Center for Biblical Theology and Eschatology
Defining Antinomianism
by Pastor Kevin D Hartley
he use of the term antinomian has not been left in antiquity. While it
can be argued that true historic antinomianism
does not exist today, the word remains in
use among many in theological discussions.
Sadly, though, it is used most often in ignorance
and as an affront. This fact necessitates
the proper definition of antinomianism in
order that the word may retain its historical
integrity. If the word is to be used historically
and properly, it cannot continue to be so
broadly and indiscriminately used as it has
been of late. An antinomian, as identified
by the word’s historic use, is neither simply
a theologian who accentuates the law of Christ
over and above the Law of Moses, nor is an
antinomian necessarily someone who draws
a sharp distinction between law and grace.
An historic antinomian is also neither simply
someone who stresses the grace and goodness
of God as the impetus behind gospel obedience,
nor is an antinomian someone who stresses
discontinuity between the biblical covenants.
The true antinomian asserts an absolute antithesis between law and grace. This is
the fundamental presupposition of historic
antinomianism. Historic antinomianism sets
forth the premise that God relates to men
either by way of law or by grace and never the twain shall meet. The implications of
this presupposition are pervasive and devastating
to the gospel, as this article shall detail.
True historic antinomianism was, is, and
ever shall be, heresy.
An understanding of the antinomian presupposition
begins with an understanding of where the
doctrine generally is born. Whenever and
wherever the doctrines of grace are taught,
there appears to be a subsequent rise of
antinomianism. The reason for this correlation
is that whenever free grace is taught there
are always those who take the doctrine of
grace to its extreme application. Antinomianism
is built upon a radical view of the fundamental
reformation doctrine of sola fide. Gertrude Huehns states: “…it was always …free
justification by Christ alone.”[1] Thus, the doctrine of free grace has been,
albeit inadvertently, instrumental in the
rise of antinomianism in every age. While
it was instrumental in the rise of antinomianism,
yet it is not the grounds for such conclusions.
Antinomian theology takes true free grace
and makes it grace free from the human element.
It takes grace and teaches, applies, and
places it outside the metaphysical realm,
separating the man, this world, and this
life from God’s gracious work. In a sense,
antinomianism has historically taught that
salvation is a heavenly, eternal work that
has never infiltrated the natural realm.
Antinomianism took salvation outside of the
cosmic scheme and made salvation a matter
separate from this world. The antinomian
‘gospel’ taught an eternal justification
where men did not exercise faith; rather,
men were justified by the faith that was
Christ’s. A man’s salvation was accomplished
and applied in the heavens. Justification
and sanctification were instantaneous, and
the importance of Christian living on this
earth was annulled. The work of grace was
in the spiritual realm, and the law never
once entered that realm nor played a role
in the work of salvation. John Eaton said:
When there is any morall work commanded to
be done upon paine of punishment, or upon
promise of any reward either temporall or
eternall, there is to be understood the voyce
of the Law. Contrarywise, where the promise
of life, favour, salvation, or any other
blessings and benefits are offered to us
freely, without our deservings, and simply
without any condition annexed to them of
any Law, either naturall, ceremoniall or
morall, all those places, whether they be
read in the Old Testament or in the New,
are to be referred to the voice and doctrine
of the Gospel.[2]
Thus, never in the antinomian theology was
law a factor for the Christian in redemptive,
historical salvation. God eternally related
to men either by way of the law or by grace,
and the two never intersected. A Christian
could say the law never played a role in
his or her salvation; he was always a child
of God, who looked upon the elect with mercy
eternally and was never once displeased with
the person. In reality, the person was no
sinner, since sin was never held against
him; he was, in the eyes of God, justified
and sanctified in Christ. Life, for the true
antinomian, was never defined as a process
of godly mortification and vivification,
since the sinner was perfect in Christ and
as God looked upon him.
Salvation, for the true antinomian, occurs
completely outside himself. There is never
an effect of grace upon the natural man.
The natural man is not renewed by grace,
but rather is indwelt by the Holy Spirit.
The Holy Spirit simply imposes himself upon
the man and never does the natural man, in
his being, change. The natural man has not
faith, since it is not the man’s faith that
justifies, but Christ’s faith that justifies.
