CHAPTER SEVEN

Difficulties (2): Law, Liberty,
and Antinomianism

"If the Son makes you free, you shall
be free indeed.” (John 8:36)

ANOTHER DIFFICULTY THAT ARISES in any serious study of the law is the topic of Christian liberty in contrast to both antinomianism and legalism. There is a razor-sharp line between antinomianism and legalism or between Christian liberty and antinomianism. As Christ was crucified between two thieves, likewise the law is often crucified between legalism and antinomianism.

It is important that the rights of the law be vindicated and that the liberties of grace be maintained. The object of this chapter is twofold: (1) to uphold the law so that it does not threaten Christian liberty, and (2) to establish grace so that the law is not made void and believers are not exempted from their duties to God and man.

Christian Liberty Not Lawlessness

Salvation in Christ is liberation, and the Christian life is one of liberty Christ has set us free (Gal. 5:1; cf. John 8:32,36). His liberating work is not basically social, political, or economic improvement, as is sometimes suggested. It is liberation from the law as a means to salvation and liberation from the power of sin and superstition.

First, Christians have been set free from the law as a system of salvation. Being justified by faith in Christ, they are no longer under God’s law but under His grace (Rom. 3:19; 6:14—15; Gal. 3:23-25). Their standing with God (the “peace” and “access” of Rom. 5:1—2) is assured because they have been accepted and adopted in Christ. It does not ever depend on what they do, nor will it ever be imperiled by what they fail to do. They live, not by being perfect, but by being forgiven.

Second, Christians have been set free from sin's dominion (John 8:34-36; Rom. 6:14-23). They have been supernaturally regenerated and made alive to God through union with Christ in His death and risen life (Rom. 6:3—11). The desire of their heart now is to serve God in righteousness (Rom. 6:18,22). Sin’s dominion involves not only constant acts of disobedience but also a constant disregard for God’s moral law, rising sometimes to resentment or even hatred toward the law. Now, however, being changed in heart, motivated by thankfulness for the gift of grace, and energized by the Holy Spirit, Christians “serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter” (Rom. 7:6).

Third, Christians have been set free from superstitions, including the idea that matter and physical pleasure are intrinsically evil. Against this idea, Paul insists that Christians are free to enjoy all created things as God’s good gifts (1 Tim. 4:1—5), provided they do not transgress the moral law, or hinder their own spiritual well-being or that of others (1 Cor. 6:12—13; 8:7—13).

Notice in these three aspects of Christian liberty that Christians have not been set free from responsibility to obey the moral law. Believers are exhorted in the New Testament to love one another on the express ground that it is a requirement of the moral law. “For you, brethren, have been called to liberty; do not use liberty as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. For all the law is fulfilled in one Word, even in this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ if you bite and devour one another, beware lest you be consumed by one another!” (Gal. 5:13-15).

If the “liberty” possessed by the Galatians consisted in freedom from the obligation to obey the moral law, it would be strange that these very precepts should be urged as an authority against their using liberty as an occasion to the flesh. Paul, whatever some of his professed admirers have been, was assuredly a better reasoner than this would make him. The liberty of the gospel includes an exemption from the precepts of the ceremonial law, and from the curse or condemning power of the moral law; and these were privileges of inestimable value. They were, however, susceptible of abuse. To guard against this, the holy precept of the law, notwithstanding the removal of its penalty, is held up by the apostle in all its native and inalienable authority. To the same purpose, the apostle, writing to the believing Romans, inculcates brotherly love and purity from the authority of the moral law.

Owe no one anything except to love one another, for he who loves another has fulfilled the law. For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder," “You shall not steal,” “You shall not bear false witness,” “You shall not covet,” and if there is any other commandment, are all summed up in this saying, namely, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law. And do this, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep; for now is our salvation nearer than when we first believed. The night is far spent, the day is at hand. Therefore let us cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armor of light. Let us walk properly, as in the day, not in revelry and drunkenness, not in licentiousness and lewdness, not in strife and envying. But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to fulfill its lusts. (Rom. 13:8—14)

It is hard to imagine how anyone can read this passage without perceiving that the precepts of the moral law are still binding on believers. Those who fail to acknowledge this truth will have to bear the consequences of their lawlessness.

