Difference between revisions of "Antinomianism" - New World Encyclopedia

From New World Encyclopedia
m
(20 intermediate revisions by 8 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Submitted}}{{Images OK}}
+
{{Ebcompleted}}{{2Copyedited}}{{Paid}}{{Approved}}{{Submitted}}{{Images OK}}{{Copyedited}}
'''Antinomianism''' (from the [[Greek language|Greek]]: ''αντι'', "against" + ''νομος'', "law"), or lawlessness (Greek: ''ανομια''), in [[theology]], is the idea that members of a particular religious group are under no obligation to obey the laws of [[ethics]] or [[morality]] as presented by religious authorities. Antinomianism is the polar opposite of [[legalism]], the notion that obedience to a code of religious law is necessary for [[salvation]].
+
'''Antinomianism''' (from the [[Greek language|Greek]]: ''αντι,'' "against" + ''νομος,'' "law"), or lawlessness (Greek: ''ανομια''), in [[theology]], is the idea that members of a particular religious group are under no obligation to obey the laws of [[ethics]] or [[morality]] as presented by religious authorities. Antinomianism is the polar opposite of [[legalism]], the notion that obedience to a code of religious law is necessary for [[salvation]]. Few groups or sects explicitly call themselves "antinomian," but the charge is often leveled as a derogatory label by some sects against competing sects.
  
The term has become a point of contention among opposed religious authorities. Few groups or sects explicitly call themselves "antinomian", but the charge is often levelled by some sects against competing sects.
+
The topic of antinomianism is quite complex because it involves the interrelated issues of power, authority, law, and freedom. On the one hand, religious rules/laws have been set in motion for the purpose of helping humanity to learn to live in harmony with each other and our planet. This underlying purpose is exemplified in the various legal codes found in the world's religions. On the other hand, religious codes have, in many cases, become archaic and oppressive to certain groups involved, thus acting as catalysts for social change. Indeed, it is often the case that antinomian movements have been at the forefront of social change and the betterment of humanity. Thus, the topic of antinomianism solicits different responses and reactions due to its ambivalent fruits.
 +
{{toc}}
 +
The heart of antinomianism is belief in human perfection, the state of divine indwelling in which anything that one wills is good because it is prompted by the Holy Spirit within. In the Western traditions, this belief was associated with [[Messiah|messianism]] and belief in the dawning of a new age when the law, formerly a "custodian" (Galatians 3:24) needed as long as humanity labored under the deficiencies of fallen nature, would no longer be required. In the new age, perfected believers would be "discharged from the law" (Romans 7:6). Yet in every age there have been good people who lived without the need of law, who in freedom would do by conscience what they were obliged to do by legal code. [[Confucius]] described this state when he wrote: "At seventy, I could follow what my heart desired, without transgressing what was right."<ref>''The Analects of Confucius.'' Lun Yu[http://www.afpc.asso.fr/wengu/wg/wengu.php?no=20&l=Lunyu "Lunyu II.4."]. Retrieved March 13, 2008.</ref>.
  
==Antinomianism in the Tanakh==
+
==Overview==
Throughout the [[TaNaK]], or Hebrew Bible, different [[covenant]]s are described; two of them are the [[King David|Davidic]] and the [[Moses|Mosaic]]. The Davidic adds an emphasis of God's unconditional commitment to the Mosaic's apparent emphasis on God's demands; however, both Moses and David describe the same covenant, a covenant that was further expounded by [[Elijah]], [[Isaiah]], and the other prophets, who have to repeatedly remind followers of God's demands. For example, the Book of Daniel 7:25 reads:
+
Several issues are implied by the topic of antinomianism including power relationships, conformance, obligation, [[freedom]], and [[ethics]]. To label a group "antinomian" suggests that its practices and/or doctrines are dangerously errant; and that they deviate from the dominant teachings of the mainstream group. The charge is typically brought against groups who are seen (from the perspective of the dominant paradigm) to be eroding the authority of religious governing bodies and established leadership. Consequently, the term antinomianism implies the issues of power and conformance to religious laws. Religious authorities often use the label "antinomian" to brand splinter groups who reject the dominant teachings of the mainstream group. It is implied that a group's antinomian behavior against the rule of law leads to all sorts of licentiousness, and thus is undesirable.
:"He shall speak words against the Most High, shall wear out the holy ones of the Most High, and shall attempt to change the sacred seasons and the law; and they shall be given into his power for a time, two times, and half a time." (NRSV)
 
  
==Antinomianism in the New Testament==
+
==Antinomianism among Christians==
Paul of Tarsus, in his Letters, claims several times that believers are saved by the unearned grace of God, not by our own good works, "lest anyone should boast", and placed emphasis on orthodoxy (right belief) rather than orthopraxy (right practice). The [[soteriology]] of Paul's statements in this matter has always been a matter of dispute (for example see 2 Peter 3:16); the ancient [[gnosticism|gnostics]] interpreted Paul 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 mainstream Christian orthodoxy, however, this is interpreted as a reference to salvation simply by believing that Christianity is valid.
+
In the case of Christianity, the issue of antinomianism arises out of the doctrine of [[grace]], the forgiveness of [[sin]]s and [[atonement]] by [[faith]] in Jesus Christ. The controversy can be formulated in a question: If God forgives sins, what exactly is the disadvantage in sinning, or the reward or purpose of obedience to the moral law?
  
Paul used the term ''freedom in Christ'', for example, Galatians 2:4, and it is clear that some understood this to mean lawlessness (i.e not obeying Mosaic Law). For example, in Acts 18:12-16 Paul is accused of "persuading .. people to worship God in ways contrary to the law" and in Acts 21:21 James the Just explained his situation to Paul:
+
The Tübingen school of historians founded by Ferdinand Christian Baur holds that in Early Christianity there was conflict between [[Saint Paul|Pauline]] Christianity and the Jerusalem Church led by James the Just, [[Simon Peter]], and [[John the Apostle]], the so-called "Jewish Christians," although in many places Paul writes that he was an observant Jew, and that Christians should "uphold the Law" ([[Epistle to the Romans|Romans]] 3:31). In Galatians 2:14, part of the "Incident at Antioch,"<ref>F. Bechtel [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08537a.htm Catholic Encyclopedia: Judaizers] see section titled: "THE INCIDENT AT ANTIOCH." Retrieved March 13, 2008. </ref> Paul publicly accused Peter of judaizing. Even so, he does go on to say that sins remain sins, and upholds by several examples the kind of behavior that the [[church]] should not tolerate. For example, in [[First Epistle to the Corinthians|1 Corinthians]] 7:10-16 NIV 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 not in conflict with what the Lord said. However, this may mean he received direct knowledge of what the Lord wanted him to teach through the Holy Ghost ([[Epistle to the Galatians|Galatians]] 2:6-10 NIV), but in that case he would have attributed the teaching to the Lord, rather than saying: "I, not the Lord."
:"They have been told about you that you teach all the [[Jew]]s living among the [[Gentiles]] to forsake [[Moses]], and that you tell them not to [[Circumcision|circumcise]] their children or observe the customs." (NRSV)
 