The natural man does not die to sin or grow
in holiness, in himself, since it is the
Holy Spirit in him that is perfect and causes
all grace to flow from the man. Thus, the
Christian is never concerned about sin in
this life since it is the natural man that
sins and shall never change and is not known
to God. All good deeds are simply the immediate
work of the Holy Spirit. A Christian is also
never concerned about sin in his life because
it is of the old man; it is ignored by God,
and repentance, conviction, and sorrow for
sin have no place in the Christian’s life.
A man is fully sanctified, though he sins
and does so egregiously, and never once is
God displeased with him. John Winthrop listed
this as a fundamental error of the antinomians
when he wrote of the New England Antinomian
Controversy: “Error 32. After the revelation
of the spirit, neither the Devill nor sinne
can make the soule to doubt.”[3] Assurance for the antinomian was immediate
and never to be questioned.
The implications drawn from antinomianism
were disastrous. Since the man was taken
completely out of the process of salvation,
never once was the importance of this life
raised. Life for the antinomian became, as
Samuel Rutherford coined it, “a matter of
courtesie ….”[4] But understand that even such courtesie was not the soul’s act of gratitude or contrition.
An antinomian was not saying a sinner finds
gratitude, or thanksgiving, a cause for obedience.
An antinomian would declare that no consideration
of the man, based upon the soul’s reflection,
was instrumental in good works. Sanctification,
for the antinomian, was no process; instead,
it was instantaneous perfection outside the
natural man. Faith was never of the man;
it was ever of Christ. Therefore, the process
of salvation never once touched the man outside
the Holy Spirit’s indwelling effect. Gertrude
Huehns states: “the answer of the antinomians
remained the same: they could not be touched
by anything that belonged either to the dispensation
of nature nor to that of law.”[5] Thus, consider the logical conclusions of
antinomianism as drawn up by John Winthrop:
The nature of the Opinions themselves, which
open such a faire and easie way to Heaven,
that men may passe without difficulty. For,
if a man need not be troubled by the Law,
before faith, but may step to Christ so easily;
and then, if his faith be no going out of
himselfe to take Christ, but onely a discerning
that Christ is his owne already, and is onely
an act of the Spirit upon him, no act of
his owne done by him; and if he, for his
part, must see nothing in himselfe, have
nothing, doe nothing, onely he is to stand
still and waite for Christ to doe all for
him. And then if after faith, the Law no
rule to walke by, no sorrow or repentance
for sinne; he must not be pressed to duties,
and need never pray, unlesse moved by the
Spirit: And if he fals into sinne, he is
never the more disliked of God, nor his condition
never the worse. And for his assurance, it
being given him by the Spirit, he must never
let it goe, but abide in the height of comfort,
though he fals into the grossest sinnes that
he can.[6]
Life for the antinomian was one of enduring
euphoria. Salvation was never in doubt from
the moment the Holy Spirit entered and dwelt.
Regardless of what was done in life, one’s
assurance, confidence, and bliss were never
changed. Commands had no place in the Christian
life, regardless of where they came from,
since, although they were scriptural commands
of Christ, even they were legal works. Only
the spiritual law, made known by the Spirit
and his exercise, was considered of the gospel.
Exhortation was as useless as any word of
instruction for the man. The Christian was
given simply to wait upon the Spirit to work
good while the natural man just kept on sinning,
which, to the Christian, was neither to trouble
him or cause him any thought. Assurance was
full and instantaneous and afforded the Christian
simply by the Holy Spirit’s testimony within
him or her. The word of God was irrelevant,
as the true word of God was Christ speaking
by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, all means
were fundamentally denied in the absolute
separation of the spiritual and physical
categories of antinomianism. John Gerstner
notes:
For the Reformed theologian, good works,
while the result of divine grace, are genuinely human actions.
For the antinomian, good works are divine actions, the direct action of God
within the human person…This dualism leads
in turn to an odd, but understandable juxtaposition
of licentiousness and Perfectionism—sometimes
in combination.[7]
A true antinomian is at one moment denying
the important process of sanctification and
at the same moment affirming his perfection
while sinning. He does not grieve over his
sin, repent, or even give it a nod. Never
once is the antinomian like the man Paul
speaks of in Romans seven who is wrestling
within. The antinomian doctrine taught that
the true Christian never wrestles but always
has full and impenetrable assurance. Again,
the theological implications of historic
antinomianism are grave.