Some Falsely Labeled Antinomian

The Bible and history prove that not everyone who has been accused of lawlessness is an antinomian. Where the graciousness of free grace is preached in all its fullness, the accusation of antinomianism has always been heard. The Lord Jesus Himself was accused of this. When, in contrast to John the Baptist, He did not live in solitude but rather mingled with others—even with publicans and notorious sinners—it didn’t take long for people to say, “Look, a glutton and a winebibber, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!” (Luke 7:34). The Pharisees and rabbis repeatedly accused Him of not honoring the law of Moses but setting it aside instead.

The apostle Paul fared no better. His doctrine of grace was also labeled antinomianism. In Romans 3:8 he tells us how some people twisted his message: “And why not say, ‘Let us do evil that good may come’?—as we are slanderously reported and as some affirm that we say.” Thus, also Paul was accused of teaching antinomianism.

It is also interesting to note that C. H. Spurgeon was charged with the errors of antinomiariism. In a sermon preached on March 16, 1856, he said,

I am rather fond of being called an Antinomian, for this reason, that the term is generally applied to those who hold truth very firmly and will not let it go. But I should not be fond of being an Antinomian. We are not against the law of God. We believe it is no longer binding on us as the covenant of salvation; but we have nothing to say against the law of God. “The law is holy; we are carnal, sold under sin.” None shall charge us truthfully with being Antinornians. We do quarrel with Antinomians; but as for some poor souls who are so inconsistent as to say the law is not binding, and yet try to keep it with all their might, we do not quarrel with them! They will never do much mischief. But we think they might learn to distinguish between the law as a covenant of life and a direction after we have obtained life. (The New Park Street Pulpit [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1963], 2:132)

These examples prove that not everyone accused of being an antinomian is in fact one. We must not allow such false accusations to blind us to the fact that there is real antinomianism, and it needs to be addressed as a very dangerous and damning reality today.

The word antinomianism dates back to the days of the Reformation, though the doctrine of antinomianism itself is as old as the gospel. The spirit of antinomianism is to forsake the rule of God. But the truth is that whatever disowns or weakens the authority of the law overturns the gospel and all true religion. The law and the gospel are friends. They mutually serve to establish each other. The work of the Spirit is to fulfill the law in us “that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us” (Rom. 8:4). God and His perfect law are so united that you cannot be at enmity with one without being at enmity with the other.

What Exactly Is Antinomianism?

The Encyclopedia of Christianity gives a list of antinomian errors. This list provides a profile of the antinomian system as it has taken various forms in the course of history:

1. The law is made void by grace. Justification by faith alone renders good works unnecessary.
2. Since good works are unnecessary, obedience to the law is not required of justified persons.
3. God sees no sin in the justified, who are no longer bound by the law, and is not displeased with them if they sin.
4. God therefore does not chastise justified persons for sin.
5. Nor can sin in any way injure the justified.
6. Since no duties or obligations are admitted in the gospel, faith and repentance are not commanded.
7. The Christian need not repent in order to receive pardon of sin.
8. Nor need he mortify sin; Christ has mortified sin for him.
9. Nor ought he be distressed in conscience upon backsliding, but he should hold fast to a full assurance of his salvation in the midst of the vilest sins.
10. Justifying faith is the assurance that one is already justified.
11. The elect are actually justified before they believe, even from all eternity.
12. Therefore they were never children of wrath or under condemnation.
13. Their sin, as to its very being, was imputed to Christ so as not to be theirs, and His holiness is imputed to them as their sanctification.
14. Sanctification is no evidence of justification, for assurance is the fruit of an immediate revelation that one is an elect person.
15. No conviction by the law precedes the sinner’s closing with Christ, inasmuch as Christ is freely offered to sinners as sinners.
16. Repentance is produced not by the law, but by the gospel only.
17. The secret counsel of God is the rule of man’s conduct.
18. God is the author and approver of sin, for sin is the accomplishment of His will.
19. Unless the Spirit works holiness in the soul, there is no obligation to be holy or to strive toward that end.
20. All externals are useless or indifferent, since the Spirit alone gives life.

