Talk:Antinomianism

message: This article has a neutrality flag, so let's start a discussion of what the appropriate tone for this article should be. I am not an expert on this topic, but I learned "antinomian" as describing one who values personal religious interpretation and experience over formally taught doctrine and theology - a tendency that is increasingly common and acceptable with the rise of pluralism. The article has a distinctly negative tone though, like it was written primarily by writers with with either: a) an agenda favoring traditional Christian theology or b) a mostly historical perspective focusing on less pluralistic times when this term had a more "subversive" than "individualist" connotation. 
Here is Britannica's take which I think is a neutral (but brief) account. (Most other internet sources are from Christian organizations or churches and have a similar tone to the Wikipedia article). 
::(Greek anti, “against”; nomos, “law”), doctrine according to which Christians are freed by grace from the necessity of obeying the Mosaic Law. The antinomians rejected the very notion of obedience as legalistic; to them the good life flowed from the inner working of the Holy Spirit. In this circumstance they appealed not only to Martin Luther but also to Paul and Augustine.
::The ideas of antinomianism had been present in the early church, and some Gnostic heretics believed that freedom from law meant freedom for license. The doctrine of antinomianism, however, grew out of the Protestant controversies on the law and the gospel and was first attributed to Luther’s collaborator, Johann Agricola. It also appeared in the Reformed branch of Protestantism. The left-wing Anabaptists were accused of antinomianism, both for theological reasons and also because they opposed the cooperation of church and state, which was considered necessary for law and order. For similar reasons, in the 17th century, Separatists, Familists, Ranters, and Independents in England were called antinomians by the established churches. In New England, Anne Hutchinson was accused of the doctrine when she said that the churches were preaching “the covenant of works.” The Evangelical movement at the end of the 18th century produced its own antinomians who claimed an inner experience and a “new life,” which they considered the true source of good works
</blockquote>.
Please list suggested neutrality changes below. -user:npatchett 
1)Many sections of article is organized as "charges against" different sects, which assumes only negative connotation of the word. Perhaps an antinomian tendency in protestantism, the Society of Friends, etc is a real strength?
UPDATE: Neutrality much improved with four hours of editing. Text is a little smoother too!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.182.176.121 (talk) 04:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality 

message: This article is entirely focused on the mudslinging aspect of various Christian  schisms. I personally think it should be deleted, but perhaps it would serve some use as part of the Schism article's Christianity section. There is very little encyclopedic content here, and what does exist can be trimmed down and moved elsewhere. --Nursethisviper 05:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: I removed this text from the article in chief:
===Charges against New Creation Church in Singapore===
New Creation Church in Singapore is a strong advocate of the antinomiant message. As a result of this popular heresy, some of its members has found the excuse for unreasonable behavior to be acceptable, since they claim they have no need to be obedient to the Ten Commandments. This in itself is self-contradictory, as the Civil Laws of the society at large is based on the Ten Commandments.
This seems to me to be the sort of thing that references ought to be supplied for before it shows up in the article in chief.  The article about the New Creation Church is also full of this sort of accusation, and gives no references other than a link to the church's official site.  No church labels itself heretical. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Creation Church 

message: New Creation Church in Singapore is a strong advocate of the antinomiant message. As a result of this popular heresy, some of its members has found the excuse for unreasonable behavior to be acceptable, since they claim they have no need to be obedient to the Ten Commandments. This in itself is self-contradictory, as the Civil Laws of the society at large is based on the Ten Commandments.
This seems to me to be the sort of thing that references ought to be supplied for before it shows up in the article in chief.  The article about the New Creation Church is also full of this sort of accusation, and gives no references other than a link to the church's official site.  No church labels itself heretical. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Charges against New Creation Church in Singapore

message: I came to this article looking for info on the various pre-Reformation heretical sects which were condemned for antinomianism by the Catholic church. Not to have anything at all on them is a serious omission, isn't it? --62.253.36.112 14:10, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pre-Reformation heretics 

message: I have added the "Globalize/Christianity" template because I believe this article (although it does have a short section on the Tanakh) does not sufficiently represent non-Christian views of the subject.
Although, admittedly, the term "antinomianism" originally arose in a Christian context, it has long since expanded—as is perhaps fitting when the word's etymology as, more or less, "against the rule" is considered—to encompass roughly similar movements or personages in other faiths, which fact this article does not even touch upon.
In the akin Judeo-Christian tradition, for instance, what of Mansur al-Hallaj and his statement ana al-Ḥaqq (أنا الحق), meaning "I am the Truth" or, by implication, "I am God", for which he was executed? or the Malamatiyya and Qalandariyah groups, who openly flaunted the rule of Islamic law through their behavior?
Moving even further afield from what's already in the article, what of the numerous Zen Buddhist antinomians: Huineng, Chan's sixth patriarch, who tore up Buddhist sutras? Ikkyu, who used brothels as a means of deepening his enlightenment? Yunmen Wenyan, who referred to the Buddha as a "dried shit-stick"? Or, in India, Kabir, who often openly rejected both the Qur'an and the Vedas?
In short, all of these aspects (if not necessarily the specific examples mentioned) ought to be incorporated into this article so as to make it as unbiased, and as accurate, as possible. Any thoughts? —Saposcat 21:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems reasonable, why not add them?75.15.207.108 03:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: the Globalize/Christianity template 

