The
word comes from the Greek anti (against) and nomos (law), and refers to the
doctrine that it is not necessary for Christians to preach and/or obey the
moral law of the OT. There have been several different justifications for this
view down through the centuries. Some have taught that once persons are
justified by faith in Christ, they no longer have any obligation toward the
moral law because Jesus has freed them from it. A variant of this first
position is that since Christ has raised believers above the positive precepts
of the law, they need to be obedient only to the immediate guidance of the Holy
Spirit, who will keep them from sin. A second view has been that since the law
came from the Demiurge (as in Gnosticism) and not from the true, loving Father,
it was a Christian's duty to disobey it. Third, others have said that since sin
is inevitable anyway, there is no need to resist it. An extension of this view
is the contention of some that since God, in his eternal decree, willed sin, it
would be presumptuous to resist it. Finally, still others have opposed the
preaching of the law on the grounds that it is unnecessary and, indeed,
contrary to the gospel of Jesus Christ.
It was the first of these views that the
apostle Paul had to address in various letters to Christian churches in the
first century. For example, there were those in the Corinth church who taught
that once people were justified by faith, they could engage in immorality since
there was no longer any obligation to obey the moral law (I Cor. 5-6). Paul
also had to correct others who obviously had drawn wrong conclusions from his
teachings on justification and grace (e.g., Rom. 3:8, 31). Paul himself agonized
over his own inability to meet the law's demands, but also exalted it as holy,
spiritual, and good (Rom. 7). Elsewhere he taught that the law was the
schoolmaster who brings sinners to a knowledge of their sin and therefore to
Christ (Gal. 3:24). He concluded that the proper relationship was that of the
stipulated works of the law flowing from the experience of saving grace rather
than vice versa (Rom. 6-8).
Perhaps the most extreme form of
antinomianism in early Christianity found expression in the Adamite sect in
North Africa. The Adamites flourished in the second and third centuries, called
their church "Paradise," condemned marriage because Adam had not
observed it, and worshiped in the nude.
Many Gnostics in the first centuries of the
Christian era held the second of these variations of antinomianism, that the
Demiurage, not the true God, gave the moral law; therefore it should not be
kept. Some forms of antinomian Gnosticism survived well into the Middle Ages.
Moreover, various medieval heretical groups preached Corinthian-style freedom
from the law, some going so far as to claim that even prostitution was not
sinful for the spiritual person.
The two most famous antinomian controversies
in Christian history occurred in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, and
involved Martin Luther and Anne Hutchinson, respectively. In fact, it was
Luther who actually coined the word "antinomianism" in his
theological struggle with his former student, Johann Agricola. In the early
days of the Reformation, Luther had taught that, after NT times, the moral law
had only the negative value of preparing sinners for grace by making them aware
of their sin. Agricola denied even this function of the law, believing that
repentance should be induced only through the preaching of the gospel of
salvation by grace through faith in Christ.
This first major theological controversy in
Protestant history lasted intermittently from 1537 to 1540. During this time
Luther began to stress the role of the law in Christian life and to preach that
it was needed to discipline Christians. He also wrote an important theological
treatise to refute antinomianism once and for all: Against the Antinomians
(1539). The whole matter was finally settled for Lutheranism by the Formula of
Concord in 1577, which recognized a threefold use of the law: (1) to reveal
sin, (2) to establish general decency in society at large, and (3) to provide a
rule of life for those who have been regenerated through faith in Christ.
There were several outbreaks of antinomianism
in the Puritan movement in seventeenth century England. However, the major
controversy over this teaching among Puritans came in New England in the 1630s
in connection with an outspoken woman named Anne Marbury Hutchinson, who emigrated
to Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1634. At the time, the New England Puritans were
attempting to clarify the place of "preparation for conversion" in
covenant (or federal) theology. They had come to the conclusion that salvation
lay in fulfilling the conditions of God's covenant with humankind, including
preparation for justification and a conscious effort toward sancitification. To
some, including Hutchinson, this seemed like an overemphasis on the observance
of the law, and she condemned it as a "covenant of works." Instead,
she stressed the "covenant of grace," which she said was apart from
the works of the law. She began to hold informal meetings in her home to
expound her views and to denounce those of the preachers in Massachusetts.
In the context of the great stress of the
times, it was only a few years before the civil war erupted in England and the
colony lived in tense frontier circumstances, the New England clergy probably
misunderstood her main concerns and overreacted to what they perceived to be a
threat to the unity and internal security of the Puritan community. At a synod
of Congregational churches in 1637 Hutchinson was condemned as an antinomian,
enthusiast, and heretic, and banished from the colony. In 1638 she moved to
Rhode Island.
In the twentieth century some have viewed
existentialist ethics, situation ethics, and moral relativism as forms of
antinomianism because these either reject or diminish the normative force of
moral law. Certainly most orthodox Christians today agree that the law served
the twin purposes of establishing the fact of human sin and of providing moral
guidelines for Christian living. In general the various antinomian
controversies in history have clarified the legitimate distinctions between law
and gospel and between justification and sanctification.
The Christian community as a whole has
rejected antinomianism over the years for several reasons. It has regarded the
view as damaging to the unity of the Bible, which demands that one part of the
divine revelation must not contradict another. Even more important, it has
argued that antinomians misunderstood the nature of justification by faith,
which, though granted apart from the works of the law, is not sanctification.
In general, orthodoxy teaches that the moral principles of the law are still
valid, not as objective strivings but as fruits of the Holy Spirit at work in
the life of the believer. This disposes of the objection that since the law is
too demanding to be kept, it can be completely thrust aside as irrelevant to
the individual living under grace. R. D. LINDER