  
[[Colossians]]* 2:13-14 is sometimes presented as proof of Paul's antinomistic views, for example the NIV translates: "...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."; however the NRSV translates 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."; which makes it clear that it was the trespasses against the Law, not the Law itself that was "nailed to the cross."
+
[[Saint Paul|Paul]], in his Epistles, claims several times that believers are saved by the unearned grace of God, not good works, "lest anyone should boast." He placed emphasis on orthodoxy (right belief) rather than orthopraxy (right practice). However, his doctrine of justification by faith has been accused of leading to immoral license. Occasionally, this has been interpreted as a reference to salvation simply by believing that Christianity is valid.  
  
The [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08537a.htm Catholic Encyclopedia: 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 circumcised Timothy (Acts 16:1-3), and he was in the very act of observing the Mosaic ritual when he was arrested at Jerusalem (Acts 21:26 sqq.)."
+
The [[Epistle of James]], in contrast, states that our good works [[justification|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," that "faith without works is dead" (2:14&ndash;26). Historically, the presence of this statement has been difficult for Protestants to rectify with their belief in salvation by faith alone. [[Martin Luther]] even suggested that the Epistle might be a forgery, and relegated it to an appendix in his Bible (although he later came to accept its canonicity).
  
The Tübingen school of historians founded by Ferdinand Christian 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" although 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" <ref>[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08537a.htm Catholic Encyclopedia: Judaizers] see section titled: "THE INCIDENT AT ANTIOCH"
+
In the [[New Testament]], Paul used the term ''freedom in Christ'' (e.g., Galatians 2:4), and some understood this to mean lawlessness (i.e., not obeying Mosaic Law). For example, in Acts 18:12-16 Paul is accused of "persuading … people to worship God in ways contrary to the law," and in Acts 21:21 James the Just explained his situation to Paul: "They have been told about you that you teach all the [[Jew]]s living among the [[Gentiles]] to forsake [[Moses]], and that you tell them not to [[Circumcision|circumcise]] their children or observe the customs" (NRSV).
</ref>, Paul publicly accused Peter of judaizing. Even so, he does go on to say that sins remain sins, and upholds by several examples the kind of behaviour that the [[church]] should not tolerate. For example, in 1 Corinthians 7:10-16 NIV 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 not in conflict with what the Lord said.  However, this may mean he received direct knowledge of what the Lord wanted him to teach through the Holy Ghost (Galatians 2:6-10 NIV), but in that case he would have attributed the teaching to the Lord, rather than saying: "I, not the Lord."
 
  
The [[Epistle of James]]*, in contrast, states that our good works [[justification|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", that "faith without works is dead"  (2:14&ndash;26). Historically, the presence of this statement has been difficult for Protestants to rectify with their belief in salvation by faith alone. [[Martin Luther]] even suggested that the Epistle might be a forgery, and relegated it to an appendix in his Bible (although he later came to accept its canonicity). http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/james/james2.htm#v20 James 2:20], nkjv Romans 2:6 Romans 2:6, Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification.
+
[[Epistle to the Colossians|Colossians]] 2:13-14 is sometimes presented as proof of Paul's antinomistic views, for example the NIV translates: "… 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." However the NRSV translates 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." The latter makes it clear that it was the trespasses against the Law, not the Law itself that was "nailed to the cross."
  
The [[Torah]] prescribes the [[death penalty]] for desecrating the [[sabbath]] by working (Exodus 31:14-17). To avoid any possibility of breaking the Torah commands, the [[Pharisees]] formulated strict interpretations and numerous traditions which they treated as ''laws'', see [[Halakha]]. [[Jesus]] criticized the Pharisees for this (Mark 7:7-9). The Jewish Encyclopedia article on [http://jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=254&letter=J&search=Jesus 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 the Hillel the Elder and Bet Shammai were occurring about the time of his maturity."  In the [[Gospel of Mark]], Jesus's disciples were picking grain for food on a [[sabbath]] (Mark 2:23-28). When the [[Pharisees]] challenged Jesus over this, 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.g., E. P. Sanders <ref> Sanders ''Jesus and Judaism'', 1985, pages 264-269 on the Sabbath, handwashing and food </ref> notes: ". . . no substantial conflict 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." According to the [http://jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=245&letter=N&search=Gospel#703 Jewish Encyclopedia: New Testament: Misunderstood Passages]:
+
The [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08537a.htm Catholic Encyclopedia: 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 circumcised Timothy (Acts 16:1-3), and he was in the very act of observing the Mosaic ritual when he was arrested at Jerusalem (Acts 21:26 sqq.)."
:"Misunderstanding of the term "be-ḥad le-shabba tinyana" (on the first of the second week after Passover), preserved only in Luke vi. 1, caused the confusion of the law concerning the new produce of the year (Lev. xxiii. 11-14) with the Sabbath law (see Jew. Encyc. vii. 168, s.v. Jesus). In the one case Jesus, referring to David, defended his disciples, who in their hunger plucked the new corn in the field and ate it without waiting for the offering upon the altar; in the other case he himself disregarded the Sabbath law in view of the "pikkuaḥ nefesh" (peril of life), a case in which the Rabbis admitted the suspension of the law, upon the principle, "The Sabbath is given over to you ["the son of man"], and not you to the Sabbath" (see Mek., Wayaḳhel, 1; Chwolson, "Das Letzte Passahmahl," 1892, pp. 59-67, 91-92)."
 
  
In the [[Gospel of Matthew]], [[Jesus]] is sometimes portrayed as referring to people he sees as wicked with the term ''ergazomenoi ten anomian'' (εργαζομενοι την ανομιαν) - e.g. Matthew 7:21-23, Matthew 13:40-43. Due to this negative context the term has almost always been translated as ''evildoers'', though it literally means ''workers of lawlessness''<ref>''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"; NASB: "YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS"; NKJV: "you who practice lawlessness"</ref>. In other words, 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 Matthew's intended audience. However, Jesus called for full adherence to the commandments. (Matthew 5:19-21) He declared: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Mosaic 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.
+
What was [[Jesus]]' attitude towards following the law? In the context of Jesus' Jewish background, the law was understood as the teachings of the [[Torah]] (the Divine Law in Judaism). According to biblical accounts, Jesus said emphatically that he had not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it. In the [[Gospel of Matthew]], Jesus is sometimes portrayed as referring to people he sees as wicked with the term ''ergazomenoi ten anomian'' (εργαζομενοι την ανομιαν) (Matthew 7:21-23, Matthew 13:40-43). Due to this negative context the term has almost always been translated as ''evildoers,'' though it literally means ''workers of lawlessness.''<ref>''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"; NASB: "YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS"; NKJV: "you who practice lawlessness."</ref> In other words, Matthew appears to present Jesus as equating wickedness with encouraging antinomianism. Correspondingly, [[First Epistle of John|1 John]] 3:4 NRSV states: "Everyone who commits [[sin]] is guilty of lawlessness; sin is lawlessness." 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 Matthew's intended audience.
  