Although the above list is incomplete, it is far from being incoherent. Logical Sequence is evident throughout. Propositions 1—14 are consequences illegitimately drawn from justification by faith; 15—16, from the free offer and effectual power of the gospel; 17-20, from the sovereignty of God. Antinomianism is to be understood primarily as an abuse of justifying grace in disparaging the authority of the law (1—6), in minimizing the need for repentance (6-9), and even for faith (10—12), by nullifying sanctification (13—14), and exaggerating assurance (9, 10, 14), and by denying the instrumentality of the law in conversion (15—16). Although 17-20 maybe regarded as underlying the fallacious reasoning in 1—16, they do not warrant a simple identification of antinomianism with hyper-Calvinism. While accepting the ethical force of Rabbi Duncan’s dictum, we might alter it from a logical point of view, and assert that the only or root heresy is Pelagianism. The root error of “free will” in the sense of ability limiting obligation is the counterpart of the main spring of antinomianism in 17, the affinity of which with 11, the logical foundation of evangelical antinomianism, is evident.

During the Reformation. Luther vs. Agricola. Johannes Agricola of Eisleben (1492—1566), one of Luther’s most intimate associates in the German Reformation, developed a one-sided view of justification by faith, for which Luther found himself obliged to coin the epithet “antinomian.” Agricola and his followers are reported to have taught the following erroneous and dangerous theses:

1. Men are not to be prepared for the gospel or conversion by the preaching of the law.
2. Repentance is not to be taught out of the Decalogue or any Jaw of Moses, but from the violation of the Son of God in the gospel.
3. When thou art in the midst of sin, only believe, and thou art in the midst of salvation.
4. The law is not worthy to be called the Word of God.
5. A believer is above all law and all obedience.
6. Good works profit nothing to salvation. Ill works tend not to damnation.
7. Our faith and New Testament religion were unknown to Moses.

Although he had ignored Agricola’s earlier opposition to Melanchton’s insistence on preaching the law, Luther protested in 1537 against any identification of the doctrine of justification with antinomianism and elicited a recantation from Agricola. Luther firmly maintained the necessity for preaching the law before as well as after conversion. Against an anfinomian tenet curiously akin to Barthian emphases, Luther remarks, “But thus they preposterously put the Cart before the Horse, teaching the Law after the Gospel, and wrath after grace” (Luther’s letter to Guttel against the antinomians). 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” (Luther. Werke, 31.1.485). Rutherford devotes nearly 100 pages of his Spiritual Antichrist to a demonstration that antinomian errors find no support in Luther, despite some unguarded utterances on his part. (The Encyclopedia of Christianity [Wilmington, Del.: National Foundation for Christian Education, 1964], 1:270-78)

Forms of Antinomianism

In the May/June 1995 issue of the Banner of Sovereign Grace Truth, Reverend C. Harinck, pastor of the Gereformeerde Gemeente of Houten, the Netherlands, points out three of the most Common forms of antinomianism. I will summarize Harhick’s exposition of these in the remainder of this chapter.

Theological Antinomianism
We find theological antinomianism particularly with the English theologians, Crisp, Eaton, and Saltmarch. They placed such emphasis upon God’s eternal election, justification from eternity, and the immediate assurance of sonship by the Holy Spirit, they deviated to antinomianism as a logical consequence their doctrine If believers have indeed been ordained unto salvation from eternity, then nothing—not even their sins—can undo this salvation. If believers are justified from eternity and have been acquitted from all their sins, what law could yet accuse them? If God’s children have the immediate knowledge that they are the children of God, would they yet need the witness of their good works?