Historic antinomianism, then, is established
upon an absolute separation between law and
grace, where God relates to men either by
law (only with the natural man) or grace
(in the spiritual man), and law, condemnation,
and guilt have no place in the Christian’s
life. Consider a catalogue of errors (noting
only a few) as drawn up by the Puritan fathers
in New England: “Errour 33. To act by vertue
of, or in obedience to a command, is legall.”[8] Any reaction of a man upon hearing a word
of exhortation or command was a legal act
and not of the gospel. The word of God contained
nothing to mandate or by which to frame his
life, since the true word of God was made
known through the Holy Spirit that dwelt
within. “Errour 64. A man must take no notice
of his sinne, nor of his repentance for his
sinne.”[9] Such actions were legal acts, acts of the
natural man, and the spiritual man was to
neither be concerned nor attentive to the
acts of the natural man. These activities
(of awareness of continuing sinfulness and
repentance for it) were legal acts, denying
the full assurance a Christian had at the
moment of the Holy Spirit’s assurance. “Errour
67. A man cannot evidence his justification
by his sanctification, but he must needs
build upon his sanctification, and trust
to it.”[10] His only reflection came not from his life,
since all his life did was show the Holy
Spirit’s work and the natural man’s work;
his reflection came from that instantaneous
work of assurance at the moment of belief.
“Errour 72. It is a fundamentall and soule-damning
errour to make sanctification an evidence
of justification.”[11] For a man to even look upon his works as
evidential of his salvation was law work
and damnable work. All of the Puritan attention
to the process of sanctification, of examining
oneself, of growing in holiness, was denied
by the antinomian doctrine. “Errour 77. Sanctification
is so farre from evidencing a good estate
that it darkens it rather, and a man may
more clearely see Christ, when he seeth no
sanctification than when he doth, the darker
my sanctification is, the brighter is my
justification.”[12] It was as though the antinomian was saying,
“let sin abound that grace may abound.” It
was as though an antinomian was taught to
take greater comfort in his sinfulness than
in any manifestation of goodness in his life.
He needed no witness from works, since his
assurance was complete at one moment and
his surety was perfect in the eyes of God
from the beginning.
Thus it is, for the true antinomian, that
commands have no place in the Christian’s
life. It was considered a legal matter for
any law (Christ’s law or a perceived moral law) to be an impetus of action. A Christian
performed good works at the whims of the
Spirit, and those works were of no use to
one’s assurance since the Spirit gave immediate
and undeniable assurance to the soul at the
moment of his indwelling of the person. In
the antinomian formulation, God is said to
relate to men either through a legal or evangelical
way. Steele summarizes it this way:
In short, the creed of the Antinomian is
this: I was justified when Christ died, and
my faith is simply a waking up to the fact
that I have always been saved – a realization
of what was done before I had any being;
that a believer is not bound to mourn for
sin, because it was pardoned before it was
committed, and pardoned sin is no sin; that
God does not see sin in believers, however
great sins they commit; that by God’s laying
our iniquities upon Christ, He became as
completely sinful as I, and I as completely
righteous as Christ. Moreover, I believe
that no sin can do a believer any ultimate
harm, although it may temporarily interrupt
communion with God. I must not do any duty
for my own salvation. This is included in
the new covenant, which is all of it a promise,
having no condition on my part.[13]
Now many think such things when they encounter
free grace, but the realities of this sinful
life and the knowledge of the changes in
the man and in the soul are usually enough
to convince a man to avoid the extremes of
antinomianism. Coupled with the fact that
the word of God is scattered with gospel
commands and admonition, the cautious soul
understands that to embrace antinomianism
is to deny the very word of God itself. In
the estimation of the antinomian, the word
of God was a legal book; hence, it was useless
to the Christian.
Consequently, the antinomian understood that
the truly elect needed no book; they have
the Spirit and the Son. In the legal way,
the law condemns, and all actions are worthless
towards one’s own righteousness. Even if
the written word could have an effect upon
the man, it would only be a legal effect.