message: At the moment, the article includes an ISBN in error:
:* Hall, Robert W., Anchor Bible Dictionary, Antinomianism ISBN 0-385-19353-1  038542583X 
I am going to update this to what I believe is the correct ISBN as well as the correct author (editor) for the dictionary. Not having the dictionary in front of me, I'm going to go with the ISBN for the 6 volume set rather than just one volume. Please advise if I am in error. Kind Regards, Keesiewonder 23:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ISBN 

message: Among the many problems with this article as a whole, it says Pascal accused the Jesuits of antinomianism. This seems to imply the Jesuits were/are Protestant. I think that might be news to them!
--DaXiong 07:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Catholics vs. Protestants 

message: The article says "The Epistle of James, in contrast, states that our good works justify before men our faith after salvation and we are to obey the Law of God, that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone".
No, that is not what James says.  He says that if you claim to have faith, but your faith does not affect what you do, then your claim is a sham.  I suggest that this sentence be re-written if not taken out entirely.  (NB, I'm Catholic, if anyone wonders.) Jhobson1 11:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  James misinterpreted 

message: Why is this categorised as "Biblical Phrase"?  It is a theological term of Greek origin.  I am sure the word itself does not occur in the Bible.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ἀνομία (without law) is the word that's in the Bible. See also Strong's G458. A common English translation is lawlessness. 68.123.73.40 (talk) 03:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biblical phrases 

message: Wasn't there a Gnostic group called the Antinomians, who taught that, the Law of the Old Testament being evil (I guess they would probably be Marcionists), a work of the Demiurge, one could achieve gnosis by intentionally violating it?  Sort of a Gnostic version of some Tantric practices?  I remember reading about it, but cannot for the life of me remember where.  Nagakura shin8 (talk) 11:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gnosticism 

message: I am not one who subscribes to the philosophy that all sides, no matter how strained,  must be presented as equally viable, but the problem with this article is that it needs to present a more coherent explanation of the topic, and is more biased toward the Catholic side. While from the beginning of the article sola fide is implicated in Antinomianism, Protestantism from early on has overall upheld the teaching that grace is not contrary to morality, a charge which was not first faced by the Reformationists,  but by Jesus (Mt. 9:9-11; 12:1,2) and Paul (Rm. 6:1; Gal. 2:17) and refuted by both. Rather than the N.T. conveying an inconsistent soteriology in this regard, the highest degree of morality is enjoined upon believers, (Rm. 8:4; 2Pt. 3:14) grace being the means,  with sins of the heart as well as the body being condemned, (1Cor. 6:9-10; Gal. 5:19-21) while offering redemption to the lowest of sinners. (Tits 3:3-5)  As for the Reformationists, 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." (11:2) 
The most noted evangelical Bible commentators have historically upheld this. Barnes notes on Titus 1:16  ("They profess that they know God; but in works they deny, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.")  "Full of a pretended faith, while utterly destitute of those works by which a genuine faith is accredited and proved." Henry: "There are many who in word and tongue profess to know God, and yet in their lives and conversations deny and reject him; their practice is a contradiction to their profession."  
In addition to the morality of the law being upheld, the issue is what manner of faith is salvific: one that professes but denies the Lord Jesus by continued degradation, or one that characteristically manifests the "obedience of faith", by which the redeemed are made manifest. (1Thes. 1; Heb. 5:9; 6:9; 1Jn. 5:13)  If i had more time and energy now I could do some editing, but here are a couple evangelical sources:
J.I. Packer (Concise Theology, Pp. 178-180) sees 5 strains of Antinomianism:
 
*Dualistic Antinomianism (Gnostic) This view sees salvation as for the soul only, and bodily behavior as irrelevant both to God’s interest and the soul’s health…
*Spirit-centered Antinomianism …puts such trust in the Holy Spirit’s inward prompting as to deny any need to be taught by the law how to live. Freedom from the law as a way of salvation is assumed to bring with it freedom from the law as a guide to conduct.
*Christ-centered Antinomianism …argues that God sees no sin in believers, because they are in Christ, who kept the law for them, and therefore what they actually do makes no difference, provided that they keep believing.
*Dispensational Antinomianism …denies that biblical law is God’s direct command and affirms that the Bible’s imperative statements trigger the Word of the Spirit, which when it comes may or may not correspond exactly to what is written.
*Situationist Antinomianism …says that a motive and intention of love is all that God now requires of Christians, and the commands of the Decalogue and other ethical parts of scripture, for all that they are ascribed to God directly, are mere rules of thumb for loving, rules that love may at times disregard. 
J. M. Sterrett (Banner of Truth, 2002, p. 41) defined Antinomianism as follows: "In its widest sense the term is used to designate the doctrines of extreme fanatics who deny subjection to any law other than the subjective caprices of the empirical individual, though this individual is generally credited as the witness and interpreter of the Holy Spirit." (From his article in Hastings Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics) The term itself was invented by Luther in his controversy with Johannes Agricola. Agricola in his anxiety to conserve the principle of salvation by faith held that even the Ten Commandments are abrogated for the Christian. "Art thou steeped in sin, an adulterer or a thief? If thou believest, thou art in salvation. All who follow Moses must go to the Devil. To the gallows with Moses!"   Daniel1212 (talk) 17:16, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Better presentation needed

