Antinomianism

Connected to: Buddhism Sufi Tantra

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article may need to be rewritten entirely to comply with Wikipedia's quality standards. You c…

Antinomianism (from the Greek:

αντι, "against" + νομος, "law"), is
any view which rejects laws
or legalism and is against moral,
religious, or social norms
(Latin: mores), or is at least
considered to do so.[1]

In Christianity, an antinomian is
one who takes the principle
of salvation by faith and divine
grace to the point of asserting that
the saved are not bound to follow
the Law of Moses.[2] The
distinction between antinomian
and other Christian views on
moral law is that antinomians
believe that obedience to the law
is motivated by an internal
principle flowing from belief
rather than from any external
compulsion.[3]

Examples of antinomians being

confronted by the religious
establishment include Martin
Luther's critique of
antinomianism, the Antinomian
Controversy of the 17th
century Massachusetts Bay
Colony and the tenth-
century Sufi mystic Mansur Al-
Hallaj. The term is also used to
describe certain practices or
traditions
in Buddhism and Hinduism, such
as the transgressive aspects Anne Hutchinson on Trial (1901) by Edwin Austin Abbey depicts the civil trial of
Anne Hutchinson during the Antinomian Controversy of the Massachusetts Bay
of Vajrayana and
Colony on 7 November 1637
Hindu Tantra which include
sexual elements.[4][5]

Etymology
The term antinomianism is derived from the Greek ἀντί (anti"against") + νόμος (nomos "law").[2]
Christianity
Antinomianism has been a point of doctrinal contention in the history of Christianity, especially
in Protestantism, given the Protestant belief in justification through faith alone versus justification on the
basis of merit or good works or works of mercy. Most Protestants consider themselves saved without having
to keep the commandments of the Mosaic law as a whole; that is, their salvation does not depend upon
keeping the Mosaic law. However, salvific faith is generally seen as one that produces obedience, consistent
with the reformed formula, "We are justified by faith alone but not by a faith that is alone," in contrast to
rejecting moral constraint.[6]

The term antinomianism was coined by Martin Luther during the Reformation to criticize extreme
interpretations of the new Lutheran soteriology.[7] In the 18th century, John Wesley severely attacked
antinomianism.[8]

A general consensus has been historically reached as to which laws of the Old Testament Christians are still
enjoined to keep. These moral laws, as opposed to civil or ceremonial laws, are derivative of what St. Paul
indirectly refers to as natural law (Rom. 2.14–15). Mosaic law has authority only insofar as it reflects
the commands of Christ and the natural law. Christian sects and theologians who believe that they are freed
from more moral constraint than is customary are often called "antinomian" by their critics. Thus, classic
Methodist commentator Adam Clarke held, "The Gospel proclaims liberty from the ceremonial law, but
binds you still faster under the moral law. To be freed from the ceremonial law is the Gospel liberty; to
pretend freedom from the moral law is Antinomianism."[9] Contemporary evangelicaltheologian J. I.
Packer states that antinomianism, "which means being anti-law, is a name for several views." [10]

Gnosticism
The term antinomian came into use in the sixteenth century, but the doctrine itself can be traced in the
teaching of earlier beliefs.[11]Early Gnostic sects were accused of failure to follow the Mosaic Law in a
manner that suggests the modern term "antinomian". Most Gnostic sects did not accept the Old Testament
moral law. For example, the Manichaeans held that their spiritual being was unaffected by the action of
matter and regarded carnal sins as being, at worst, forms of bodily disease.[12]

The Old Testament was absolutely rejected by most of the Gnostics. Even
the so-called Judaeo-Christian Gnostics (Cerinthus), the Ebionites
(Essenian) sect of the Pseudo-Clementine writings (the Elcesaites), take
up an inconsistent attitude towards Jewish antiquity and the Old
Testament. In this respect the opposition to Gnosticism led to a
reactionary movement. If the growing Christian Church, in quite a
different fashion from Paul, laid stress on the literal authority of the Old
Testament, interpreted, it is true, allegorically; if it took up a much more
friendly and definite attitude towards the Old Testament, and gave wider
scope to the legal conception of religion, this must be in part ascribed to
the involuntary reaction upon it of Gnosticism.[13]
Marcion of Sinope was the founder of Marcionism which rejected the Hebrew Bible in its entirety. Marcion
considered the God portrayed in the Bible to be a lesser deity, a demiurge, and he claimed that the law of
Moses was contrived.[14] Such deviations from the moral law were criticized by proto-orthodox rivals of the
Gnostics, who ascribed various aberrant and licentious acts to them. A biblical example of such criticism can
be found in Revelation 2:6–15, which criticizes the Nicolaitans, possibly an early Gnostic sect.

Lutheranism
The term "antinomianism" was coined by Martin Luther during the Reformation, to criticize extreme
interpretations of the new Lutheran soteriology.[7] The Lutheran Church benefited from early antinomian
controversies by becoming more precise in distinguishing between Law and Gospel and justification
and sanctification. Martin Luther developed 258 theses during his six antinomian disputations, which
continue to provide doctrinal guidance to Lutherans today.[7]
Upon hearing that he was being charged with rejection of the Old Testament moral law[not in citation given], Luther
responded: "And truly, I wonder exceedingly, how it came to be imputed to me, that I should reject the Law
or ten Commandments, there being extant so many of my own expositions (and those of several sorts) upon
the Commandments, which also are daily expounded, and used in our Churches, to say nothing of the
Confession and Apology, and other books of ours."[15] In his "Introduction to Romans," Luther stated that
saving faith is, "a living, creative, active and powerful thing, this faith. Faith cannot help doing good works
constantly. It doesn't stop to ask if good works ought to be done, but before anyone asks, it already has done
them and continues to do them without ceasing. Anyone who does not do good works in this manner is an
unbeliever...Thus, it is just as impossible to separate faith and works as it is to separate heat and light from
fire!"[16]

First Antinomian controversy

As early as 1525, Johannes Agricola advanced his idea, in his commentary on Luke, that the law was a futile
attempt of God to work the restoration of mankind. He maintained that non-Christians were still held to the
Mosaic law, while Christians were entirely free from it, being under the Gospel alone. He viewed sinas a
malady or impurity rather than an offense which rendered the sinner guilty and damnable before God. The
sinner was the subject of God's pity rather than of his wrath. To Agricola, the purpose of repentance was to
abstain from evil rather than the contrition of a guilty conscience. The law had no role in repentance, which
came about after one came to faith, and repentance was caused by the knowledge of the love of God alone.[7]

