Antinomian gospel?
- Thread starter Herald
- Start date
- Status
Are you going to sleep tonight?
Hmmm...that's a good question on whether it is axiomatic. I think it could be an axiom of antinomianism. It is not the only type of antinomianism that I could conceive of but one that denied the necessity of repentance from sin would necessarily deprecate the nature of God's Law.
Hmmm...that's a good question on whether it is axiomatic. I think it could be an axiom of antinomianism. It is not the only type of antinomianism that I could conceive of but one that denied the necessity of repentance from sin would necessarily deprecate the nature of God's Law.
Sydnorphyn
Puritan Board Freshman
I answer that: Bill, define your use of "gospel" and "repentance."
CJ
CJ
John - the gospel is the εὐαγγέλιον; the message of redemption through faith in Christ Jesus (c.f. Matthew 9:35; Mark 14:9; Romans 1:16). I would argue the repentance I am referring to is a response, made possible by faith, to the gospel message. That repentance is μετάνοια; a change of mind or purpose. Used together, the gospel message that results in regeneration in the heart of an individual will result in repentance as defined previously.
No. My internal body clock is a mess. I am going to do a hard reboot and pull an all-nighter.
I guess when you first proposed the axiom, it was not really my first thought for how I would define an antinomian. The fact that some may not feel the need to repent would be symptomatic but not primary.
More fundamentally, it seems, that type of antinomian doesn't recognize the Holy character of the Law, that it reflects God's Holiness, that it is normative, and that they will be judged according to it.
I think there are even some classes of antinomians that probably believed they had to repent of their sins and trust in Christ to some extent but, being done, they now feel no gravity to the demands that the Law places upon a believer in the pursuit of sanctification - not to achieve Justification but as an outworking of our union with Christ. I would say a majority of Evangelicals are antinomian in this regard. Many kind of know they need to repent but then they kind of miss the part where they're not supposed to sin all the more so that Grace can abound.
Even on this board we have to battle a "laid back" attitude about the character of God and repeated charges that Reformed piety is really legalism. There is a lack of mature discernment between a trust in self-righteousness and a pursuit of the things that please God.
I could probably develop this further but, while early there, it is getting late here and will take this up a bit more tomorrow.
Blessings!
Rich
Rich - interesting and I'm glad the discussion is going this way. You seem to be indicating that antinomianism is not an all or nothing proposition; that is has varying levels or degrees. Most of us on the PB would raise a red flag if antinomianism was apparent on the front end of the ordo salutis. But the "back end" part - namely sanctification - may be where some lower their guard. I would be interested in developing this a bit further also.
JohnOwen007
Puritan Board Sophomore
Paul can present the gospel without including a call to faith and repentance in 1 Cor. 15:3-4, Rom. 1:2-4, and 2 Tim. 2:8.
However, we can then unpack the gospel and show that it includes the call to faith and repentance (Acts 14:15) precisely because Christ is saviour (which demands faith) and Lord (which demands repentance).
If someone says that the gospel doesn't include repentance ever, then we have an antinomian gospel (taught by the likes of Tobias Crisp).
Blessings.
Amazing Grace
Puritan Board Junior
The antinomian Gospel could also be defined as "BAre mental Assent" of Glas and his son-in-law Sandeman.
Amazing Grace
Puritan Board Junior
Antinomianism comes in different flavors, where it cannot be pinned down to neatly. I would go to John Agricola vs Luther for some good reading on this. This would be more correctly be pinned on the Non Lordship people as Zane Hodges who have redefined the place of repentance.
Concerning Repentance, by James Durham
Above is a good article by Durham.
I do have a question though, I have yet to find one accused of being antinomian who publicaly announces one can live in the mire of sin willingly and yet be counted as elect. Jude mentions those who turn the grace of God into Licensiusness, but if they exist, I cant find any. Obviously some have, and must be discounted as wrong. Has anyone else found this? We must remember the Paul was accused of being an antinomian. In fact as my signature states, anyone who magnifies the free grace of our Lord in salvation over and above Law or obedience is preaching the true Gospel. MLJ....