The English antinomians believed that the law has no function, for believers possess all things. Nothing needs to be merited, and therefore nothing needs to be feared. The believer is a partaker of eternal election, eternal justification, and the immediate assurance of his sonship. Where then is the necessity of the law? It only denigrates grace, so they taught, and subjects the redeemed Christian only by renewal to the yoke of bondage.

This form of antinomianism proceeds from the quarters of hyper-Calvinism. A doctrine of election taken to its logical extreme led to an unbiblical view that the believer already possesses everything from eternity. Such a life is too high and too free to be bound to the law. Thus these theologians did not consider the grace of God to imply holy obligations.

When the Lord says to Israel, “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage,” He did not continue, “and therefore there is no law. You are free men. You have My redemption and are led only by My Spirit.” On the contrary the Lord says, in effect, “I have redeemed you and therefore, You shall have no other gods before Me.” In other words, “Since I have redeemed you, therefore keep My commandments, do what is pleasing to Me, preserve your redemption, and fight against the Evil One.”

The mistake the English antinomiaris made was that they separated what God had joined together. Justification and sanctification cannot be separated.

Exegetical Antinomianism
We encounter another kind of antinomianism among those who make a radical separation between the Old and New Testaments. Among modern preachers and evangelical movements it is commonplace to teach that the law belongs to the Old Testament. Thus there is no longer any room for the law; faith alone matters now. The originator of this view in particular is J. Nelson Darby, the founder of the Plymouth Brethren. He taught that during the period of grace (the New Testament), the law no longer has any significance for believers. He referred to the covenant of works as a fable and Considered the law to have been set aside. The only thing required, so he taught, is faith in Christ.

This teaching has engendered the view that our decision for Christ is the only thing that matters. One must permit Jesus to come into his heart, and beyond that one is under no obligation to the law. The only concern for our children is whether they have made a decision for Christ. The law as a mirror for the uncovenng of sin and as a rule of life is of no significance. As long as one has made a decision for Jesus, one need not be devoted to a life in harmony with God’s law as proof of the uprightness and veracity of his faith. Christianity thus becomes more a matter of decision than a manner of life. Ultimately, this results in a “carnal Christianity” void of true Christian living. Unmerited grace, however, makes one subject to evangelical obligations. A sanctified life is what manifests the fruits of true faith.

Practical Antinomianism
Practical antinomianism is the most progressive form of antinomianism, that which is not in name only, but in actual deed. It should not be ascribed to all who, on purely dogmatic grounds or on the basis of the difference between the Testaments, maintain that the law no longer has any significance for the Christian. Practical antinomians not only teach upon theological or exegetical grounds that the believer had nothing to do with the law, but they also practice lawlessness. They reason, Since God accepts me as I am, I need not be very particular when it Comes to the law. And since I already have been fully forgiven from eternity, it doesn’t really matter how I live. Yes, they even dare to practice what the apostle Paul condemns: “Shall we continue to sin that grace may abound?” (Rom. 6:1). “We are delivered from the law,” so they exclaim, “and therefore we can do as we please. Our sin only makes grace abound all the more.”

Such people resemble the man who breaks the speed limit and says, “It does not matter in my case, for I am not under the law. I have been redeemed and set free. I may do as I please. It is only my old man which does wrong things. My new man remains unscathed in the midst of all this.” What a dreadful error! What an appalling abuse of the doctrine of God’s grace! In response to this view, the apostle pronounces the apostolic anathema, “God forbid” (Rom. 6:2 KJV)!


BECAUSE ANTINOMIANISM is rampant today, the topic of law and liberty remains very relevant. Determining the truth among all the voices in the controversy can be difficult. Some set up the law for justification. Others deny the law as a direction for sanctification. Thank God that there are still others who realize that our freedom is from the curse and the penalty of the law, not from the guidance, direction, and commands of the law.

That is the orthodox view. Our freedom from the penalties of the law is not freedom from its precepts for holy living. In this way, grace and law are both established while true Christian liberty is affirmed.

The Reformed Reader Home Page  Copyright 1999, The Reformed Reader, All Rights Reserved