In contrast, Philipp Melanchthon urged that repentance must precede faith, and that knowledge of the moral
law is needed to produce repentance.[12] He later wrote in the Augsburg Confessionthat repentance has two
parts. "One is contrition, that is, terrors smiting the conscience through the knowledge of sin; the other is
faith, which is born of the Gospel, or of absolution, and believes that for Christ's sake, sins are forgiven,
comforts the conscience, and delivers it from terrors."[17]

Shortly after Melanchthon drew up the 1527 Articles of Visitationin June, Agricola began to be verbally
aggressive toward him, but Martin Luther succeeded in smoothing out the difficulty at Torgauin December
1527. However, Agricola did not change his ideas, and later depicted Luther as disagreeing with him. After
Agricola moved to Wittenberg, he maintained that the law must be used in the courthouse but it must not be
used in the church. He said that repentance comes from hearing the good news only and does not precede but
rather follows faith. He continued to disseminate this doctrine in books, despite receiving various warnings
from Luther.[7][need quotation to verify]

Luther, with reluctance, at last believed that he had to make public comment against antinomianism and its
promoters in 1538 and 1539. Agricola apparently yielded, and Luther's book Against the Antinomians (1539)
[18][not in citation given] was to serve as Agricola's recantation. This was the first use of the term Antinomian.[11][19] But

the conflict flared up again, and Agricola sued Luther. He said that Luther had slandered him in his
disputations, Against the Antinomians, and in his On the Councils and Churches (1539). But before the case
could be brought to trial, Agricola left the city, even though he had bound himself to remain at Wittenberg,
and moved to Berlin where he had been offered a position as preacher to the court. After his arrival there, he
made peace with the Saxons, acknowledged his "error", and gradually conformed his doctrine to that which
he had before opposed and assailed. He still used such terms as gospel and repentance in a different manner
than Luther.[7]

Second Antinomian controversy

The antinomian doctrine, however, was not eliminated from Lutheranism. Melanchthon and those who
agreed with him, called Philippists, were checked by the Gnesio-Lutherans in the Second Antinomian
Controversy during the Augsburg Interim. The Philippists ascribed to the Gospel alone the ability to work
repentance, to the exclusion of the law. They blurred the distinction between Law and Gospel by considering
the Gospel itself to be a moral law. They did not identify Christ's fulfillment of the law with the
commandments which humans are expected to follow.[7]

As a result, the Book of Concord rejects antinomianism in the last confession of faith. The Formula of
Concord rejects antinominism in the fifth article, On the Law and the Gospel[20] and in the sixth article, On
the Third Use of the Law.[21]
Calvinism
A number of seventeenth-century English writers in the Reformed tradition held antinomian beliefs. None of
these individuals argued that Christians would not obey the law. Instead, they believed that believers would
spontaneously obey the law without external motivation.[3] Antinomianism during this period is likely a
reaction against Arminianism, as it emphasized free grace in salvation to the detriment of any participation
on the part of the believer.[22]John Eaton (fl. 1619) is often identified as the father of English antinomianism.
[22] Tobias Crisp (1600–1643), a Church of Englandpriest has been accused of being an antinomian. He was a

divisive figure for English Calvinists, with a serious controversy arising from the republication of his works
in the 1690s.[23]

From the latter part of the 18th century, critics of Calvinists accused them of antinomianism. Such charges
were frequently raised by Arminian Methodists, who subscribed to a synergistic soteriology that contrasted
with Calvinism's monergistic doctrine of justification. The controversy between Arminian and Calvinistic
Methodists produced the notable Arminian critique of Calvinism: Fletcher's Five Checks to
Antinomianism (1771–75).[12]

The Westminster Confession of Faith states: "Faith, thus receiving and resting on Christ and His
righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification; yet it is not alone in the person justified, but is ever
accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but works by love."[24]

Quakers
Religious Society of Friends were charged with antinomianism due to their rejection of a graduate clergy and
a clerical administrative structure, as well as their reliance on the Spirit (as revealed by the Inner Light of
God within each person) rather than the Scriptures. They also rejected civil legal authorities and their laws
(such as the paying of tithes to the State church and the swearing of oaths) when they were seen as
inconsistent with the promptings of the Inner Light of God.

Jesuits
Blaise Pascal accused the Jesuits of antinomianism in his Lettres provinciales, charging that Jesuit casuistry
undermined moral principles.

Charges against other groups

Other Protestant groups that have been accused of antinomianism include the Anabaptists and Mennonites.
The Ranters of 17th century England were one of the most outright antinomian sects in the history of
Christianity. New Covenant Theology has been accused of antinomianism for their belief that the Ten
Commandments have been abrogated, but they point out that nine of these ten are renewed under the New
Covenant's Law of Christ.[25]

Biblical law in Christianity

See also: Split of early Christianity and Judaism, Christianity and Judaism, and Biblical law in Christianity

The question of the obligation to follow the Mosaic Law was a point of contention in the Early Christian
Church. Many early converts were Greek and thus had less interest in adherence to the Law of Moses than
did the earliest Christians, who were primarily Jewish and already accustomed to the Law.[26] Thus, as
Christianity spread into new cultures, the early church was pressured to decide which laws were still required
of Christians, and which were no longer required under the New Covenant. The New Testament, (especially
the book of Acts) is interpreted by some as recording the church slowly abandoning the "ritual laws" of
Judaism, such as circumcision, Sabbath and kosher law, while remaining in full agreement on adherence to
the "divine law", or Jewish laws on morality, such as the Ten Commandments. Thus, the early Christian
church incorporated ideas sometimes seen as partially antinomian or parallel to Dual-covenant theology,
while still upholding the traditional laws of moral behavior.
The first major dispute[27] over
Christian antinomianism was a
dispute over whether circumcision
was required of
Christians.[citation needed] This
happened at the Council of
Jerusalem, which is dated to about
50 AD and recorded in the Acts of
the Apostles:

But then some of the believers

who belonged to the sect of
the Pharisees stood up and
insisted, "The Gentile converts
must be circumcised and required
to follow the law of Moses."
— Acts 15:5 (NLT)
The apostles and elders met
at Jerusalem, and after a spirited
discussion, their conclusion, later
called the Apostolic Decree,
possibly a major act of
differentiation of the Church from
its Jewish roots[28] (the first being
the idea that Jesus was the
messiah[29]), was recorded in Acts
15:19-21:

Acts 15:(19) Wherefore my

[James] sentence is, that we
trouble not them, which from
among the Gentiles are turned to
God: (20) But that we write unto
them, that they abstain from
pollutions of idols, and from
fornication, and from things
strangled, and from blood. (21)
For Moses of old time hath in Icon of James the Just, whose judgment was adopted in the Apostolic Decree of Acts
every city them that preach him, 15:19-29, c. 50 AD.
being read in the synagogues
every Sabbath day.
— KJV
Beginning with Augustine of Hippo,[30] many have seen a connection to Noahide Law, while some modern
scholars[31] reject the connection to Noahide Law[32] and instead see Lev 17-18[33] as the basis.