One issue that I have yet to be solid on is what brings repentance? Is it the Law or Gospel? This is another issue surrounding the antinomian controversey
Amazing Grace
Puritan Board Junior
'bump'
Sydnorphyn
Puritan Board Freshman
a verb needed
Bill, I answer that: I think you need a verb for repentance (μετάνοew), not a noun...ok, but what is the gospel according to Isaiah of which the gospel writers build? Yes, you definitions is correct, but not complete. See you next weekend...SPADES is on, by brother.
Johnny O
Bill, I answer that: I think you need a verb for repentance (μετάνοew), not a noun...ok, but what is the gospel according to Isaiah of which the gospel writers build? Yes, you definitions is correct, but not complete. See you next weekend...SPADES is on, by brother.
Johnny O
I would have to say that repentance is a gift from God, given to us through the means of the Gospel. The Law only brings us to a knowledge of our sinfulness and our need for a Savior. It is the message of the gospel that can effect a change in our hearts. It is only open hearing the "good news" of forgiveness in Christ, that we are able to turn away from our sin and turn to Christ.
That's my 2 cents. Also, this is my first post on the PB. Hi to you all and I look forward to much discussion and learning and sharpening here. It was only this past February that God opened my eyes to the glorious truths of calvinsm/reformed theology/doctrines of grace.
Last edited:
R. Scott Clark
Puritan Board Senior
I know it is widely believed that Crisp was antinomian, but there are good reasons for doubting that conclusion.
Buchanan says, “the real Antinomians” were those who sought to relax” the requirements of the law and “to substitute an imperfect, for a perfect righteousness as the ground of the sinner’s acceptance with God” (177)
Buchanan suggests that he was anti-Neonomian rather than Antinomian.
See C. F. Allison, The Rise of Moralism: The Proclamation of the Gospel from Hooker to Baxter (London: SPCK, 1966), 172.
rsc
Buchanan says, “the real Antinomians” were those who sought to relax” the requirements of the law and “to substitute an imperfect, for a perfect righteousness as the ground of the sinner’s acceptance with God” (177)
Buchanan suggests that he was anti-Neonomian rather than Antinomian.
See C. F. Allison, The Rise of Moralism: The Proclamation of the Gospel from Hooker to Baxter (London: SPCK, 1966), 172.
rsc
R. Scott Clark
Puritan Board Senior
Why can't we simply say that repentance is the fruit of faith? Do unbelievers repent? No.
To build repentance into faith in the act of justification is to do more than the WCF does in ch. 11 and more than HC 21 and 60 do.
We seem to be terrified to let grace be grace. We seem to be bent on building sanctity into justification so we can get people to be good.
It doesn't work. Yes, believers must be good or strive to be good. Anyone who denies the moral and logical necessity of sanctity as a consequence of justification, as evidence of justification, as vindication of the claim to justification runs crosswise to James 2. Believers are obligated to obey the law, as consequence of justification not as a condition of justification or as a part of faith in the act of justification.
Anyone who says that Christians are not obligated to the law is antinomian. It is not antinomian to deny that repentance is a part of the gospel or else a good number of orthodox Reformed theologians (including at least one of the authors of the Heidelberg Catechism) is antinomian.
Let's be careful about tossing this word about.
rsc
To build repentance into faith in the act of justification is to do more than the WCF does in ch. 11 and more than HC 21 and 60 do.
We seem to be terrified to let grace be grace. We seem to be bent on building sanctity into justification so we can get people to be good.
It doesn't work. Yes, believers must be good or strive to be good. Anyone who denies the moral and logical necessity of sanctity as a consequence of justification, as evidence of justification, as vindication of the claim to justification runs crosswise to James 2. Believers are obligated to obey the law, as consequence of justification not as a condition of justification or as a part of faith in the act of justification.
