• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Antinomianism among Baptists

Reformed

Reformed

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
The term "antinomian" means "against the Law". In another thread, I made the following post to explain the moral, civil/judicial, and ceremonial aspects of the law in the Old Testament. Many Baptists believe that there is no law that governs Christian behavior. The thought goes that we are free from the Law and it is no longer binding under the New Covenant. There are other Baptists who, while in the minority, believe that the moral law of God, which existed before the Mosaic Law, is still in effect today. These Baptists do not believe that the moral law is able to make a person righteous. Quite simply, the moral law is the innate knowledge of right and wrong. For example, we know that God hates idolatry. He hated it under the Old Testament economy and He hates it under the New Testament economy. Either way, God hates idolatry because it robs Him of His glory. If there is no moral law in operation today, then Christians should be able to practice idolatry without even a pang of conscience. After all, are we not under grace? Are not all our sins atoned for, even idolatry? Before you say "Amen!" to that, consider how the Apostle Paul responded to a similar issue about sinning because we are under grace.

Romans 6:1-2 1 What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase? 2 May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it? 3 Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death?

And if there is no moral standard by which we are to live our life, how do we reconcile that idea with the words of Peter:

1 Peter 1:14-16 14 As obedient children, do not be conformed to the former lusts which were yours in your ignorance, 15 but like the Holy One who called you, be holy yourselves also in all your behavior; 16 because it is written, “YOU SHALL BE HOLY, FOR I AM HOLY.”

The truth is that there is a law that operates today. It is not a law of commandments regarding food or sacrifices, rather it is a law that calls us to holiness in all our behavior. The moral law of God cannot condemn a true child of God, because the child of God is cleansed from all sin (1 John 1:7-9). The moral law of God points us toward a continued life of repentance as we become more and more like Christ (Philippians 1:6).
 
Mikey

Mikey

Active Member
First off, Just because someone disagrees with the concept of the moral law does not mean that they want or believe that they can continue to live in sin. This is an argument I hear for the reformed and it does not hold water. Reformed do not skip over the parts of the OT where it discusses the Ceremonial law or Civil law, stating that these laws are abrogated and therefore of no use to us and can ignore it . Yet accuse "antinomians" of ignoring the "moral law" and will continue to sin.
All of the OT is good for learning and teaching. "Antinomians" would use the moral law in the same way as the "other laws" as all is authoritative.

It is on the Reformed to show that there is a threefold distinction in the law, (Moral, Civil, Ceremonial) from Scripture
 
JonC

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
I believe that God's "law" (God's standard for moral conduct) has to be eternal because God is eternal. That does not necessarily mean we are "under the Law" (which refers to the Mosaic Law, which was covenantal and exceeded moral standards). For example, it is a sin to murder. Not because it transgresses the Law (which we are not under) but because it is opposed to God's law (God's moral standard).
 
Reformed

Reformed

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Mikey said:
First off, Just because someone disagrees with the concept of the moral law does not mean that they want or believe that they can continue to live in sin. This is an argument I hear for the reformed and it does not hold water. Reformed do not skip over the parts of the OT where it discusses the Ceremonial law or Civil law, stating that these laws are abrogated and therefore of no use to us and can ignore it . Yet accuse "antinomians" of ignoring the "moral law" and will continue to sin.
All of the OT is good for learning and teaching. "Antinomians" would use the moral law in the same way as the "other laws" as all is authoritative.

It is on the Reformed to show that there is a threefold distinction in the law, (Moral, Civil, Ceremonial) from Scripture
Click to expand...
Mikey,

Good morning.

The first thing I want to address is the pre-Mosaic existence of God's moral law. When theologians use that term they are not saying the words "moral law" are found in scripture. They are using that designation to describe a biblical truth. It is similar to the use of the word "Trinity". "Trinity" does not appear in scripture, although the word is accepted as describing something that is true. Back in Genesis 4 Cain was angry with his brother Abel. In response the Lord told Cain that sin was crouching at the door but he must master it. We know how the rest of the story goes. Cain killed his brother. How did Cain know that it was wrong to murder? The Ten Commandments had not yet been given. Cain knew it was wrong to murder because Cain was created in the image of God (Genesis 1:27). This means Cain, like ever other human being, is created in the moral likeness of God. We are sentient beings that are able to think and reason. We intuitively know right from wrong. This is why theologians refer to that knowledge as God's moral law.

A question for you. If there is no moral law, than why is it wrong for someone to lie, murder, or steal? Do not use the 10 Commandments as your support. If all Law is part of the Mosaic Law we cannot appeal to Moses. What governs our behavior now if it is not the same God-given knowledge of right and wrong that can be traced back to the Garden?

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk
 
HankD

HankD

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
One does not need to put up a barrier or fence around the hog wallow to keep the sheep out.

e.g. To my sheep:Thou shalt not roll around in the pig's stinking mire.
 
Wesley Briggman

Wesley Briggman

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Regardless of which of God's laws are observed or not, God cares for His children and they are subject to His discipline if they do not repent of their sin.
Heb 12:8 KJV - But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.
 
Last edited:
Reformed

Reformed

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Wesley Briggman said:
Regardless of which of God's laws are observed or not, God cares for His children are they are subject to His discipline if they do not repent of the sin.
Heb 12:8 KJV - But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.
Click to expand...
There is a divine rule over right and wrong. It is undeniable.
 