1 John 3:4 NRSV states: "Everyone who commits [[sin]] is guilty of lawlessness; sin is lawlessness."
+
On the other hand, the [[Torah]] prescribes the [[death penalty]] for desecrating the [[Sabbath]] by working ([[Book of Exodus|Exodus]] 31:14-17). To avoid any possibility of breaking the Torah commands, the [[Pharisees]] formulated strict interpretations and numerous traditions which they treated as ''laws'' ([[Halakha]]). In the [[Gospel of Mark]], Jesus's disciples were picking grain for food on a sabbath (Mark 2:23-28). When the Pharisees challenged Jesus over this, 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. For example, E. P. Sanders notes: "… no substantial conflict 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."<ref>E. P. Sanders. ''Jesus and Judaism.'' (Augsburg Fortress Publishers, 1985. ISBN 0800620615), 264-269 on the Sabbath, handwashing and food.</ref>
  
==Antinomianism among Christians==
+
===Charges by Catholics against Protestants===
In the case of Christianity, the controversy arises out of the doctrine of [[grace]], the forgiveness of [[sin]]s and [[atonement]] by [[faith]] in Jesus Christ; Christians being released, in important particulars, from conformity to the [[Old Testament]] polity as a whole, a real difficulty attended the settlement of the limits and the immediate authority of the remainder, known vaguely as the moral law. If God forgives sins, what exactly is the disadvantage in sinning, or the reward or purpose of obedience?
+
[[Roman Catholicism]] tends to charge [[Protestantism]] with antinomianism, based in part on the distinctively Protestant doctrine of sola fide, [[salvation]] by faith alone, and the typical Protestant rejection of the elaborate [[sacrament]]al [[liturgy]] of the Roman church and its body of Canon law. Within Roman Catholicism itself, [[Blaise Pascal]] accused the [[Society of Jesus|Jesuits]] of antinomianism in his ''Lettres provinciales,'' charging that Jesuit casuistry undermined moral principles.
  
===Multiple Issues===
+
From the latter part of the seventeenth century, charges of antinomianism have frequently been directed against [[Calvinism|Calvinists]], on the ground of their disparagement of "deadly doing" and of "legal preaching." The virulent controversy between Arminian and Calvinistic Methodists produced as its ablest outcome Fletcher's ''Checks to Antinomianism'' (1771&ndash;1775).  
There are several issues that are addressed by the charge of antinomianism. The charge may represent the fear that a given theological position does not lead to the edification of the believer or assist him in leading a regenerate life. Doctrines that tend to erode the authority of the [[church]] and its right to prescribe religious practices for the faithful are often condemned as antinomian. The charge is also brought against those whose teachings are perceived as hostile to government and established authority and the rule of law.
 
  
===Charges of Antinomianism against Early Christians===
+
Other Protestant groups that have been so accused include the [[Anabaptist]]s and [[Mennonite]]s. In the history of [[United States|American]] [[Puritanism]], [[Roger Williams]] and [[Anne Hutchinson]] were accused of antinomian teachings by the Puritan leadership of Massachusetts.
[[Paul of Tarsus|St Paul]]'s doctrine of justification by faith has been accused of leading to immoral licence. In Acts 6:13-14 [[Saint Stephen]]* is accused by "false witnesses" of speaking against the law. The first people accused of antinomianism were found, apparently, in [[Gnosticism]]; various aberrant and licentious acts were ascribed to these by their orthodox enemies. In the [[Book of Revelation]] 2:6&ndash;15, the [[New Testament]] speaks of Nicolaitanes, who are traditionally identified with a Gnostic sect, in terms that suggest the charge of antinomianism might be appropriate. In the Apostolic Constitutions, verse 6.19[http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-07/anf07-46.htm#P6492_2246960], [[Simon Magus]]* is accused of antinomianism, though traditionally he is accused of Simony. We have few independent records of actual Gnostic teachings, but they seem to have approached the question in two ways: [[Marcionism|Marcionites]], named by Clement of Alexandria ''Antitactae'' (revolters against the Demiurge), held the [[Old Testament]] economy to be throughout tainted by its source; but they are not accused of licentiousness. For example, [[Marcion]]'s version of Luke 23:2: "We found this fellow [Jesus] perverting the nation and destroying the law and the prophets".[http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Ithaca/3827/Epip13.html]  [[Manichaeans]], again, holding their spiritual being to be unaffected by the action of matter, regarded carnal sins as being, at worst, forms of bodily disease. Kindred to this latter view was the position of sundry sects of English fanatics during the Commonwealth, who denied that an elect person sinned, even when committing acts in themselves gross and evil.
 
  
===Charges by Catholics against Protestants===
+
==Antinomianism in Islam==
[[Roman Catholicism]] tends to charge [[Protestantism]] with antinomianism, based in part on the distinctively Protestant doctrine of sola fide, [[salvation]] by faith alone, (cf. James 2:24), and the typical Protestant rejection of the elaborate [[sacrament]]al [[liturgy]] of the Roman church and its body of Canon law. Within Roman Catholicism itself, [[Blaise Pascal]] accused the [[Society of Jesus|Jesuits]] of antinomianism in his ''Lettres provinciales'', charging that Jesuit casuistry undermined moral principles.
+
In [[Islam]], ''[[Sharia]]'' (شريعة) (law) applies not only to religion, but also to areas such as politics, banking, and sexuality. Actions, behaviors, or beliefs that violate any of the four sources of ''Sharia''<ref>The four sources of ''Sharia'' are:
 +
#the [[Qur'an|Qur'ān]], which is Islam's central religious text;
 +
#the [[sunnah]], which refers to actions practiced during the time of the [[prophet]] [[Muhammad]], and is often thought to include the ''[[Hadith]],'' or recorded words and deeds of Muhammad;
 +
#''ijmā,'' which is the consensus of the ''[[Ulema]],'' or class of Islamic scholars, on points of practice; and
 +
#''qiyās,'' which—in [[Sunni Islam|Sunnī Islam]]—is a kind of analogical reasoning conducted by the ulamā upon specific laws that have arisen through appeal to the first three sources.</ref> 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 Allah"); ''bid'ah'' ("innovation"); ''Kafir'' ("disbelief"); ''Haraam'' ("forbidden"); etc.
  
