of Bishop Devine and the ongoing “senior management” crisis in the Scottish Roman Catholic Church. At the time of writing, four of the eight Scottish dioceses are vacant, though new appointments are expected shortly.
Britain should not have diplomatic links with the bogus Vatican City state, which has no schools, hardly any births, hardly any women, and no genuine citizens. If the Papal ambassador were to confine himself to ordinary political relations between Britain and the Vatican City State, he would have absolutely no work to do because there are no such relations: no trade, no immigration, nothing to discuss at all. Instead we find this ambassador visiting Scotland and involving himself in the internal affairs of Scotland. In particular, he has the power to appoint Roman Catholic bishops who, regrettably, are significant political figures in Scotland. If the ambassador of, say, Pakistan were to come up to Scotland for a similar purpose, there would be general concern, but our rulers habitually allow themselves to be blinded by the absurd pretences of Romanism.
We are glad that Romanism, with her soul-destroying doctrines, is in disarray in Scotland but we are not hopeful that her decline is terminal. She has all the resilience of Satan behind her. The BBC describes the Papal ambassador’s visit as “an opportunity to rebuild the Church, and to do so along more modern lines”, and we fear that this is what may happen. Nevertheless, we pray that the Lord would turn the counsel of the Papal Ahithophel to foolishness (2 Sam 15:31). DWBS
Notes and Comments
Prayer and Same-Sex “Marriage”
The Synod appointed 29 May 2013 as a special day of prayer to plead with the Lord that He would overthrow current attempts to redefine marriage. The second reading of the Government’s Bill, in the House of Commons last February, was agreed by 400 votes to 175, a majority of 225. On May 21, the day the Synod met, the debate on the third reading took place. After dis-
cussion of potential amendments, the Bill passed by 366 votes to 161. It then went to the House of Lords for an immediate first reading. On June 4 the Lords voted by 390 votes to 148 in support of the second reading of the Bill. This large majority makes it seem very unlikely, humanly speaking, that the Bill will now be derailed.
Both our Houses of Parliament are implicated in this vile sin, in the face of the prayers of God’s people but, more solemnly, in the face of God’s holy law. We are at a critical stage in our nation’s history, and how we should tremble! As with the Scottish Executive’s proposals, the UK Government has no mandate for its actions. No political party suggested these changes in its election manifesto. There have even been allegations of “varying degrees of coercion” of Conservative MPs to vote for the proposals, though there were, supposedly, free votes.
The homosexual juggernaut is gathering momentum across the world. The Obama administration has allocated $3 million of taxpayers’ money to set up a political “Global Equality Fund”, promoting the homosexuality agenda throughout the world. This and some EU Commission money is to be used to fund a campaign “against legislation that defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman”. France became the thirteenth country to legalise same-sex “marriage”, amidst bitter controversy and violence. The first “ceremony” took place on May 29 in the presence of riot police, highlighting the strength of feeling in that country. New Zealand’s House of Representatives passed legislation which is to come into force in August this year, the first country in the Asia-Pacific region to do so. Thankfully Australia voted overwhelmingly to reject a change in the law.
Great Britain has, of course, already legitimised homosexuality. A few decades ago it was a criminal offence to practise sodomy. Now civil partnerships confer on same-sex couples the same legal rights as married couples. However, not content with that sin, the Government is determined to make same-sex “marriage” a legal reality. Yet it can never, in fact, be a reality; whatever same-sex “marriage” may be called, it is not marriage. We read in the Bible: “For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh” (Eph 5:31). The great cry is for equality, but God has not made men and women the same. They are made in His image to complement each other, biologically and emotionally, within marriage. Culturally and historically, society throughout the centuries has generally recognised this.
God thus accused Jerusalem of her uncleanness: “Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fullness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of
the poor and the needy. And they were haughty, and committed abominations before Me: therefore I took them away as I saw good” (Ezek 16:49,50). Sin never comes alone. One sin opens the door for another and this is manifest in our country. The connection may seem tenuous, but the day after the Bill passed its third reading in the Commons, a soldier was brutally murdered outside a London army barracks.
Our land is being polluted. What danger we are in of being judged, as Sodom was! Christian Medical Fellowship CEO Peter Saunders’ solemn warning is timely: “The destruction of Sodom was a real historical event which, Scripture teaches, serves as a warning of much greater destruction and devastation which is coming after death to those who refuse to repent and believe – the eternal fire of hell. But the sin of Sodom was far more than sexual immorality, which is only a symptom of its real root – a proud and arrogant dismissal of God’s existence and authority and a deliberate choice to live our own way rather than God’s way.”
Yet God graciously calls us to prayer – not only on a special day, but every day: “If my people, which are called by My name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land” (2 Chr 7:14). We know that God can hear our unworthy prayers for the sake of Christ and mercifully grant us repentance nationally. We must remember that we also need the grace of repentance personally, as our deceitful hearts are so ready to breathe in the spiritually-toxic atmosphere of our age. KHM