Anyone who says that Christians are not obligated to the law is antinomian. It is not antinomian to deny that repentance is a part of the gospel or else a good number of orthodox Reformed theologians (including at least one of the authors of the Heidelberg Catechism) is antinomian.
Let's be careful about tossing this word about.
rsc
Amazing Grace
Puritan Board Junior
Your first part is a very broad brush RSC. DO you mean obligated to the 3rd use? or all uses?
Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
I think I read in Robert Reymond's Systematic Theology that Zane Hodges did not believe that it was necessary for people to repent in order to be saved. Is this true.
Bygracealone
Puritan Board Sophomore
Well said brother, I was going to post something along these same lines. If I remember correctly, wasn't this the very issue that brought about the Marrow Controversy--repentance as a condition of justification?
Like faith, repentance is a gift from God and follows regeneration. We should expect to see these things in the life of one truly justified, but not as a prerequisite for justification.
What brought about the Marrow Controversy was the Auchterarder Creed, which said, “It is not sound and orthodox to teach that we must forsake sin in order to our coming to Christ." In other words, the creed was saying that it is not sound and orthodox to teach that we must repent of our sins in order to come to Christ. The creed was condemned by the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. The Marrow Men agreed with the creed whereas the Neonomians did not.
First, I want to note that I am not sure when I answered this thread initially that I was thinking about the nature of the Gospel as much as the nature of antinomianism.
Second, I'm trying to understand how you are distinguishing faith from repentance in your warning. When Peter addressed the multitude at Pentecost, he identified Christ as the Messiah who they put to death and leaves them condemned under the Law of God. When they ask "What must we do to be saved?" are you stating that Peter was adding sanctity to justification by answering: “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.”
What, precisely, is the sinner laying hold of in Christ if he has not first seen his sin and need for Christ? I'm sure I'm missing something here. I would never say that our repentance is faith or is also an instrument of our justification. I understand that repentance is a fruit of our faith but you seem to be distinguishing between them to the point of separating repentance out from the Gospel presentation itself and I simply don't understand how that can be accomplished.
I understand if someone stated that repentance needed to be added to saving faith for justification why you would be cautious here but the question was whether the Gospel includes repentance and I can't think of an example in the Scriptures where the person was not enjoined to repent.
R. Scott Clark
Puritan Board Senior
Yes, I was referring to the third use of the law.
Anyone who denies the third use of the law (tertius usus legis) is neither confessionally Reformed or confessionally Lutheran, since the Book of Concord teaches the third use of the law explicitly.
rsc
Anyone who denies the third use of the law (tertius usus legis) is neither confessionally Reformed or confessionally Lutheran, since the Book of Concord teaches the third use of the law explicitly.
rsc
R. Scott Clark
Puritan Board Senior
I don't think the gospel can be properly defined to include repentance. That is relative to the law and our sin, not the good news of Christ's work for us.
Good news: You must repent!
Oh, wait, that's not good news.
Try:
Good news: Christ has accomplished all righteousness and freely justifies all who trust him and his finished work!
These are two different kinds of speech.
The fact that the two are closely associated in the proclamation of the Christian message doesn't mean that, strictly speaking, the one is the other or that they are interchangeable.
It helps to distinguish between the order of teaching and the order of salvation.
rsc
Good news: You must repent!
Oh, wait, that's not good news.
Try:
Good news: Christ has accomplished all righteousness and freely justifies all who trust him and his finished work!
These are two different kinds of speech.
The fact that the two are closely associated in the proclamation of the Christian message doesn't mean that, strictly speaking, the one is the other or that they are interchangeable.
It helps to distinguish between the order of teaching and the order of salvation.
rsc
JohnOwen007
Puritan Board Sophomore
That's a caricature of the classic Puritan position which Owen, Sibbes, Manton, Brooks, Pemble et. al. adhered to. It's this:
Gospel: Christ has won for you justification and new life, live it out (repent).
Law: You must do, otherwise you will be punished.