In the gospel way, the natural man is wholly
excluded from acting, and the Holy Spirit
alone chooses to act. Law has no place in
the working of salvation, either before or
after salvation. Stoever wrote: “From God’s
viewpoint there simply is no longer any sin
in believers or in the church. On this ground
Eaton firmly rejected the common Protestant
notion that the justified are simultaneously
sinners and righteous in God’s eyes.”[14] Salvation, justification, and sanctification
are all spiritual matters and have no introduction
into the physical realm. Stoever noted: “Traske,
not unlike Eaton, distinguished between the
respective times of law and gospel and denied
that the law is to be preached to believers
at all, for neither does it serve to work
repentance and faith nor is it a rule for
believers to walk by.”[15]
In the end, then, for the antinomian the
word of God had no place in his life, neither
did admonition, nor exhortation, as they
were legal means to legal works. Never was
a Christian to concern himself over sin in
this life since to do so was to deny the
power of God. Works were never useful for
assurance since assurance was an instantaneous
work at the moment of the Holy Spirit’s introduction
into the man. John Gerstner says that antinomianism
is the true doctrine of “let go and let God,”
and in that analysis he is right. In its
logical end antinomianism made the Christian
life a utopia. Men were to never doubt, question,
trouble themselves over, or concern themselves
about what the natural man was doing, as
it mattered not to him or God. Neither was
a person to consider, strive, or contemplate
obedience since to act on such grounds would
be legal acts, and only the Holy Spirit’s
impetus could produce gracious acts.
Nevertheless, to be cordial and fair, it
is proper to pause and remind the reader
that the antinomians of history were often
practicing antinomians of varying degree.
Many were simply theological antinomians;
their lives were not evidential of their
belief that sinning was a good thing. As
is often the case, one doesthey did not always
follow through entirely on the logical and
necessary conclusions of their presuppositions.
There were historically varying degrees of
antinomianism. Some in Luther’s day went
so far as to say “good works are an obstacle
to salvation,”[16]but not all agreed with Luther, as Agricola
was said to not represent so aberrant a view.
Early antinomianism was more Libertine than
later historical antinomianism. The antinomianism
of Puritan England (held by such men as Crisp,
Taske, and Eaton) was more interested in
the teaching of grace apart from law and
was, in some sense, reactionary to the often-extreme
experimentalism of Puritan piety. Often Puritan
examination was overstated, leading many
to lack assurance and providing a way for
the antinomian to come in with that faire and easiee waye. Antinomianism was more theological and practical,
and often sought to defend itself against
the charge of extreme licentiousness. The
antinomianism of Puritan New England was
even more discrete, as it was more interested
in assaulting the evidential use of works,
denying the practical syllogism, and fighting
against the preparatory use of the law for
leading one to Christ. One must understand
that antinomianism had its expressions of
degree, and the careful man must be cautious
to intricately examine a person’s statements
and presuppositions before applying the historical
term antinomian, because to do so is slanderous.
It might be said that the middle way of antinomianism
was historically more a theological premise
than it was a mandate on life. Antinomianism,
in its mature form, often did not press its
presupposition to its logical end. True antinomianism
did not abandon the idea of obedience and
godly living, as is evident in the life and
teaching of those who bore the title, even
if it is believed that their theological
assumptions drew such conclusions. There
is a clear difference between one who teaches
sin is good and what is done in this body
is irrelevant and one who teaches that love
is the impetus behind action brought about
by the Holy Spirit. There is also a clear
difference between one who teaches that what
is done in this life does not matter and
one who teaches, as Tobias Crisp did in saying,
“If you abide in Christ and keep in Christ,
no searjent of the law dares come in to serve
a writ; no accusation of the law can come
in against you.”[17] As seen in this quote, at times antinomianism
was historically an overstatement of its
presupposition voiced in rhetorical wit.
Antinomianism was chargeable with an over
emphasis upon the distinctive differences
between law and grace and failing (or consciously
choosing not) to seek continuity between
the legal and the gracious. Chronically,
antinomianism was ill timed, poorly thought
out, and reactionary to perceived legal means
and orders, such as John Goodwin's sermon
in New England on the fast day, when he was
ordered to humbly consider the trouble brought
upon New England by the Antinomian Controversy.
We may conclude that an antinomian is someone
who has a particular view of the relationship
between God and men and expresses that view
in contradistinction to the view of federalism.
