Antinomianism: Reformed Theology's Unwelcome Guest?

The antithesis between law and gospel is NOT "antinomian". The Bible itself tells us that "law is not of faith". Jones (Antinomianism, 2013, P and R) does not mention the Westminster Seminary California volume "The Law Is Not of Faith", but I think it is the ultimate target of his fury. Jones even links John Cotton with "antinomianism" because Cotton understood God's imputation to be before faith, and a cause of faith. (But see II Peter 1:1, Galatians 3-4, given the Spirit because of being sons, Romans 8:10, life because of righteousness.) Along the way, Jones provocatively accuses those in the "Sonship" faction as giving "boring...messages each week when they have a sort of systematic theology that they need to declare every Lord's day". (p 118).Let me say that I am at least equally bored with those who make everything to be about "union with" the resurrected Christ so that we Christians "can and will" now do what Christ did. These folks who keep repeating "threefold union" always take almost no time to forget union by election or by imputation, so that they can run back to "union by faith" or "union by the Spirit" or to "Christ in us" instead of "us in Christ", which they did not deny but which they never stop to talk about.It's very much like those who speak of "threefold sanctification", in which they do not deny that, in biblicist terms, sanctification is an either or and based on being in Christ's death or not (Hebrews 10, sanctified by the blood), and in which they do not deny that "sanctification is by the effectual call and hearing of the gospel by the Holy Spirit in believing the gospel about what Christ did (II Thess 2:13), but then from on, nothing but a "conditional sanctification" which depends on our cooperation and effort. To believe the gospel is the same as obeying the gospel. To live by faith is to do what Jesus says to do. Some of us are doing it. You are not doing it. Yes, I am bored with moralist preaching. It doesn't seem to me very different from Arminian preaching.On p 6, Jones writes that "Melanchthon changed his mind and agreed that the gospel alone was able to produce evangelical repentance...He came to a `Reformed' view of the gospel, which included the whole doctrine of Christ, including repentance..." For Jones, the "full gospel" is not about a distinction between law and gospel "defined narrowly as pure promise", but instead has conditions and sanctions.Since our duty is not based on our ability, the soundbite from Augustine (give what you command, and command what you will) is wrong if it's understand to say that Christians now CAN obey the law (or if it is used to imply that God in neonomian fashion now lowers the standard of the law to the level of what we in the new covenant are now gifted to do).It is often the case that God does NOT give us to do what God commands. The law is not the gospel, grace is not the law, and the ability to keep the law is not grace. It's still too late for justified sinners to keep the law in order to sanctified. Those who are already saints are commanded to obey the law.Martin Luther's cautions in the Heidelberg Disputations need to be heard!The law of God, the most salutary doctrine of life, cannot advance man on his way to righteousness, but rather hinders him.Although the works of man always appear attractive and good, they are nevertheless likely to be mortal sins.Although the works of God always seem unattractive and appear evil, they are nevertheless really for good and God's glory.The works of the righteous would be mortal sins if they are not be feared as mortal sins by the righteous themselves out of pious fear of God.To say that works without Christ are dead, but not mortal, appears to constitute a perilous surrender of the fear of God. Indeed, it is very difficult to see how a work can be dead and at the same time not a harmful and mortal sin.Arrogance cannot be avoided or true hope be present unless the judgment of condemnation is feared in every work.Free will, after the fall, exists in name only, and as long as it does WHAT IT IS ABLE TO DO, it commits a mortal sinAccustions of antinomianism against those of who give priority to imputation do not prove the reality of our being against the law. To say that only Christ could or has satisfied the law is to properly fear God. Neonomians turn out to be antinomians. To think that one can produce "sanctification" and other blessings by something extra infused into us in addition to what God has done in Christ is to not yet fear God as the Holy One who demands perfection. Many experimental puritans put themselves on another level because of what they thought they have been enabled to do, and thanked their god that they are not like other sinners.Jones makes many provocative and condescending statements, as if to say that those who disagree with him have not read the historical documents in question. The most irritating claim he makes is that he's correct because of a better Christology.His Christology consists of equating the justification of Christ with the sanctification of a sinner. Denying the idea of a "covenant of works" in which Christ obeyed law to earn merits, Jones also denies the idea of substitution so that our works are not necessary for salvation. Jones accepts substitution FOR JUSTIFICATION ONLY, but on the other hand, like the