James sets out a preliminary list of commands which Gentiles should obey. Gentiles were not required to be
circumcised, but were required to obey the four beginning requirements to be part of the larger congregation.
This passage shows that the remainder of the commandments would follow as they studied "Moses" in the
Synagogues. If Gentiles did not follow this reduced requirement, they risked being put out of the Synagogue
and missing out on a Torah education (in Leviticus 17 and 20). James's list still includes some dietary
commands, but many of those also passed out of some Christian traditions quite early. Acts 10:9-
16 describes the following vision, which was used to excuse early gentile Christians from the Mosaic dietary
laws.

(9) ...Peter went up upon the housetop to pray about the sixth hour: (10)
And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made
ready, he fell into a trance, (11) And saw heaven opened, and a certain
vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four
corners, and let down to the earth: (12) Wherein were all manner of
fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and
fowls of the air. (13) And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and
eat. (14) But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing
that is common or unclean. (15) And the voice spake unto him again the
second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common. (16)
This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven.
— KJV
Peter was perplexed about the vision in Acts 10. His subsequent explanation of the vision in Acts 11 gives no
credence to antinomianism as it relates to the admission of Gentiles into covenant relationship with God.

Though the Apostolic Decree is no longer observed by many Christian denominations today, it is still
observed in full by the Greek Orthodox.[34]

In the Letter to the Hebrews (Hebrews 7:11-28), it is written that under the Old Testament Law, priests had to
be from the tribe of Levi, Aaron and his sons:

Bring his sons and dress them in tunics and put headbands on them.
Then tie sashes on Aaron and his sons. The priesthood is theirs by a
lasting ordinance. In this way you shall ordain Aaron and his sons.
— Exodus 29:8–9
It is pointed out that Jesus was from the tribe of Judah, and thus Jesus could not be a priest under the Old
Testament Law, as Jesus is not a descendant of Aaron. It states that the Law had to change for Jesus to be the
High Priest: "For when there is a change of the priesthood, there must also be a change of the law." (Hebrews
7:12)

Supporting Pauline passages

This section possibly contains original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made a…

See also: New Perspective on Paul, Pauline Christianity, and Paul the Apostle and Judaism

The Apostle Paul, in his Letters,

says that believers are saved by
the unearned grace of God, not by
good works, "lest anyone should
boast", and placed a priority
on orthodoxy (right belief)
before orthopraxy (right practice).
The soteriology of Paul's
statements in this matter has long
been a matter of dispute. The
ancient gnostics interpreted
Paul[citation needed], for example in 2
Peter 3:16, to be referring to the
manner in which embarking on a
path to enlightenment ultimately
leads to enlightenment, which was
their idea of what constituted
salvation. In what has become the
modern Protestant orthodoxy,
however, this passage is
interpreted as a reference to Artist depiction of Saint Paul Writing His Epistles, 16th century (Blaffer Foundation
justification by trusting Christ. Collection, Houston, Texas). Most scholars think Paul dictated his letters to
a secretary.[35]
Paul used the term freedom in
Christ, for example, Galatians 2:4. Some understood this to mean "lawlessness" (i.e. not obeying Mosaic
Law).[citation needed] For example, in Acts 18:12–16, Paul is accused of "persuading .. people to worship God in
ways contrary to the law."

In Acts 21:21 James the Just explained his situation to Paul:

And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jewswhich are
among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to
circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.
— KJV
Colossians 2:13–14 is sometimes presented as proof of Paul's antinomistic views. For example,
the NIV translates these verses: "... he forgave us all our sins, having canceled the written code, with its
regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross." But,
the NRSVtranslates this same verse as: "... he forgave us all our trespasses, erasing the record that stood
against us with its legal demands. He set this aside, nailing it to the cross." This latter translation makes it
sound as though it is a record of trespasses, rather than the Law itself, that was "nailed to the
cross."[citation needed] The interpretation partly depends on the original Greek word χειρόγραφον which, according
to Strong's G5498,[36] literally means "something written by hand;" it is variously translated as "written code"
or "record", as in a record of debt.

2 Corinthians 3:6–17 says,

"Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the
letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. But
if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious,
so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of
Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done
away: How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious?
For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the
ministration of righteousness exceed in glory. For even that which was
made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that
excelleth. For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that
which remaineth is glorious. Seeing then that we have such hope, we use
great plainness of speech: And not as Moses, which put a veil over his
face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that
which is abolished: But their minds were blinded: for until this day
remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old
testament; which vail is done away in Christ. But even unto this day,
when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart. Nevertheless when it
shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away. Now the Lord is that
Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." (KJV)
Some cite Acts 13:39: "And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be
justified by the law of Moses."Romans 6 states twice that believers are not under the law: Romans 6:14 "For
sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace." and Romans 6:15 "What
then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.". KJV

Galatians 3:1–5 describes the Galatians as "foolish" for relying on being observant to the Law: "(1) O foolish
Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath
been evidently set forth, crucified among you? (2) This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by
the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? (3) Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now
made perfect by the flesh? (4) Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain. (5) He therefore
that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by
the hearing of faith?" KJV
Galatians 3:23–25 says that the purpose of the Law was to lead people to Christ, once people believe in
Christ, they are no longer under the Law:

"(23) But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the
faith which should afterwards be revealed. (24) Wherefore the law was
our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by
faith.(25) But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a
schoolmaster." KJV
In Galatians 4:21–31, Paul
compares the Old Covenant with
the New Covenant. In this
comparison, he equates each
covenant with a woman, using the
wives of Abraham as examples.
The old covenant is equated with
the slave woman, Hagar, and the
new covenant is equated with the
free woman Sarah.(Galatians
4:22–26). He concludes this
example by saying that we are not
children of the slave woman, but
children of the free woman. In
other words, we are not under the
old covenant, we are under the
new covenant.