The obedience the gospel demands, is not to be justified, but because one is already justified.
The gospel is what Christ has done for us. And in Christ's work he's not only won justification but also the transformation of our lives. Wasn't it some Olevian guy who saw a double benefit Christ won for us?
Our actual obedience itself is not the gospel (what Christ does in us). But the gospel unpacked includes the call to live out the new transformed life Christ has won for us.
[1] "Good news" is not necessarily the best translation of evangelion precisely because it's not good news for unbelievers. It's better translated "big news". To think that it has to mean the combination of the two words "good" and "news" is like thinking that "butterfly" is fly made up of butter.
[2] The NT places the call to repentance in the gospel itself:
Acts 14:15: "Men, why are you doing this? We too are only men, human like you. We are bringing you good news [preaching the gospel], telling you to turn from these worthless things to the living God, who made heaven and earth and sea and everything in them" (see also verses like Rev. 14:6, 1 Tim. 1:9-11)
[3] The NT speaks of not just believing the gospel, but also being obedient to the gospel:
1 Peter 4:17 For it is time for judgment to begin with the family of God; and if it begins with us, what will the outcome be for those who do not obey the gospel of God.
2The 1:8 He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus.
[3] The gospel is the message that Christ is both saviour and Lord. We place our faith in Christ because he saves, and repent (not to be saved) because he now rules.
[4] Because Christ is Lord, the gospel also announces that Christ will judge every human:
Rom. 2:16 This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.
Every blessing.
I'm not trying to be obtuse but I really didn't understand how your answer addressed my question.
If the Gospel, by definition, excludes the idea of "Repent" then it seems you're saying that Peter was not preaching the Gospel in Acts 2:38-39. Your answer sort of had a "seems to me that repenting doesn't sound like Good News" flavor over really addressing whether it belongs in the address of the Gospel herald.
Further, you present a false dilemma as if the Gospel has to be only "Repent of your sins" or "Christ accomplished righteousness". Why is it not: "Repent and trust in Christ who accomplished all righteousness"?
Finally, you seem to imply that the very notion of repentance is, in itself, bad news. Perhaps to unregenerate hearts.
I am not at all disputing that the message is Christ has accomplished what we could not do. I also take issue with the fact that I ever said that faith and repentance were interchangeable.
What I'm trying to understand is how Christ's activity has any meaning in terms of being the propitiation for sin if there is no recognition for sin and the fact that He needs to put it away. You and I can talk about Christ accomplishing all righteousness because we have a common set of "blanks" filled in. Your presentation, however, would be completely abstract to someone who has no idea what righteousness is. You have ruled the recognition of unrighteousness out of bounds for the Gospel herald. The hearer is left asking: "Justified from what? Why is that good news? Why do I need Christ's righteousness?"
I've always understood the reason for the Goodness of the News of the Gospel to lie against the backdrop of the recognition that condemnation awaits our unrighteousness apart from Him.
Now, again, to spare misrepresentation of what I'm trying to say. I'm not saying that there needs to be a priority given to repentance or that it be perfect or that it is instrumental and in addition to faith. What I'm confused about is your insistence that the Gospel itself does not include the aspect of repentance and, specifically, how you reconcile Peter and Paul's repeated presentations of the Gospel by leading with the unrighteousness of men, a call to repentance, and a fleeing to the Cross.
According to 2 Tim. 2:25, "if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth." Then, Acts 11:18, "God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life." Finally, 2 Cor. 7:10, "godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of." Hence repentance is necessary in order to acknowledge the truth, and to obtain the life and salvation promised in the gospel. The catechism accordingly teaches that repentance is a saving grace. This is a fairly straightforward conclusion.
Last edited:
From the Canons of Dordt:
JohnOwen007
Puritan Board Sophomore
Amazing Grace
Puritan Board Junior
But does this make one a full fledged antinomian? That's where I disagree.
Why? Do you deny the third use of the Law?
- Status