The true issue raised by the antinomian presupposition
is identifying how God relates to men in
this life and how law and grace function
in such a relation. Antinomianism is basically
a denial of federal theology. As it grew
up alongside federalism, it maintained a
distinct identity of its own and was often
heard as a brother berating its sibling.
Federal theology constructed a contiguous
and complementary view of creation, salvation,
and sanctification. The covenant of works
was not antithetical to the covenant of grace;
both were God’s means to an end. Antinomianism
denied the premise that the covenant of works
and covenant of grace were complementary.
Antinomianism often functioned within federal
theology, affirming the designations of the
various covenants. This is why it is necessary
to address presuppositions. Antinomians were
able to speak of the covenant of works and
the covenant of grace and often hide themselves
quite well.
As noted in the last article, antinomianism
went wherever federalism traveled. This was
the case in New England in the 17th century. The New England court comprised
of New England Puritan divines that reviewed
Anne Hutchinson’s antinomian practice had
great trouble condemning her. When reading
the transcripts one is brought to remark
of her composure, verbal skill, and theological
proximity to the federal Puritans of her
day. Her great error was in speaking without
provocation, offering her thoughts on the
Spirit’s direct witness. She declared that
the Spirit gave to her immediate insight
beyond the metaphysical realm, where she
was able to discern times, happenings, and
circumstance as made known to her by the
Holy Spirit alone. She might have succeeded
if she had not volunteered this insight into
the supposed direct witness of the Spirit,
which gave her accusers the means to condemn
her.
Antinomians did not necessarily disagree
with the scheme of the covenants. They did,
however, disagree with the federal understanding
of a covenant. They were at odds with the
presupposition of federal theology that God
relates to men by way of a covenant, meaning
there is an involvement of men in salvation
where men, by faith, affirm the covenant
with God. Antinomianism denied such involvement
of men, and the denial of this basic premise
was the undoing and unraveling of the whole
premise of federalism. The entwined knot
of federalism holds together the very principal
of the established relationship between God
and men in a metaphysical covenant relationship.
Antinomianism appeared to abandon all sense
of agreement and consequent necessity. John
Gerstner wrote:
Another historic factor contributing to this
heresy is an ontological dualism, which denigrates
the created order and places total reliance
upon the direct and unmediated work of God.
It is crucial to understanding the point
at issue here. The question is not divine
monergism in salvation – whether salvation
is entirely a work of God. Rather, the issue
at stake is whether God works through the
created order and whether God truly effects
positive changes in the created order.[18]
Since antinomianism dichotomized the soul
into the Holy Spirit and the impotence of
men, good works were not acts of men and
had no direct bearing upon their standing
before God; to the antinomian the covenant
did not involve men or any act of theirs.
This seeming abandonment of the involvement
of men in the process of justification and
sanctification was the point of contention.
The antinomian said all good works are of
the immediate and not mediated work of the
Holy Spirit.
Antinomianism was not, then, in agreement
with the presupposition of federal theology.
Neither can it be said that antinomianism
is synonymous with dispensationalism, as
John Gerstner sought to affirm in his book,
Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth: A Critique
of Dispensationalism. From the vantage of principle presuppositions,
antinomianism is an entity all its own. Again,
the presuppositions of antinomianism and
dispensationalism set the two apart. Where
dispensationalism drew an antithesis between
law and grace, it did so subordinate to its
ethnic distinctive. Daniel P. Fuller wrote:
These ‘vital distinctions’ of dispensationalism
are the physical and spiritual seed of Abraham;
the earthly, Messianic kingdom of God versus
the timeless, spiritual kingdom; Jesus’ coming
again ‘for’ his saints in distinction to
his coming again ‘with’ his saints; and the
absolute distinction between Israel – God’s
earthly people, and the Church – God’s heavenly
people.[19]
Daniel Fuller’s words predate the current
advancements in progressive dispensationalism
and therefore are somewhat antiquated. Yet
his statement demonstrates that, while dispensationalism
does purport a deep-seated antithesis between
law and grace, that antithesis is subordinate
to its precursory presupposition of ethnic
distinction. Historic antinomianism is of
a different breed altogether than dispensationalism.