"(22) For it is written, that

Abraham had two sons, the one
by a bondmaid, the other by a
freewoman. (23) But he who was
of the bondwoman was born after
the flesh; but he of the freewoman
was by promise. (24) Which
things are an allegory: for these
are the two covenants; the one
from the mount Sinai, which
gendereth to bondage, which is
Agar. (25) For this Agar is mount
Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Christians believe that Jesus is the mediator of the New Covenant in Hebrews 8:6.
Jerusalem which now is, and is in Depicted is his Sermon on the Mount in which he commented on the Law.
bondage with her children. (26)
But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all." KJV
(Galatians 4:30–31)
Romans 10:4 is sometimes translated: "For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that
believeth." (KJV) The key word here is telos (Strong's G5056).[37] Robert Badenas argues that telos is
correctly translated as goal, not end, so that Christ is the goal of the Law.[38] Andy Gaus' version of the New
Testament translates this verse as: "Christ is what the law aims at: for every believer to be on the right side of
[God's] justice."[39]

Also cited[where?][by whom?] is Ephesians 2:15: "Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of
commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace"
KJV. Another passage cited is Romans 7:1–7, especially Romans 7:4 "Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are
become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is
raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God." and Romans 7:6 "But now we are delivered
from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the
oldness of the letter." KJV
The first covenant (made with Israel, as recorded in the Old Testament) is compared with the new covenant
in Hebrews 8-9. In Hebrews 8:6-7: "But the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the
covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, and it is founded on better promises. For if there
had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another." It goes on to
say that the problem with the first covenant was with the people who were supposed to keep it, and that in
the new covenant: "I will put my laws into their minds, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their
God, and they shall be my people." Hebrews 8:10

The first covenant was said to be obsolete, and would soon disappear: "By calling this covenant "new," he
has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear." Hebrews 8:13. It
identifies the first covenant which is disappearing in Hebrews 9:1–5. Particularly the "stone tables of the
covenant" in Hebrews 9:4 referred directly to the Ten Commandments.

"Now the first covenant had regulations for worship and also an earthly
sanctuary. A tabernacle was set up. In its first room were the lampstand,
the table and the consecrated bread; this was called the Holy Place.
Behind the second curtain was a room called the Most Holy Place, which
had the golden altar of incense and the gold-covered ark of the covenant.
This ark contained the gold jar of manna, Aaron's staff that had budded,
and the stone tablets of the covenant. Above the ark were the cherubim of
the Glory, overshadowing the atonement cover." (Hebrews 9:1–5)
However, the notion that the Ten Commandments have been abrogated, as found in New Covenant Theology,
is challenged by some.[40][need quotation to verify]

Some scholars consider Jesus' Sermon on the Mount (particularly the Antitheses) to be an antitype of the
proclamation of the Ten Commandments or Mosaic Covenant by Moses from the Biblical Mount
Sinai.[citation needed]

Opposing Pauline passages

Those who oppose antinomianism invoke Paul as upholding obedience to the law:[41][copyright violation?]

"For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the
law shall be judged by the law; (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the
law shall be justified." Romans 2:12–13 KJV
"Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law." Romans 3:31 KJV
"Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can
be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God." Romans 8:7–8 KJV
"While he answered for himself, Neither against the law of the Jews, neither against the temple, nor yet
against Cæsar, have I offended any thing at all." Acts 25:8 KJV
"Say I these things as a man? or saith not the law the same also? For it is written in the law of Moses,
Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen?" 1
Corinthians 9:8–9 KJV
"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are
commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law." 1 Corinthians 14:34 KJV
"But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator,
or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat." 1
Corinthians 5:11 KJV
"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither
fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor
thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God." 1
Corinthians 6:9–10:26 KJV
"Neither be ye idolaters, as were some of them; as it is written, The people sat down to eat and drink, and
rose up to play." 1 Corinthians 10:7 KJV
"The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty
to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord." 1 Corinthians 7:39 KJV
"Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry." 1 Corinthians 10:14 KJV
 "Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness,
lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also
told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God." Galatians
5:19–21 KJV
"For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath
any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. Let no man deceive you with vain words: for
because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience. " Ephesians 5:5–
6 KJV
"Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection,
evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry." Colossians 3:5 KJV
"But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and
is worse than an infidel." 1 Timothy 5:8 KJV
"Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right. Honour thy father and mother; (which is the
first commandment with promise." Ephesians 6:1–2 KJV

Theology
The Catholic Encyclopedia article on "Judaizers" notes: "Paul, on the other hand, not only did not object to
the observance of the Mosaic Law, as long as it did not interfere with the liberty of the Gentiles, but he
conformed to its prescriptions when occasion required (1 Corinthians 9:20). Thus he shortly after the Council
of Jerusalem circumcised Timothy (Acts 16:1–3), and he was in the very act of observing the Mosaic ritual
when he was arrested at Jerusalem (21:26 sqq.)."[42]

The Jewish Encyclopedia article on "Gentile: Gentiles May Not Be Taught the Torah"[43] notes the following
reconciliation: "R. Emden, in a remarkable apology for Christianity contained in his appendix to "Seder
'Olam,"[44] gives it as his opinion that the original intention of Jesus, and especially of Paul, was to convert
only the Gentiles to the seven moral laws of Noah and to let the Jews follow the Mosaic law—this explains
the apparent contradictions in the New Testament regarding the laws of Moses and the Sabbath."[44]

The Tübingen school of historians founded by F. C. Baur holds that in Early Christianity, there was conflict
between Pauline Christianity and the Jerusalem Church led by James the Just, Simon Peter, and John the
Apostle, the so-called "Jewish Christians" or "Pillars of the Church."[45] In many places Paul writes that he
was an observant Jew, and that Christians should "uphold the Law" (Romans 3:31). In Galatians 2:14, part of
the Incident at Antioch,[46] Paul publicly accused Peter of judaizing. Even so, he says sins remain sins, and
upholds by several examples the kind of behaviour that the church should not tolerate (e.g., Galatians 5:19-
21, 1 Cor 6:9–10). In 1 Corinthians 7:10–16 he cites Jesus' teaching on divorce ("not I but the Lord") and
does not reject it, but goes on to proclaim his own teaching ("I, not the Lord"), an extended counsel regarding
a specific situation which some interpret as conforming to what the Lord said. But, this may mean he
received direct knowledge of what the Lord wanted him to teach through the Holy Ghost (Galatians 2:6–
10).[citation needed]

Paul versus James

See also: Antilegomena

The Epistle of James, in contrast, states that we are to obey the Law of God and that "a person is justified by
works and not by faith alone" (James 2:14–26). Historically, this statement has been difficult for Protestants
to reconcile with their belief in justification by faith alone as it appears to contradict Paul's teaching that
works don't justify (Romans 4:1-8). Martin Luther, believing that his doctrines were refuted by James's
conclusion that works also justify, suggested that the Epistle might be a forgery, and relegated it to an
appendix in his Bible. Literature which discusses this includes the article on James 2:20 in Law and Gospel.
[47] Romans 2:6, Ephesians 2:8-10, and Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification.