===Charges by Luther against Agricola===
+
As an example, the tenth-century [[Sufism|Sufi]] [[Mysticism|mystic]] [[Mansur al-Hallaj|Mansūr al-Hallāj]] was executed for ''shirk'' for his statement ''ana al-Haqq'' (أنا الحق), meaning "I am the Truth" and, by implication—as ''al-Haqq'' ("the Truth") is one of the 99 names of God in Islamic tradition—"I am God."<ref>Douglas Pratt. ''The Challenge of Islam: Encounters in Interfaith Dialogue.'' (Aldershot, Hampshire, UK: Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2005.), 72.</ref> Another individual who has often been termed antinomian is [[Ibn al-Arabi|Ibn al-'Arabi]], a twelfth–thirteenth century scholar and mystic whose doctrine of ''wahdat al-wujūd'' ("unity of being") has sometimes been interpreted as being [[Pantheism|pantheistic]], and thus ''shirk.''<ref>William C. Chittick. ''The Sufi Path of Knowledge: Ibn Al-Arabi's Metaphysics of Imagination.'' (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1989), 79.</ref>
Different from either of these was the ''antinomianism'' charged by [[Martin Luther]] against Johannes Agricola. According to the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica article on ''Antinomians'': "a term apparently coined by Luther to stigmatize Johannes Agricola and his following, indicating an interpretation of the anti-thesis between law and gospel, recurrent from the earliest times." Its starting-point was a dispute with Melanchthon in 1527 as to the relation between [[repentance]] and [[faith]]. Melanchthon urged that repentance must precede faith, and that knowledge of the moral law is needed to produce repentance. Agricola gave the initial place to faith, maintaining that repentance is the work, not of law, but of the gospel-given knowledge of the love of God. The resulting Antinomian controversy (the only one within the Lutheran body in Luther's lifetime) is not remarkable for the precision or the moderation of the combatants on either side. Agricola was apparently satisfied in conference with Luther and Melanchthon at Torgau, December 1527. His eighteen ''Positiones'' of 1537 revived the controversy and made it acute. Random as are some of his statements, he was consistent in two objects:
 
# In the interest of [[solifidianism|solifidian]] doctrine, to place the rejection of the Catholic doctrine of good works on a sure ground;
 
# In the interest of the New Testament, to find all needful guidance for Christian duty in its principles, if not in its precepts.
 
  
===Charges against Calvinists===
+
Apart from these and other individuals, entire groups of Muslims have also been called antinomian. One of these groups is the [[Ismaili|Ismā'īlī]] Shī'īs, who have always had strong millenarian tendencies arising partly from persecution directed at them by Sunnīs. Influenced to a certain extent by Gnosticism,<ref>See, for example, Isma'ilism at ''Encyclopaedia of the Orient''.</ref> the Ismā'īlīs developed a number of beliefs and practices—such as their belief in the ''imāmah'' and an esoteric exegesis of the Qur'ān—that were different enough from Sunnī orthodoxy for them to be condemned as ''shirk'' and, hence, to be seen as antinomian.<ref>Farhad Daftary, ed. ''Mediaeval Ismaʿili History and Thought.'' (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 47</ref><ref>William G. Clarence-Smith ''Islam and the Abolition of Slavery.'' (London: C. Hurst & Co. Ltd, 2006), 56.</ref> Certain other groups that evolved out of Shī'ah belief, such as the Alawites <ref>Me'ir Mikha'el Bar-Asher and Aryeh Kofsky. ''The Nuṣayrī-ʿAlawī Religion: An Enquiry into its Theology and Liturgy.'' (Leiden: Koninklijke Brill NV, 2002), 67 ''ff.''</ref> and the Bektashis,<ref>Annemarie Schimmel ((original 1978) UNC Press, 1995. ASIN: B000N73TK8), 338.</ref> have also been considered antinomian. The Bektashis, particularly, have many practices that are especially antinomian in the context of Islam, such as the consumption of forbidden products like [[alcohol]] and pork, the non-wearing of the [[Hijab]] ("veil") by women, and assembling in gathering places called ''cemevi''s rather than in [[mosque]]s.<ref>Anthony Weir, [http://www.beyond-the-pale.co.uk/albanian4.htm "Differences Between Bektashism and Islamic Orthodoxy."] ''www.beyond-the-pale.co.uk''. Retrieved March 13, 2008.</ref>
From the latter part of the 17th century, charges of antinomianism have frequently been directed against [[Calvinism|Calvinists]], on the ground of their disparagement of "deadly doing" and of "legal preaching." The virulent controversy between Arminian and Calvinistic Methodists produced as its ablest outcome Fletcher's ''Checks to Antinomianism'' (1771&ndash;75).  
 
===Charges against other groups===
 
Other Protestant groups that have been so accused include the [[Anabaptist]]s and [[Mennonite]]s. In the history of [[United States|American]] [[Puritanism]], Roger Williams and Anne Hutchinson were accused of antinomian teachings by the Puritan leadership of Massachusetts.
 
  
Theological charges of antinomianism typically imply that the opponent's doctrine leads to various sorts of licentiousness, and imply that the antinomian chooses his theology in order to further a career of dissipation. The conspicuous austerity of life among surviving groups of Anabaptists or Calvinists suggests that these accusations are mostly for [[rhetoric]]al effect.
+
==Antinomianism in the Eastern Religions==
 +
The religions of [[India]] and [[Asia]] have their own examples of antinomianism, although such examples are relatively rare. Many Asian religions teach that this world is imbued with suffering and disappointment. Consequently, religions such as [[Hinduism]] and [[Buddhism]] have often encouraged their followers to transcend worldly attachments (and, by extension, its moral rules) in order to reach [[enlightenment]]. Consequently, the degree of importance placed on governing authorities (and their laws) has not always been very high. Indeed, Hinduism has no centralized governing organization or commanding figure such as a [[Pope]]. Nevertheless, the concept of [[dharma]] is central to the life of Hindus and serves as the overarching [[morality|moral principle]] that regulates the cosmos and governs Hindu law. This principle of ''dharma'' is all-pervasive in the thought of Hinduism. Eventually, Hindu sects arose who explicitly challenged the norms of dharma and sought to break social [[taboo]]s in order to overcome perceived artificial moral dualisms. One such group was the left-hander followers of [[Tantra]].
  