Dispensationalism does not necessarily overlook
the metaphysical aspects of salvation. Equally,
antinomianism is not predicated upon the
premise that God relates to Israel one way
and all others of ethical distinction another;
instead, it purports that God relates to
men either by law or by grace and never both.
What separates historic antinomianism’s presuppositional
law-grace antithesis from both federalism
and dispensationalism is its pervasiveness.
Antinomianism is predicated upon an absolute antithesis between law and grace. The word
absolute is what makes antinomianism itself. An antinomian
can at one minute sound dispensational and
the next federal and never once be either.
A dispensationalist may say things that sounds
antinomian to a federalist, and a federalist
may say things that could be antinomian in
character, yet such statements do not necessarily
make one an antinomian. If the word antinomian
is to be properly used in its historical
and theological context, it must be assigned
to those who affirm the basic presupposition
antinomianism has historically defended.
A true antinomian is not someone who discounts
the application of the law to a Christian;
a true antinomian denies the Christian altogether.
True historic antinomians deny scripture,
all commands, and all growth in sanctification,
while affirming all the elect as perfect
and sin of no concern or consequence in their
lives. The true antinomian is more than against
law; he is against salvation.
In order for a person to be an antinomian
he must hold to the presupposition that God
relates to men either by law or by grace
and never in combination. He must believe
assurance is only to be obtained by an inner
witness of the Holy Spirit that is instantaneous
and never changes. He must believe that God
never regards sin in his life and neither
should he. He must believe he is not justified
by faith in himself, whether by grace or
not, but that it was Christ’s faith which
justified him. He must believe sanctification
is not a process, but that perfection is
attainable in this life and possessed of
all those in Christ, and that he need merely
reflect upon the sense of assurance he had
at the moment of life. He must believe that
commands, exhortations, law, repentance,
sorrow, and grief have no place in his life.
He must believe that every good thing done
in him is solely the work of the Holy Spirit
and that he remains constitutionally unchanged.
He must believe the Bible is a legal text
and the Spirit’s working within us says something
wholly different from what is in the written
word, as Thomas Collier said:
It remaines a Rule, so farre as we are in
the flesh, I mean in the knowledge of Christ
after the flesh, but as God writes his Lawes
in the hearts of his people…so shall they
live above the Law in the Letter, even of
the Gospel, yet not without it, for they
have it within them…and so they are a Law
to themselves.[20]
He must believe he is sufficient in Christ,
apart from natural things, means, and ends.
He must believe, in conclusion, that the
Christian life is irrelevant, unnecessary,
and of no avail. The antinomian takes life
out of the way and says that God relates
to men in this life legally; he says that
God relates to men in Christ spiritually,
and he affirms in absoluteness that never
the twain shall meet. Thus, there really
is a faire and easiee way, and what is done in this life is of no great
concern. He can truly say, "go and sin
that grace may abound and rejoice when you
sin because God declares you are perfect
and what you do has no bearing upon that
fact." Whether theological or practical,
antinomianism is not biblical Christianity,
and to call someone an antinomian, in ignorance
of the term, is theologically unforgivable.
We must know our terms and our presuppositions,
and we must not let ignorant words wage the
war for the truth.
1. Gertrude Huehns, 39. [back]
2. Ibid., 39. [back]
David D. Hall, The Antinomian Controversy: 1636-1638: A
Documentary History, (Middletown: Wesleyan University Press, 1968),
227. [back]
4. Ibid., 52. [back]
5. Gertrude Huehns, 50, 1. [back]
6. David. D. Hall, 203. [back]
7. John Gerstner, 211. [back]
8. David D. Hall. 227. [back]
9. Ibid., 236. [back]
10. Ibid., 237. [back]
11. Ibid., 239. [back]
12. Ibid., 240. [back]
13. Steele, 45. [back]
14. Stoever, 140. [back]
15. Ibid., 142. [back]
16. Steele, 47. [back]
17. Tobias Crisp, 132. [back]
18. John Gerstner, Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth: A Critique
of Dispensationalism, (Brentwood: Wlgemuth & Hyatt, 1991),
210. [back]
19. Daniel P. Fuller, Gospel & Law: Contrast or Continuum?
The Hermeneutics of Dispensationalism and
Covenant Theology, (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1980),
3. [back]
20. Gertrude Huehns, 53. [back]