James also wrote: "For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking
all of it. For he who said, 'Do not commit adultery,' also said, 'Do not murder.' If you do not commit adultery
but do commit murder, you have become a lawbreaker." James 2:10–11. One interpretation is that people
who want to keep the Old Testament Law must perfectly keep all of the Law—"an impossible
task."[citation needed] James appeals to his readers to follow the "Royal Law of Love" instead in the preceding
verses (James 2:8–9). But the scholar Alister McGrath says that James was the leader of a judaizing party
that taught that Gentiles must obey the entire Mosaic Law.[48]

Paul made a statement that appears to agree with James, saying that "both" faith produced as a result of
repentance (the initial requirement for justification) "and" works (the evidence or proof of true faith) must
exist together:

"So then, King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the vision from heaven.
First to those in Damascus, then to those in Jerusalem and in all Judea,
and to the Gentiles also, I preached that they should repent and turn to
God and prove their repentance by their deeds." Acts 26:19–20 (NIV)

Jesus
See also: Expounding of the Law, Great Commission, Hyperdispensationalism, and Halakha

The Torah prescribes the death penalty for desecrating the Sabbath by working (Exodus 31:14–17). To avoid
any possibility of breaking the simple and few original Torah commands, the Pharisees formulated and added
several thousand strict laws and numerous traditions which they treated as laws. According to the Christians,
Jesus criticized the Pharisees for adding to the law (Mark 7:7–9). The Jewish Encyclopedia article on Jesus
notes:

"Jesus, however, does not appear to have taken into account the fact that
the Halakah was at this period just becoming crystallized, and that much
variation existed as to its definite form; the disputes of Bet Hillel and Bet
Shammai were occurring about the time of his maturity."[49]
In the Gospel of Mark, Jesus' disciples were picking grain for food on the Sabbath (Mark 2:23–28). This was
against one of the Pharisaic laws that had been added to the original Torah law which prohibited work on the
Sabbath day. When the Pharisees challenged Jesus over breaking their law, he pointed to Biblical precedent
and declared that "the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath". Some claim Jesus rejected
complete adherence to the Torah. Most scholars hold that Jesus did not reject the law, but directed that it
should be obeyed in context. E. P. Sanders notes, "No substantial conflict existed between Jesus and the
Pharisees with regard to Sabbath, food, and purity laws. ... The church took some while to come to the
position that the Sabbath need not be kept, and it is hard to think that Jesus explicitly said so."[50] There may
be passages where the words of Jesus have been misinterpreted and were not really in contradiction with the
Jewish law.[51] Jesus never once broke the Torah, yet he did denounce the added Pharisaic rules and openly
defied the Pharisees.

In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus is sometimes said to refer to people he sees as "wicked" with the
term ergazomenoi tēn anomian (ἐργαζόμενοι τὴν ἀνομἰαν)—e.g., Matthew 7:21–23, Matthew 13:40–43. Due
to this negative context, the term has almost always been translated as "evildoers", although it literally means
"workers of lawlessness".[52] In Hebrew, lawlessness would imply "Torahlessness". Matthew appears to
present Jesus as equating wickedness with encouraging antinomianism. Scholars view Matthew as having
been written by or for a Jewish audience, the so-called Jewish Christians. Several scholars argue that
Matthew artificially lessened a claimed rejection of Jewish law so as not to alienate his intended
audience.[citation needed] But, Jesus called for full adherence to the commandments (Matthew 5:19–21) He
declared: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them
but to fulfill them." (Matthew 5:17). A parallel verse to Matthew 7:21 is James 1:22.

1 John 3:4 states: "Everyone who commits sin is guilty of lawlessness; sin is lawlessness."

Buddhism
Among some Buddhist groups there are types of 'antinomianism' which may act as a gloss for 'left-handed
attainment' (Sanskrit: Vamachara): naturalist/spontaneous antinomianism, ritualist/philosophical
antinomianism, and empirical antinomianism.[citation needed] There may also be those who subscribe to all or some
combination of these three types. Not all Buddhist schools accept antinomian thought as skillful.
Naturalist antinomians believe that enlightened beings may spontaneously break monastic codes of conduct
while living out a natural state of enlightened mind. Another view is that an enlightened mind responds to
circumstances based on Buddhist morality, rather than the legalism of the monastic codes, and that the
"break" is not therefore spontaneous. There are tales of Buddhists who perform acts that appear to be bizarre
or immoral, sometimes referred to as 'crazy wisdom' (Tibetan: yeshe chölwa).[53] The movement of
the Nyönpa in Seventeenth Century Tibet has strong associations with antinomian behavior as well.

Ritualist antinomians, such as some Tantric Buddhists, may practice which seemingly may appear to be
breaking the codes of conduct in specific religious rituals designed to teach non-duality or other
philosophical concepts.

Empirical antinomians may break or disregard traditional ethical or moral rules that they believe are
unconducive to the individual's contemplative life. They view such codification as having arisen in specific
historical-cultural contexts and, as such, not always supportive of Buddhist training. Thus the individual and
the community must test and verify which rules promote or hinder enlightenment.[54]

Islam
See also: Naskh (tafsir)

In Islam, the law—which applies not only to religion, but also to areas such as politics, banking, and
sexuality—is called sharīʿah(‫)ﺷﺮﯾﻌﺔ‬, and traditionally draws from four primary sources:

1. the Qurʾān, which is Islam's central religious text;

2. the sunnah, which refers to actions practised during the time of the prophet Muḥammad, and is often
thought to include the ḥadīth, or recorded words and deeds of Muḥammad;
3. ijmāʿ, which is the consensus of the ʿulamāʾ, or class of Islamic scholars, on points of practice;
4. qiyās, which—in Sunnī Islam—is a kind of analogical reasoning conducted by the ʿulamāʾ upon
specific laws that have arisen through appeal to the first three sources; in Shīʿah Islam, ʿaql ("reason")
is used in place of qiyās
Actions, behavior, or beliefs that are considered to violate any or all of these four sources—primarily in
matters of religion—can be termed "antinomian". Depending on the action, behavior, or belief in question, a
number of different terms can be used to convey the sense of "antinomian": shirk ("association of another
being with God"); bidʿah ("innovation"); kufr ("disbelief"); ḥarām("forbidden"); etc.[citation needed]