===Charges against Quakers===
+
Correspondingly, the [[Tibetan Buddhism|Tibetan Buddhists]] developed a religio-ethical concept called [[Upaya]], which allowed so-called advanced practitioners such as [[bodhisattva]]s to break ordinary rules of social morality in order to enact higher teachings for the spiritually advanced.  
[[Religious Society of Friends|Quakers]] believed in an extreme form of Antinomianism. They felt that educated ministry was not needed, backed by the idea that anyone can take their own interpretation from The [[Bible]]. These ideas supported by the Quaker group fuelled a conflict in England (because of the radical nature).
 
  
==Antinomianism in Islam==
+
Both of the above examples can be seen as episodes of antinomianism in the "Eastern religions," albeit from the nonenlightened perspective.
In [[Islam]], the law—which applies not only to religion, but also to areas such as politics, banking, and sexuality—is called ''[[Sharia|sharīʿah]]'' (شريعة), and it is traditionally organized around four primary sources:
 
  
#the [[Qur'an|Qurʾān]], which is Islam's central religious text;
+
==Conclusion==
#the [[sunnah]], which refers to actions practised during the time of the [[prophet]] [[Muhammad|Muḥammad]], and is often thought to include the ''[[Hadith|ḥadīth]]'', or recorded words and deeds of Muḥammad;
+
From above, we realize that there have always been both legalist and antinomian aspirations in most historical religions, but that there has also been a tension between them, although both sides have had right things to say. Perhaps this tension can be addressed by [[Confucius]]' attainment at the age of 70: "At seventy, I could follow what my heart desired, without transgressing what was right."<ref>''The Analects of Confucius'' Lun Yu [http://www.afpc.asso.fr/wengu/wg/wengu.php?no=20&l=Lunyu "Lunyu II.4."]. Retrieved March 13, 2008. </ref> In this state, he was free to do anything he wanted to do without violating the moral code. He was free from sin, while he was also free to do anything. This can probably satisfy both legalists and antinomians.
#''ijmāʿ'', which is the consensus of the ''[[Ulema|ʿulamāʾ]]'', or class of Islamic scholars, on points of practice;
 
#''qiyās'', which—in [[Sunni Islam|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 [[Shi'a Islam|Shīʿah Islam]], ''ʿaql'' ("[[reason]]") is used in place of ''qiyās''
 
  
Actions, behaviors, 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 Allah"); ''bidʿah'' ("innovation"); ''Kafir'' ("disbelief"); ''Haraam'' ("forbidden"); etc.
+
[[Saint Augustine]] called this state of complete freedom ''libertas,'' by which he also meant one's inability to sin ''(non posse peccare)'' no matter what one may freely do. He distinguished it from ''liberum arbitrium'' (free will) by which one can still choose to sin. According to Augustine, the ideal state of ''libertas'' will be attained afterlife by those who continuously strive to be righteous here on earth. Until it is reached whether on earth or not, the tension between legal and antinomian aspirations seems to continue to exist.
 
 
As an example, the 10th-century [[Sufism|Sufi]] [[Mysticism|mystic]] [[Mansur al-Hallaj|Manṣūr al-Ḥallāj]]* was executed for ''shirk'' for, among other things, his statement ''ana al-Ḥaqq'' (أنا الحق), meaning "I am the Truth" and, by implication—as ''al-Ḥaqq'' ("the Truth") is one of the 99 names of God in Islamic tradition—"I am God"<ref>Pratt 72</ref>. Another individual who has often been termed antinomian is [[Ibn Arabi|Ibn al-ʿArabi]], a 12th–13th century scholar and mystic whose doctrine of ''waḥdat al-wujūd'' ("unity of being") has sometimes been interpreted as being [[Pantheism|pantheistic]], and thus ''shirk''<ref>Chittick 79</ref>.
 
 
 
Apart from individuals, entire groups of Muslims have also been called antinomian. One of these groups is the [[Ismaili|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<ref>See, for example, "[http://lexicorient.com/e.o/ismailis.htm Isma'ilism]" at ''Encyclopaedia of the Orient''.</ref>, the Ismāʿīlīs developed a number of beliefs and practices—such as their belief in the ''imāmah'' and an esoteric exegesis of the Qurʾān—that were different enough from Sunnī orthodoxy for them to be condemned as ''shirk'' and, hence, to be seen as antinomian<ref>Daftary 47; Clarence-Smith 56</ref>. Certain other groups that evolved out of Shīʿah belief, such as the Alawites<ref>Bar-Asher & Kofsky, 67 ''ff.''</ref> and the Bektashis<ref>Schimmel 338</ref>, have also been considered antinomian. The Bektashis, particularly, have many practices that are especially antinomian in the context of Islam, such as the consumption of forbidden products like [[alcohol]] and pork, the non-wearing of the [[Hijab|ḥijāb]] ("veil") by women, and assembling in gathering places called ''cemevi''s rather than in [[mosque]]s<ref>Weir "[http://www.beyond-the-pale.co.uk/albanian4.htm Differences Between Bektashism and Islamic Orthodoxy]"</ref>.
 
  
 
==Notes==
 
==Notes==
Line 77: Line 64:
  
 
==References==
 
==References==
<div class="references-small">
+
 
* 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
+
* Badenas, Robert. "Christ the End of the Law, Romans 10.4" in ''Pauline Perspective.'' 1985. ISBN 0905774930 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.
+
* Bar-Asher, Me'ir Mikha'el and Aryeh Kofsky. ''The Nuṣayrī-ʿAlawī Religion: An Enquiry into its Theology and Liturgy.'' Leiden: Koninklijke Brill NV, 2002. ISBN 9004125523.
* J. H. Blunt ''Dict. of Doct. and Hist. Theol.'' (1872)
+
* Blunt, J. H. ''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.
+
* Chittick, William C. ''The Sufi Path of Knowledge: Ibn Al-Arabi's Metaphysics of Imagination.'' Albany: State University of New York Press, 1989. ISBN 0887068855.
* Clarence-Smith, W.G. ''Islam and the Abolition of Slavery''. London: C. Hurst & Co. (Publishers) Ltd, 2006. ISBN 1-85065-708-4.
+
* Clarence-Smith, W.G. ''Islam and the Abolition of Slavery.'' London: C. Hurst & Co. (Publishers) Ltd, 2006. ISBN 185065708.
* Daftary, Farhad; ed. ''Mediaeval Ismaʿili History and Thought''. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996. ISBN 0-521-45140-X.
+
* Daftary, Farhad, ed. ''Mediaeval Ismaʿili History and Thought.'' Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996. ISBN 052145140X.
* Dunn, James D.G. ''Jesus, Paul and the Law'' 1990 ISBN 0-664-25095-5
+
* Dunn, James D.G. ''Jesus, Paul and the Law.'' 1990. ISBN 0664250955
* ''Encyclopaedia of the Orient''. "[http://lexicorient.com/e.o/ismailis.htm Isma'ilism]". Retrieved 10 October 2006.
+
* ''Encyclopaedia of the Orient.'' [http://lexicorient.com/e.o/ismailis.htm Isma'ilism]. Retrieved 10 October 2006.
* [[J. C. L. Gieseler,]] ''Ch. Hist.'' (New York ed. 1868, vol. iv.)
+
* Gieseler, J. C. L. ''Ch. Hist.'' (New York ed. 1868, vol. iv.)
* Hall, Robert W., Anchor Bible Dictionary, ''Antinomianism'' ISBN 0-385-19353-1{{Please check ISBN|Calculated check digit (X) doesn't match given.}}
+
* Hall, Robert W. "Antinomianism" in David Noel Freedman (ed.) ''Anchor Bible Dictionary,'' Vol. 1. 1998. ISBN 978-0385193511
* G. Kawerau, in A. Hauck's ''Realencyklopadie'' (1896)
+
* Kawerau, G. in A. Hauck's ''Realencyklopadie'' (1896)
* Pratt, Douglas. ''The Challenge of Islam: Encounters in Interfaith Dialogue''. Aldershot, Hampshire: Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2005. ISBN 0-7546-5122-3.
+
* Pratt, Douglas. ''The Challenge of Islam: Encounters in Interfaith Dialogue.'' Aldershot, Hampshire, UK: Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2005. ISBN 0754651223.
 