Reformed

Reformed

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
JonC said:
I believe that God's "law" (God's standard for moral conduct) has to be eternal because God is eternal. That does not necessarily mean we are "under the Law" (which refers to the Mosaic Law, which was covenantal and exceeded moral standards). For example, it is a sin to murder. Not because it transgresses the Law (which we are not under) but because it is opposed to God's law (God's moral standard).
Click to expand...
I always worry about agreeing with you because I never know if I am agreeing to something that I do not agree with. LOL Does that make any sense? I read your writing in such a way that I think I agree, but I am not sure. Perhaps it is our disagreement over the atonement that makes me cagey.
 
JonC

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
Reformed said:
I always worry about agreeing with you because I never know if I am agreeing to something that I do not agree with. LOL Does that make any sense? I read your writing in such a way that I think I agree, but I am not sure. Perhaps it is our disagreement over the atonement that makes me cagey.
Click to expand...
We agree. Just take my word for it. :Biggrin
 
Mikey

Mikey

Active Member
Reformed said:
Mikey,

Good morning.

The first thing I want to address is the pre-Mosaic existence of God's moral law. When theologians use that term they are not saying the words "moral law" are found in scripture. They are using that designation to describe a biblical truth. It is similar to the use of the word "Trinity". "Trinity" does not appear in scripture, although the word is accepted as describing something that is true. Back in Genesis 4 Cain was angry with his brother Abel. In response the Lord told Cain that sin was crouching at the door but he must master it. We know how the rest of the story goes. Cain killed his brother. How did Cain know that it was wrong to murder? The Ten Commandments had not yet been given. Cain knew it was wrong to murder because Cain was created in the image of God (Genesis 1:27). This means Cain, like ever other human being, is created in the moral likeness of God. We are sentient beings that are able to think and reason. We intuitively know right from wrong. This is why theologians refer to that knowledge as God's moral law.

A question for you. If there is no moral law, than why is it wrong for someone to lie, murder, or steal? Do not use the 10 Commandments as your support. If all Law is part of the Mosaic Law we cannot appeal to Moses. What governs our behavior now if it is not the same God-given knowledge of right and wrong that can be traced back to the Garden?

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


Good Morning
I was not looking for the exact words "moral law" in scripture as you point out the words do no have to be there for the concept to be biblical. However there must be strong evidence in scripture that the law itself was divided into the different groups.

I agree that God has had the eternal moral standards, standards that we are expected to strive for(we are to be Christ like). Standards that have been progressively revealed. However that is not the same as the Moral Law (at least how I understand it). the 10 Commandments are believed to be the 'summary' of the moral law, thereby all moral law can be summed up in the 10 commandments. There I believe that the reformed use the 'summary' rather than the actual moral law is because the moral law is not as clear cut as one is lead to believe for there are moral aspects to civil law. Thus when it is believed that the civil and ceremonial laws are abrogated one has to be careful when placing each law in which group (could accidently abrogate a moral law if it is believed it not to be, or follow a civil law that should be abrogated etc). The ten commandments themselves as given to Israel were not full as we are taught. That to hate someone is to commit murder. This was not the law that Israel had. there was no punishment for hatred according to the law. (though hatred was always against God's moral standards). The law was to constrain evil, through punishments that came from breaking the law. As Christians we should not need the law to constrain us, for we serve God, love God.

We seem to have a different understanding of the moral law. what you seem to describe is what I might refer to as General revelation or Natural revelation. That we know God exists, we know the character of God, we know right from wrong from the world and intrinsically in us.
 
Last edited:
Mikey

Mikey

Active Member
JonC said:
I believe that God's "law" (God's standard for moral conduct) has to be eternal because God is eternal. That does not necessarily mean we are "under the Law" (which refers to the Mosaic Law, which was covenantal and exceeded moral standards). For example, it is a sin to murder. Not because it transgresses the Law (which we are not under) but because it is opposed to God's law (God's moral standard).
Click to expand...
Reformed said:
I always worry about agreeing with you because I never know if I am agreeing to something that I do not agree with. LOL Does that make any sense? I read your writing in such a way that I think I agree, but I am not sure. Perhaps it is our disagreement over the atonement that makes me cagey.
Click to expand...

I too seem to agree with what JonC wroteConfused:eek:
 
M

MB

Well-Known Member
Love is the answer to keeping moral law because if you Love your neighbor you won't sin against them. When we sin it means we do not really LOVE. I suppose I must not really love because I still sin. Though I confess my sins I have to because I'm still a sinner.
MB
 
Reformed

Reformed

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
@Mikey , I am on my mobile device, so it is not easy to quote snippets from your previous response. The Law was intended to do far more than restrain evil. David writes in Psalm 19:7, "The law of the Lord is perfect restoring the soul." David saw far more in the Law than just rules to follow and harsh penalties for breaking them. Paul wrote that the Law is our tutor, leading us to Christ (Galatians 3:24).

I agree that you and I see the Law differently. That is a reasonable disagreement given our theological distinctives. Whether we agree that there is a moral law, I think we agree that every human being inherently knows right from wrong. That knowledge is part of the Imago Dei.

Blessings.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top