As an example, the 10th-century Sufi mystic Mansur Al-Hallaj was executed for shirk for, among other
things, his statement ana al-Ḥaqq (‫)أﻧﺎ اﻟﺤﻖ‬, meaning "I am the Truth". As al-Ḥaqq ("the Truth") is one of
the 99 names of God in Islamic tradition, this would imply he was saying: "I am God."[55] Expressions like
these are known as Shathiyat. Another individual who has often been termed antinomian is Ibn Arabi, a
12th–13th century scholar and mystic whose doctrine of waḥdat al-wujūd ("unity of being") has sometimes
been interpreted as being pantheistic, and thus shirk.[56]

Apart from individuals, entire groups of Muslims have also been called antinomian. One of these groups is
the Nizārī Ismāʿīlī Shīʿīs, who have always had strong millenarian tendencies arising partly from persecution
directed at them by Sunnīs. Influenced to a certain extent by Gnosticism,[57] the Ismāʿīlīs developed a number
of beliefs and practices—such as their belief in the imāmah and an esoteric exegesis of the Qurʾān—that
orthodox Sunnī Muslims considered to be shirk and, hence, to be seen as antinomian.[58]Certain other groups
that evolved out of Shīʿah belief, such as the Alawis[59] and the Bektashis,[60] have also been considered
antinomian. The Bektashis, particularly, have practices that diverge from conventional Islamic practice, such
as the consumption of alcoholic beverages, the non-wearing of the ḥijāb("veil") by women, and gathering in
the Cem Evi in preference to the mosque.[61]

Further information: Imamah (Nizari Ismaili doctrine), Tayyibi, Bektashism, and Esoteric interpretation of the Quran
Left-hand path
Main article: Left-hand path and right-hand path

In contemporary studies of western esotericism, antinomianism is regarded as "a central ingredient in Left-
Hand Path spiritualities,"[62] and understood as "nonconformity through the concept of transgression".[63] This
extends the modern usage of the term, from simply implying that "moral laws are relative in meaning and
application",[64] to include the avowed irreligion manifest in modern Satanism[citation needed].

Nonreligious usage
In his study of late-20th-century western society the historian Eric Hobsbawm[65] stated that there was a new
fusion of demotic and antinomian characteristics that made the period distinct, and appeared to be likely to
extend into the future[citation needed]. For him there is now a readiness by the mass of people to have little sense of
obligation to obey any set of rules that they consider arbitrary, or even just constraining, whatever its source.
This may be facilitated by one or more of several changes. These include the tendency to live outside settled
communities, the growth of enough wealth for most people to have a wide choice of styles of living and a
popularised assumption that individual freedom is an unqualified good.

George Orwell was a frequent user of "antinomian" in a secular (and always approving) sense. In his 1940
essay on Henry Miller, "Inside the Whale", the word appears several times, including one in which he
calls A. E. Housman a writer in "a blasphemous, antinomian, ‘cynical’ strain", meaning defiant of arbitrary
societal rules.

The psychologist, Nathan Adler, defined the "antinomian personality type" as "manifested by one whose
frame of reference is threatened or has been disrupted. He suffers from a breakdown in the balance of his
control and release mechanisms and from the permeability of his body boundaries."[66]