* Riess, in I. Goschler's ''Dict. Encyclop. de la théol. cath.'' (1858)
 
* Riess, in I. Goschler's ''Dict. Encyclop. de la théol. cath.'' (1858)
* Schimmel, Annemarie. ''Mystical Dimensions of Islam''. ISBN 0-8078-1271-4.
+
* Sanders, E.P. ''Jesus and Judaism.'' Augsburg Fortress Publishers, 1985. ISBN 0800620615
 +
* Schimmel, Annemarie. ''Mystical Dimensions of Islam.'' (original 1978) UNC Press, 1995. ASIN: B000N73TK8 ISBN 0807812714.
 
* Weir, Anthony. "Differences Between Bektashism and Islamic Orthodoxy" in ''[http://www.beyond-the-pale.co.uk/albanian4.htm The Bektashi Order of Dervishes]''. Retrieved 10 October 2006.
 
* Weir, Anthony. "Differences Between Bektashism and Islamic Orthodoxy" in ''[http://www.beyond-the-pale.co.uk/albanian4.htm The Bektashi Order of Dervishes]''. Retrieved 10 October 2006.
 +
 
* {{1911}}
 
* {{1911}}
</div>
 
  
 
==External links==
 
==External links==
*[http://www.thepaulpage.com New Perspective on Paul]
+
All links retrieved October 30, 2021.
 +
 
 
*[http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=1585&letter=A&search=antinomianism Jewish Encyclopedia: Antinomianism]
 
*[http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=1585&letter=A&search=antinomianism Jewish Encyclopedia: Antinomianism]
 
*[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01564b.htm Catholic Encyclopedia: Antinomianism]
 
*[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01564b.htm Catholic Encyclopedia: Antinomianism]
 
*[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09071a.htm Catholic Encyclopedia: Moral Aspect of Divine Law]
 
*[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09071a.htm Catholic Encyclopedia: Moral Aspect of Divine Law]
 
*[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10582c.htm Catholic Encyclopedia: Mosaic Legislation]
 
*[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10582c.htm Catholic Encyclopedia: Mosaic Legislation]
*[http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect1chpt3.htm#art1 Catholic Catechism on The Moral Law]
 
*[http://encyclopedia.jrank.org/ANC_APO/ANTINOMIANS_Gr_avri_against_v6_.html Antinomians] in the 1911 [[Encyclopædia Britannica]]
 
*[http://www.chc.org.sg/english/sermons/antinomianism.htm Sermon on Antinomianism]
 
 
*[http://jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=245&letter=N#700 Jewish Encyclopedia: New Testament - For and Against the Law]
 
*[http://jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=245&letter=N#700 Jewish Encyclopedia: New Testament - For and Against the Law]
 
*[http://jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=254&letter=J&search=Jesus#1000 Jewish Encyclopedia: Jesus: Attitude Toward the Law]
 
*[http://jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=254&letter=J&search=Jesus#1000 Jewish Encyclopedia: Jesus: Attitude Toward the Law]

Revision as of 01:56, 9 January 2023

Antinomianism (from the Greek: αντι, "against" + νομος, "law"), or lawlessness (Greek: ανομια), in theology, is the idea that members of a particular religious group are under no obligation to obey the laws of ethics or morality as presented by religious authorities. Antinomianism is the polar opposite of legalism, the notion that obedience to a code of religious law is necessary for salvation. Few groups or sects explicitly call themselves "antinomian," but the charge is often leveled as a derogatory label by some sects against competing sects.

The topic of antinomianism is quite complex because it involves the interrelated issues of power, authority, law, and freedom. On the one hand, religious rules/laws have been set in motion for the purpose of helping humanity to learn to live in harmony with each other and our planet. This underlying purpose is exemplified in the various legal codes found in the world's religions. On the other hand, religious codes have, in many cases, become archaic and oppressive to certain groups involved, thus acting as catalysts for social change. Indeed, it is often the case that antinomian movements have been at the forefront of social change and the betterment of humanity. Thus, the topic of antinomianism solicits different responses and reactions due to its ambivalent fruits.

The heart of antinomianism is belief in human perfection, the state of divine indwelling in which anything that one wills is good because it is prompted by the Holy Spirit within. In the Western traditions, this belief was associated with messianism and belief in the dawning of a new age when the law, formerly a "custodian" (Galatians 3:24) needed as long as humanity labored under the deficiencies of fallen nature, would no longer be required. In the new age, perfected believers would be "discharged from the law" (Romans 7:6). Yet in every age there have been good people who lived without the need of law, who in freedom would do by conscience what they were obliged to do by legal code. Confucius described this state when he wrote: "At seventy, I could follow what my heart desired, without transgressing what was right."[1].

Overview

Several issues are implied by the topic of antinomianism including power relationships, conformance, obligation, freedom, and ethics. To label a group "antinomian" suggests that its practices and/or doctrines are dangerously errant; and that they deviate from the dominant teachings of the mainstream group. The charge is typically brought against groups who are seen (from the perspective of the dominant paradigm) to be eroding the authority of religious governing bodies and established leadership. Consequently, the term antinomianism implies the issues of power and conformance to religious laws. Religious authorities often use the label "antinomian" to brand splinter groups who reject the dominant teachings of the mainstream group. It is implied that a group's antinomian behavior against the rule of law leads to all sorts of licentiousness, and thus is undesirable.