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Antinomianism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110728132258/http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/wcf.htm to http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/wcf.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090329005908/http://jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=283&letter=S&search=Paul%20of%20Tarsus#978 to http://jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=283&letter=S&search=Paul%20of%20Tarsus#978
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:15, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I needed to look up "cultural antinomianism." Your article was of no help. I get the literal "lawlessness" aspect, but had no clue as to how the concept of antinomianism in the religious context could be borrowed and used in a different, secular, context.
Reason?
You launch off into historical religious factions & heresies w/o clearly stating meaning of the word "antinomian" apart from the suggestion of, perhaps, lawlessness.
Source of the puzzling usage: Paul R. McHugh, M.D., Psychiatrist, in "Psychiatric Misadventures," published in American Scholar Magazine (1992); available online in text form, p. 4, at:
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/mchugh.htm.
How is the term "antinomian" used properly in other contexts than the religious?
How does use of the obscure word "antinomian" add more meaning than simply saying "lawless?"
What am I missing?
The Wikipedia article leaves me puzzled.
Thank you for any clarification.
-rs  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rs-sfo (talk • contribs) 02:18, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto. Pasdecomplot (talk) 23:35, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article is confusing 

message: Would Rasputin, with his (alleged, I'm no expert on him) idea of committing the greatest sins possible, then repenting, producing the greatest repentance and thereby pleasing God, be part of this? I suppose the difference would be a lack of repentance in Antinomianism, or at least a lack of it's necessity, repentance, coming if it does, out of natural human morals without any supernatural aspect. 
I suppose Rasputin could be seen as *demonstrating* god's grace, from an Antinomian point of view. 
188.29.165.57 (talk) 19:34, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rasputin 

message: The article says, "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."  I don't care if this is in the Encyclopaedia Brittanica; it's ridiculous.  No Christians, as far as we know, have believed that Christians are bound to follow the Law of Moses since about the 1st century AD, in which St Paul argued over the issue with Peter and others, and clearly and repeatedly stated that Christians are not bound to follow the Law of Moses.
(Many Christians believe they must follow the 10 Commandments, but that is not what is meant by the Law of Moses. Just click on the link and go to the Wikipedia article on it if you doubt that.) Philgoetz (talk) 05:09, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely, I would agree. I used to be formerly Antinomian too. This teaching is also known as "Easy Believism", that somebody gets saved by simply believing without repentance and then can live any way he wants. It is pretty popular in Independent Baptist Churches. Three people who taught/teach that way were/are Jack Hyles, Curtis Hutson and Steven Anderson. All of them teach that only the sin of unbelief condemns a person to hell. I personally would not agree, even though I used to agree, yet we read verses like Rev. 21:8. I believe in eternal security. Yet, I oppose Calvinism. I believe the teaching of an original sin goes against scripture. Theologians I would agree with would involve A.W. Tozer, Peter Ruckman and Ray Comfort.
I would describe Antinomianism as thinking a Christian could continue in sin that grace may abound. Hence, disobedience of the moral laws (thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not lie, thou shalt have no other gods before me, thou shalt not commit adultery etc.). It has nothing to do with the Sabbath or food laws, which Jesus nailed on the cross from what I read. MrLW97 (talk) 22:49, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of antinomianism is wrong 

message: A new section on Nicolaism has been added to the Antinomianism article. I think that the entry on Nicolaism is too long and gives too much weight (WP:UNDUE) to a very minor sect. It's a good story, but do we need to know the details of his devotion to his "beautiful wife" and how he was overpowered by "his burning desire"? I would like to edit the section down. Any objections? - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 03:02, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It also seems romanced to me, —PaleoNeonate – 22:11, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nicolaism 

message: This Article relies heavily on primary sources and includes sections mainly reliant on the Pauline Epistles. While such material is certainly appropriate, it violates Wikipedia's policy regarding original research (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research. It would be great if someone could add secondary and tertiary material to those sections.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:449:8300:A55F:3D1B:A02E:A877:DDB2 (talk) 22:33, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original Research 

message: The page's subject contradicts Vajrayana philosophy, in that the view of Vajrayana is all inclusive. Thus, there is no "transgression", which I edited out since it it's incorrect. The RS doesn't provide specific quotations, but if an editor can provide a quote then give a ping. Pasdecomplot (talk) 23:34, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vajrayana Buddhism?