See also

Christianity portal

Abrogation of Old Covenant laws

Christian anarchism
Christian–Jewish reconciliation
Christian liberty
Covenant (biblical)
Do what thou wilt
Frankism
Free Grace theology
Heterodoxy
Historical reliability of the Acts of the Apostles
Legalism (theology)
Libertine
Minuth
Montanism
Neonomianism
Upāya-kauśalya
Notes
^ Merriam-Webster Dictionary, "antinomianism"
^ a b Encyclopædia Britannica: Antinomianism
^ a b Como, David R. (2004). Blown by the Spirit: Puritanism and the Emergence of
an Antinomian Underground in Pre-Civil-War England. Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press. p. 36. ISBN 9780804744430.
^ Christian K. Wedemeyer. Locating Tantric antinomianism - An essay toward an
intellectual history of the 'practices/practice observance' (caryā/caryāvrata)
^ Hugh B. Urban. The Power of Tantra: Religion, Sexuality and the Politics of South
Asian Studies, chapter five.
^ Essential Truths of the Christian Faith. Google Books. p. 191.
^ a b c d e f g Augustus Lawrence Graebner. "Antinomianism." Lutheran
Cyclopedia. New York: Scribner, 1899. p. 18
^ See the Journal of the Rev. John Wesley
^ The Adam Clarke Commentary, Gal. 5:13
^ J.I. Packer, Concise Theology, pp. 178–180
^ a b Aveling, Francis. "Antinomianism." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 1. New
York: Robert Appleton Company, 1907. 29 Jun. 2013
^ a b c One or more of the preceding sentences incorporates text from a publication
now in the public domain: Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Antinomians". Encyclopædia
Britannica. 2 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. pp. 129–130.
^ Chisholm, Hugh (1910). "Gnosticism". Encyclopædia Britannica: A Dictionary of
Arts, Sciences, Literature and General Information. 12. Encyclopædia Britannica.
p. 157. “The Old Testament was absolutely rejected by most of the Gnostics. Even the
so-called Judaeo-Christian Gnostics (Cerinthus), the Ebionite (Essenian) sect of the
Pseudo-Clementine writings (the Elkesaites), take up an inconsistent attitude towards
Jewish antiquity and the Old Testament. In this respect the opposition to Gnosticism
led to a reactionary movement. If the growing Christian Church, in quite a different
fashion from Paul, laid stress on the literal authority of the Old Testament,
interpreted, it is true, allegorically; if it took up a much more friendly and definite
attitude towards the Old Testament, and gave wider scope to the legal conception of
religion, this must be in part ascribed to the involuntary reaction upon it of
Gnosticism. (Image of p. 157 at Google Books)”
^ Vincent L. Milner; Hannah Adams (1860). Religious Denominations of the World:
Comprising a General View of the Origin, History, and Condition, of the Various
Sects of Christians, the Jews and Mahometans, as Well as the Pagan Forms of
Religion Existing in the Different Countries of the Earth; with Sketches of the
Founders of Various Religious Sects. J. W. Bradley. p. 325. “He [Marcion] further
maintained that the law of Moses, with its threats and promises of things terrestrial,
was a contrivance of the evil principle in order to bind men still more to the earth.
(Image of p. 325 at Google Books)”
^ "A Treatise against Antinomians, written in an Epistolary way"
^ Luther, "An Introduction to St. Paul's Letter to the Romans", Luther's German Bible
of 1522 by Martin Luther, (1483–1546), Translated by Rev. Robert E. Smith from
DR. MARTIN LUTHER'S VERMISCHTE DEUTSCHE SCHRIFTEN, Johann K.
Irmischer, ed. Vol. 63 (Erlangen: Heyder and Zimmer, 1854), pp. 124–125. [EA
63:124–125] August 1994
^ Augsburg Confession, Article XII: Of Repentance
^ Dr. Martin Luther. "A Treatise Against the Antinomians". Truecovenanter.com.
Retrieved 2012-11-07.
^ Antinomianism
^ See the Epitome of the Formula of Concord, article five, Law and Gospel
^ See the Epitome of the Formula of Concord, article six, On the Third Use of the
Law
^ a b Wallace, Dewey D., Jr. (1982). Puritans and Predestination: Grace in English
Protestant Theology, 1525-1695. Chapel Hill, N.C.: University of North Carolina
Press. p. 114.
^ Barry H. Howson, Erroneous and Schismatical Opinions: The Questions of
Orthodoxy Regarding the Theology of Hanserd Knollys (c. 1599–1691) (2001), p.
158.
^ "Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter XI, Of Justification".Spurgeon.org.
Archived from the original on 2011-07-28.
^ The Law, the Gospel, and the Modern Christian: Five Views, Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1993. ISBN 978-0-310-53321-4, also republished as Five Views on Law
and Gospel, page 343: "The entire Mosaic law comes to fulfillment in Christ, and this
fulfillment means that this law is no longer a direct and immediate source of, or judge
of, the conduct of God's people. Christian behavior, rather, is now guided directly by
"the law of Christ". This "law" does not consist of legal prescriptions and ordinances,
but of the teaching and example of Jesus and the apostles, the central demand of love,
and the guiding influence of the indwelling Holy Spirit.", page 376: "The content of
all but one of the Ten Commandments is taken up into "the law of Christ", for which
we are responsible. (The exception is the Sabbath commandment, one that Heb. 3–4
suggests is fulfilled in the new age as a whole.)"
^ [Fossum, Jarl; Munoa, Phillip. Jesus and the Gospels], Thomson Learning, 2004
^ In Acts 6:13–14 Saint Stephen is accused by "false witnesses" of speaking against
the law, presumably a minor dispute.
^ Jewish Encyclopedia: Baptism: "According to rabbinical teachings, which
dominated even during the existence of the Temple (Pes. viii. 8), Baptism, next
to circumcision and sacrifice, was an absolutely necessary condition to be fulfilled by
a proselyte to Judaism (Yeb. 46b, 47b; Ker. 9a; 'Ab. Zarah 57a; Shab. 135a; Yer. Kid.
iii. 14, 64d). Circumcision, however, was much more important, and, like baptism,
was called a "seal" (Schlatter, Die Kirche Jerusalems, 1898, p. 70). But as
circumcision was discarded by Christianity, and the sacrifices had ceased, Baptism
remained the sole condition for initiation into religious life. The next ceremony,
adopted shortly after the others, was the imposition of hands, which, it is known, was
the usage of the Jews at the ordination of a rabbi. Anointing with oil, which at first
also accompanied the act of Baptism, and was analogous to the anointment of priests
among the Jews, was not a necessary condition."
^ McGrath, Alister E., Christianity: An Introduction, Blackwell Publishing,
(2006), ISBN 1-4051-0899-1, Page 174: "In effect, they [Jewish Christians] seemed
to regard Christianity as an affirmation of every aspect of contemporary Judaism,
with the addition of one extra belief — that Jesus was the Messiah. Unless males
were circumcised, they could not be saved (Acts 15:1)."
^ Contra Faust, 32.13
^ For example: Joseph Fitzmyer, The Acts of the Apostles (The Anchor Yale Bible
Commentaries), Yale University Press (December 2, 1998), ISBN 0-300-13982-9,
chapter V
^ Genesis 9
^ Lev 17-18
^ Karl Josef von Hefele's commentary on canon II of Gangra notes:
"We further see that, at the time of the Synod of Gangra, the rule of the Apostolic
Synod with regard to blood and things strangled was still in force. With the Greeks,
indeed, it continued always in force as their Euchologies still show. Balsamon also,
the well-known commentator on the canons of the Middle Ages, in his commentary
on the sixty-third Apostolic Canon, expressly blames the Latins because they had
ceased to observe this command. What the Latin Church, however, thought on this
subject about the year 400, is shown by St. Augustine in his work Contra Faustum,
where he states that the Apostles had given this command in order to unite the
heathens and Jews in the one ark of Noah; but that then, when the barrier between
Jewish and heathen converts had fallen, this command concerning things strangled
and blood had lost its meaning, and was only observed by few. But still, as late as
the eighth century, Pope Gregory the Third (731) forbade the eating of blood or
things strangled under threat of a penance of forty days. No one will pretend that the
disciplinary enactments of any council, even though it be one of the
undisputed Ecumenical Synods, can be of greater and more unchanging force than
the decree of that first council, held by the Holy Apostles at Jerusalem, and the fact
that its decree has been obsolete for centuries in the West is proof that even
Ecumenical canons may be of only temporary utility and may be repealed by disuse,
like other laws."
^ Harris, Stephen L., Understanding the Bible, Palo Alto: Mayfield. 1985. p. 316–
320. Harris cites Galatians 6:11, Romans 16:22, Colossians 4:18, 2 Thessalonians
3:17, Philemon 19. Joseph Barber Lightfoot in his Commentary on the Epistle to the
Galatians writes: "At this point [Galatians 6:11] the apostle takes the pen from
his amanuensis, and the concluding paragraph is written with his own hand. From the
time when letters began to be forged in his name (2 Thessalonians 2:2; 2
Thessalonians 3:17) it seems to have been his practice to close with a few words in
his own handwriting, as a precaution against such forgeries... In the present case he
writes a whole paragraph, summing up the main lessons of the epistle in terse, eager,
disjointed sentences. He writes it, too, in large, bold characters (Gr. pelikois
grammasin), that his handwriting may reflect the energy and determination of his
soul."
^ Strong's G5498
^ Strong's G5056
^ Bandas, Robert. Christ the End of the Law, Romans 10.4 in Pauline Perspective,
1985, ISBN 0-905774-93-0
^ Unvarnished New Testament, 1991, ISBN 0-933999-99-2
^ In Defense of the Decalogue: A Critique of New Covenant Theology, Richard
Barcellos, Founder's Press, 2001. Barcellos is an associate professor of New
Testament Studies at the Midwest Center for Theological Studies
^ Law and Grace
^ Catholic Encyclopedia: Judaizers
^ "Gentile: Gentiles May Not Be Taught the Torah"
^ a b Emden, R. "Appendix to "Seder 'Olam," pp. 32b–34b, Hamburg, 1752
^ Catholic Encyclopedia: "St. James the Less": "Then we lose sight of James till St.
Paul, three years after his conversion (A.D. 37), went up to Jerusalem. ... On the same
occasion, the "pillars" of the Church, James, Peter, and John "gave to me (Paul) and
Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the Gentiles, and they
unto the circumcision" (Galatians 2:9)."
^ Catholic Encyclopedia: Judaizers see section titled: "THE INCIDENT AT
ANTIOCH"
^ James 2:20
^ McGrath, Alister E., Christianity: An Introduction, Blackwell Publishing
(2006). ISBN 1-4051-0899-1, p. 174: "Paul notes the emergence of a Judaizing party
in the region — that is, a group within the church which insisted that Gentile
believers should obey every aspect of the law of Moses, including the need to be
circumcised. According to Paul [reference is made to Galatians, but no specific verse
is given], the leading force behind this party was James ... the brother of Jesus ..."
^ "Jesus", Jewish Encyclopedia
 ^ E. P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 1985 SCM Press ISBN 0-334-02091-3, pp. 264–
69.
^ "New Testament: Misunderstood Passages", Jewish Encyclopedia
^ A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian
Literature, Bauer, Gingrich, Danker; Young's Literal Translation: "ye who are
working lawlessness"; New American Standard Bible: "You who practice
lawlessness"; NKJV: "you who practice lawlessness"
^ Trungpa, C. (2001) Crazy Wisdom (Boston).
^ Nydahl, O. (2004). "Verrückte Weisheit: und der Stil des
Verwirklichers"Buddhismus Heute 37: 48–57. Retrieved 2012-12-14. Translated as:
Nydahl, O. (2003). "Crazy Wisdom". Diamond Way Time 1: 48–54. Retrieved 2012-
12-14.
^ Pratt 72
^ Chittick 79
^ See, for example, "Isma'ilism" at Encyclopaedia of the Orient.
^ Daftary 47; Clarence-Smith 56
^ Bar-Asher & Kofsky, 67 ff.
^ Schimmel 338
^ Weir "Differences Between Bektashism and Islamic Orthodoxy"
^ Granholm, Kennet. Embracing Others than Satan: The Multiple Princes of
Darkness in the Left-Hand Path Milieu, in Contemporary Religious Satanism: A
Critical Anthology. Ashgate Publishing (2009) pp. 84-101.
^ Petersen, Jesper Aagaard. Smite Him Hip and Thigh: Satanism, Violence, and
Transgression, in Violence and New Religious Movements, Oxford University Press,
2011. p. 353.
^ Jawad, Haifaa. Seyyed Hossein Nasr and the Study of Religion in Contemporary
Society. American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences, 22.2 (2005), p.63
^ Age of Extremes, 1992
^ Powell, Adam J. (2015). Irenaeus, Joseph Smith, and God-Making Heresy.
Fairleigh Dickinson University Press. p. 88 – via Google Books.