Antinomianism among Christians

In the case of Christianity, the issue of antinomianism arises out of the doctrine of grace, the forgiveness of sins and atonement by faith in Jesus Christ. The controversy can be formulated in a question: If God forgives sins, what exactly is the disadvantage in sinning, or the reward or purpose of obedience to the moral law?

The Tübingen school of historians founded by Ferdinand Christian 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," although 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,"[2] Paul publicly accused Peter of judaizing. Even so, he does go on to say that sins remain sins, and upholds by several examples the kind of behavior that the church should not tolerate. For example, in 1 Corinthians 7:10-16 NIV 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 not in conflict with what the Lord said. However, this may mean he received direct knowledge of what the Lord wanted him to teach through the Holy Ghost (Galatians 2:6-10 NIV), but in that case he would have attributed the teaching to the Lord, rather than saying: "I, not the Lord."

Paul, in his Epistles, claims several times that believers are saved by the unearned grace of God, not good works, "lest anyone should boast." He placed emphasis on orthodoxy (right belief) rather than orthopraxy (right practice). However, his doctrine of justification by faith has been accused of leading to immoral license. Occasionally, this has been interpreted as a reference to salvation simply by believing that Christianity is valid.

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," that "faith without works is dead" (2:14–26). Historically, the presence of this statement has been difficult for Protestants to rectify with their belief in salvation by faith alone. Martin Luther even suggested that the Epistle might be a forgery, and relegated it to an appendix in his Bible (although he later came to accept its canonicity).

In the New Testament, Paul used the term freedom in Christ (e.g., Galatians 2:4), and some understood this to mean lawlessness (i.e., not obeying Mosaic Law). For example, in Acts 18:12-16 Paul is accused of "persuading … people to worship God in ways contrary to the law," and in Acts 21:21 James the Just explained his situation to Paul: "They have been told about you that you teach all the Jews living among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, and that you tell them not to circumcise their children or observe the customs" (NRSV).

Colossians 2:13-14 is sometimes presented as proof of Paul's antinomistic views, for example the NIV translates: "… 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." However the NRSV translates 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." The latter makes it clear that it was the trespasses against the Law, not the Law itself that was "nailed to the cross."

The Catholic Encyclopedia: 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 circumcised Timothy (Acts 16:1-3), and he was in the very act of observing the Mosaic ritual when he was arrested at Jerusalem (Acts 21:26 sqq.)."

What was Jesus' attitude towards following the law? In the context of Jesus' Jewish background, the law was understood as the teachings of the Torah (the Divine Law in Judaism). According to biblical accounts, Jesus said emphatically that he had not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it. In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus is sometimes portrayed as referring to people he sees as wicked with the term ergazomenoi ten anomian (εργαζομενοι την ανομιαν) (Matthew 7:21-23, Matthew 13:40-43). Due to this negative context the term has almost always been translated as evildoers, though it literally means workers of lawlessness.[3] In other words, Matthew appears to present Jesus as equating wickedness with encouraging antinomianism. Correspondingly, 1 John 3:4 NRSV states: "Everyone who commits sin is guilty of lawlessness; sin is lawlessness." 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 Matthew's intended audience.

On the other hand, the Torah prescribes the death penalty for desecrating the Sabbath by working (Exodus 31:14-17). To avoid any possibility of breaking the Torah commands, the Pharisees formulated strict interpretations and numerous traditions which they treated as laws (Halakha). In the Gospel of Mark, Jesus's disciples were picking grain for food on a sabbath (Mark 2:23-28). When the Pharisees challenged Jesus over this, 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. For example, E. P. Sanders notes: "… no substantial conflict 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."[4]

Charges by Catholics against Protestants

Roman Catholicism tends to charge Protestantism with antinomianism, based in part on the distinctively Protestant doctrine of sola fide, salvation by faith alone, and the typical Protestant rejection of the elaborate sacramental liturgy of the Roman church and its body of Canon law. Within Roman Catholicism itself, Blaise Pascal accused the Jesuits of antinomianism in his Lettres provinciales, charging that Jesuit casuistry undermined moral principles.

From the latter part of the seventeenth century, charges of antinomianism have frequently been directed against Calvinists, on the ground of their disparagement of "deadly doing" and of "legal preaching." The virulent controversy between Arminian and Calvinistic Methodists produced as its ablest outcome Fletcher's Checks to Antinomianism (1771–1775).

Other Protestant groups that have been so accused include the Anabaptists and Mennonites. In the history of American Puritanism, Roger Williams and Anne Hutchinson were accused of antinomian teachings by the Puritan leadership of Massachusetts.

Antinomianism in Islam

In Islam, Sharia (شريعة) (law) applies not only to religion, but also to areas such as politics, banking, and sexuality. Actions, behaviors, or beliefs that violate any of the four sources of Sharia[5] 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 Allah"); bid'ah ("innovation"); Kafir ("disbelief"); Haraam ("forbidden"); etc.

As an example, the tenth-century Sufi mystic Mansūr al-Hallāj was executed for shirk for his statement ana al-Haqq (أنا الحق), meaning "I am the Truth" and, by implication—as al-Haqq ("the Truth") is one of the 99 names of God in Islamic tradition—"I am God."[6] Another individual who has often been termed antinomian is Ibn al-'Arabi, a twelfth–thirteenth century scholar and mystic whose doctrine of wahdat al-wujūd ("unity of being") has sometimes been interpreted as being pantheistic, and thus shirk.[7]

Apart from these and other individuals, entire groups of Muslims have also been called antinomian. One of these groups is the Ismā'īlī Shī'īs, who have always had strong millenarian tendencies arising partly from persecution directed at them by Sunnīs. Influenced to a certain extent by Gnosticism,[8] the Ismā'īlīs developed a number of beliefs and practices—such as their belief in the imāmah and an esoteric exegesis of the Qur'ān—that were different enough from Sunnī orthodoxy for them to be condemned as shirk and, hence, to be seen as antinomian.[9][10] Certain other groups that evolved out of Shī'ah belief, such as the Alawites [11] and the Bektashis,[12] have also been considered antinomian. The Bektashis, particularly, have many practices that are especially antinomian in the context of Islam, such as the consumption of forbidden products like alcohol and pork, the non-wearing of the Hijab ("veil") by women, and assembling in gathering places called cemevis rather than in mosques.[13]

Antinomianism in the Eastern Religions

The religions of India and Asia have their own examples of antinomianism, although such examples are relatively rare. Many Asian religions teach that this world is imbued with suffering and disappointment. Consequently, religions such as Hinduism and Buddhism have often encouraged their followers to transcend worldly attachments (and, by extension, its moral rules) in order to reach enlightenment. Consequently, the degree of importance placed on governing authorities (and their laws) has not always been very high. Indeed, Hinduism has no centralized governing organization or commanding figure such as a Pope. Nevertheless, the concept of dharma is central to the life of Hindus and serves as the overarching moral principle that regulates the cosmos and governs Hindu law. This principle of dharma is all-pervasive in the thought of Hinduism. Eventually, Hindu sects arose who explicitly challenged the norms of dharma and sought to break social taboos in order to overcome perceived artificial moral dualisms. One such group was the left-hander followers of Tantra.