References
Badenas, Robert. Christ the End of the Law, Romans 10.4 in Pauline
Perspective 1985 ISBN 0-905774-93-0 argues that telos is correctly translated
as goal, not end, so that Christ is the goal of the Law, end of the law would be
antinomianism.
Bar-Asher, Me'ir Mikha'el and Kofsky, Aryeh. The Nuṣayrī-ʿAlawī Religion:
An Enquiry into its Theology and Liturgy. Leiden: Koninklijke Brill NV,
2002. ISBN 90-04-12552-3.
J. H. Blunt Dict. of Doct. and Hist. Theol. (1872)
Chittick, William C. The Sufi Path of Knowledge: Ibn Al-Arabi's Metaphysics
of Imagination. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1989. ISBN 0-
88706-885-5.
Clarence-Smith, W.G. Islam and the Abolition of Slavery. London: C. Hurst &
Co. (Publishers) Ltd, 2006. ISBN 1-85065-708-4.
Daftary, Farhad; ed. Mediaeval Ismaʿili History and Thought. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1996. ISBN 0-521-45140-X.
Dunn, James D.G. Jesus, Paul and the Law 1990 ISBN 0-664-25095-5
Encyclopaedia of the Orient. "Isma'ilism". Retrieved 10 October 2006.
Freedman, David Noel, editor. (1998). Anchor Bible Dictionary, article
on Antinomianism by Hall, Robert W., ISBN 0-385-19351-3
J. C. L. Gieseler, Ch. Hist. (New York ed. 1868, vol. iv.)
G. Kawerau, in A. Hauck's Realencyklopadie (1896)
 Luther, Martin. Only the Decalogue Is Eternal: Martin Luther's Complete
Antinomian Theses and Disputations. Minneapolis: Lutheran Press,
2008. ISBN 978-0-9748529-6-6
Pratt, Douglas. The Challenge of Islam: Encounters in Interfaith Dialogue.
Aldershot, Hampshire: Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2005. ISBN 0-7546-5122-
3.
Riess, in I. Goschler's Dict. Encyclop. de la théol. cath. (1858)
Schimmel, Annemarie. Mystical Dimensions of Islam. ISBN 0-8078-1271-4.
Weir, Anthony. "Differences Between Bektashism and Islamic Orthodoxy"
in The Bektashi Order of Dervishes. Retrieved 10 October 2006.
Peter Linebaugh and Marcus Rediker. The Many-Headed Hydra. Beacon Press,
Boston, 2000

External links
New Perspective on Paul
Jewish Encyclopedia: Antinomianism
Catholic Encyclopedia: Moral Aspect of Divine Law
Catholic Encyclopedia: Mosaic Legislation
Catholic Catechism on The Moral Law
Henry Eyster Jacobs, Lutheran Cyclopedia p. 18, "Antinomianism"
Sermon on Antinomianism
Jewish Encyclopedia: New Testament - For and Against the Law
Jewish Encyclopedia: Jesus: Attitude Toward the Law
Jewish Encyclopedia: Saul of Tarsus: Paul's Opposition to the Law
Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge: Antinomianism
Benjamin Brown, 'The Two Faces of Religious Radicalism - Orthodox Zealotry
and Holy Sinning in Nineteenth Century Hasidism in Hungary and Galicia'

Wikiquote has quotations related to: Antinomianism

Look up antinomianism in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

Early Lutheran controversies

Beliefs condemned as heretical by the Catholic Church

Categories