Correspondingly, the Tibetan Buddhists developed a religio-ethical concept called Upaya, which allowed so-called advanced practitioners such as bodhisattvas to break ordinary rules of social morality in order to enact higher teachings for the spiritually advanced.

Both of the above examples can be seen as episodes of antinomianism in the "Eastern religions," albeit from the nonenlightened perspective.

Conclusion

From above, we realize that there have always been both legalist and antinomian aspirations in most historical religions, but that there has also been a tension between them, although both sides have had right things to say. Perhaps this tension can be addressed by Confucius' attainment at the age of 70: "At seventy, I could follow what my heart desired, without transgressing what was right."[14] In this state, he was free to do anything he wanted to do without violating the moral code. He was free from sin, while he was also free to do anything. This can probably satisfy both legalists and antinomians.

Saint Augustine called this state of complete freedom libertas, by which he also meant one's inability to sin (non posse peccare) no matter what one may freely do. He distinguished it from liberum arbitrium (free will) by which one can still choose to sin. According to Augustine, the ideal state of libertas will be attained afterlife by those who continuously strive to be righteous here on earth. Until it is reached whether on earth or not, the tension between legal and antinomian aspirations seems to continue to exist.

Notes

  1. The Analects of Confucius. Lun Yu"Lunyu II.4.". Retrieved March 13, 2008.
  2. F. Bechtel Catholic Encyclopedia: Judaizers see section titled: "THE INCIDENT AT ANTIOCH." Retrieved March 13, 2008.
  3. 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"; NASB: "YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS"; NKJV: "you who practice lawlessness."
  4. E. P. Sanders. Jesus and Judaism. (Augsburg Fortress Publishers, 1985. ISBN 0800620615), 264-269 on the Sabbath, handwashing and food.
  5. The four sources of Sharia are:
    1. the Qur'ān, which is Islam's central religious text;
    2. the sunnah, which refers to actions practiced during the time of the prophet Muhammad, and is often thought to include the Hadith, or recorded words and deeds of Muhammad;
    3. ijmā, which is the consensus of the Ulema, or class of Islamic scholars, on points of practice; and
    4. qiyās, which—in Sunnī Islam—is a kind of analogical reasoning conducted by the ulamā upon specific laws that have arisen through appeal to the first three sources.
  6. Douglas Pratt. The Challenge of Islam: Encounters in Interfaith Dialogue. (Aldershot, Hampshire, UK: Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2005.), 72.
  7. William C. Chittick. The Sufi Path of Knowledge: Ibn Al-Arabi's Metaphysics of Imagination. (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1989), 79.
  8. See, for example, Isma'ilism at Encyclopaedia of the Orient.
  9. Farhad Daftary, ed. Mediaeval Ismaʿili History and Thought. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 47
  10. William G. Clarence-Smith Islam and the Abolition of Slavery. (London: C. Hurst & Co. Ltd, 2006), 56.
  11. Me'ir Mikha'el Bar-Asher and Aryeh Kofsky. The Nuṣayrī-ʿAlawī Religion: An Enquiry into its Theology and Liturgy. (Leiden: Koninklijke Brill NV, 2002), 67 ff.
  12. Annemarie Schimmel ((original 1978) UNC Press, 1995. ASIN: B000N73TK8), 338.
  13. Anthony Weir, "Differences Between Bektashism and Islamic Orthodoxy." www.beyond-the-pale.co.uk. Retrieved March 13, 2008.
  14. The Analects of Confucius Lun Yu "Lunyu II.4.". Retrieved March 13, 2008.

References
ISBN links support NWE through referral fees

  • Badenas, Robert. "Christ the End of the Law, Romans 10.4" in Pauline Perspective. 1985. ISBN 0905774930 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 Aryeh Kofsky. The Nuṣayrī-ʿAlawī Religion: An Enquiry into its Theology and Liturgy. Leiden: Koninklijke Brill NV, 2002. ISBN 9004125523.
  • Blunt, J. H. 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 0887068855.
  • Clarence-Smith, W.G. Islam and the Abolition of Slavery. London: C. Hurst & Co. (Publishers) Ltd, 2006. ISBN 185065708.
  • Daftary, Farhad, ed. Mediaeval Ismaʿili History and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996. ISBN 052145140X.
  • Dunn, James D.G. Jesus, Paul and the Law. 1990. ISBN 0664250955
  • Encyclopaedia of the Orient. Isma'ilism. Retrieved 10 October 2006.
  • Gieseler, J. C. L. Ch. Hist. (New York ed. 1868, vol. iv.)
  • Hall, Robert W. "Antinomianism" in David Noel Freedman (ed.) Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. 1. 1998. ISBN 978-0385193511
  • Kawerau, G. in A. Hauck's Realencyklopadie (1896)
  • Pratt, Douglas. The Challenge of Islam: Encounters in Interfaith Dialogue. Aldershot, Hampshire, UK: Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2005. ISBN 0754651223.
  • Riess, in I. Goschler's Dict. Encyclop. de la théol. cath. (1858)
  • Sanders, E.P. Jesus and Judaism. Augsburg Fortress Publishers, 1985. ISBN 0800620615
  • Schimmel, Annemarie. Mystical Dimensions of Islam. (original 1978) UNC Press, 1995. ASIN: B000N73TK8 ISBN 0807812714.
  • Weir, Anthony. "Differences Between Bektashism and Islamic Orthodoxy" in The Bektashi Order of Dervishes. Retrieved 10 October 2006.
  • This article incorporates text from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, a publication now in the public domain.

External links

All links retrieved October 30, 2021.

Credits

New World Encyclopedia writers and editors rewrote and completed the Wikipedia article in accordance with New World Encyclopedia standards. This article abides by terms of the Creative Commons CC-by-sa 3.0 License (CC-by-sa), which may be used and disseminated with proper attribution. Credit is due under the terms of this license that can reference both the New World Encyclopedia contributors and the selfless volunteer contributors of the Wikimedia Foundation. To cite this article click here for a list of acceptable citing formats.The history of earlier contributions by wikipedians is accessible to researchers here:

The history of this article since it was imported to New World Encyclopedia:

Note: Some restrictions may apply to use of individual images which are separately licensed.