Galatian false teachers, Jones equates "living by faith' with obeying the law, and argues (along with Richard Gaffin and Norman Shepherd) that our living by faith means our works and our obeying the law.On p 22-23, Jones argues from the fact that Christ obtained salvation "bestowed on conditions", that we too must obtain "sanctification" in the same way, bestowed on conditions. Instead of talking about the merits of Christ, he speaks of Christ's living by faith, which was obeying the law, to get to the idea of our also living by faith, which then comes to mean our obeying the law.On p 24, Jones argues from the fact that Christ "was not left to His own abilities but was enabled by the Spirit" to not only question the language of "covenant of works" but to say that we Christians are enabled by the Spirit "to cooperate with God in sanctification. Except for the emphasis on sanctification instead of justification, the conclusion is no different from that of NT Wrights--don't be so Christocentric, because the work of the Spirit in us is Christ's work also for our final justification.Jones wants to throw all he calls "antinomian" into one package. So if you deny that the sanctification of the Christian is progressively increased by works and obeying the law, Jones then equates that with the antinomians who deny the agency of the Christian, who say that Christ believes in us for us, or obeys in us for us. You will find that kind of language in the Arminians of the "exchanged life" view, and also in d j Steve Brown's language, Jones, even though he points out this distinction between the imputative and the mystical, still tends to collapse a distinction between law and gospel into the idea that Christians are not agents who are commanded to obey the law. The distinction between law and gospel does not deny the function of law to command, but as antithesis it also does not confuse the justification of Christ (by obeying the law, whether you say "covenant of works" or not) with the assurance of justification of Christians. The distinction between law and gospel agrees that Christians are agents commanded to obey, but it refuses the idea of "cooperation" in which we have the Spirit's agency in us enabling our agency. Gaffin and Schreiner can call this 100% God and 100% man all they want but the math still adds up to synergism.Jones argues those who don't agree with him haven't read and understood the puritans and the antinomians. But he also argues that he has a better "more robust" Christology. "Good works were necessary for Jesus if he was to be justified.... good works are likewise necessary for our salvation-though, unlike the case with Jesus, not for our justification." (p 76) Jones claims that those of us with a "justification priority" have reduced the gospel to justification, but he has reduced substitution only to Christ's impetration (ignoring the imputation of the substitution) and has introduced synergism and our obeying the law into the application and assurance of final salvation.Dismissing the law-gospel antithesis for a "large commanding gospel" hermeneutic does not answer all Christological questions. The distinction between impetration and application is important, but that distinction is only as good as the definition of the two terms. In the matter of "application", Jones puts all the focus on the agency of the Spirit (with our conditional cooperation) and none on God's imputation of what Christ did in propitiation. In the matter of "impetration", Jones puts all the focus on Christ's active obedience (living by faith) but none on the idea of "sanctification by the blood", so that holiness is a function of Christ bearing the guilt of the elect.This is a very provocative book. When Jones reports that Gill rejects Rutherford's claim that God loves Christians more if they obey more, Jones does not attend to the arguments of Gill, but simply rehearses Rutherford's conclusions and calls into questions if Gill even understands what Rutherford was saying. p 84)Jones argues from the fact that Christ learned obedience and "increased in favor with God" even as Christ was perfectly obeying the law to the idea that sinful Christians will also begin to sin less and thus be more loved by God. From this, Jones goes on to the puritan idea of sanctification by punishment in this life, purgatory now instead of after death. . Jones call this "evangelical punishment" (p 93)Jones even argues from the propitiation (the Trinity's wrath on the Son for imputed sins) to the idea that God loving us means that God will be angry with us. From the conclusion that "God was never happier with the Son than when God was angry with the Son" (p 95), Jones reasons that God loves us less when we obey the law less. But using Christ's life of atonement as the analogy for the Christian life ( something Norman Shepherd and Richard Gaffin like to do) misses out on the gospel news of the Christians being legally united to Christ's death. Romans 6:16, not under the law but under grace. Romans 7:6, you died to the law.Jones even claims that the answer to Romans 6 proves that the antinomian question should never come up. Instead of seeing that the teaching of Romans 3-5 (the two imputations, the two headships) leads to the question of Romans 6, Jones claims that "Paul's teaching of definitive and progressive sanctification" prove that "Paul could hardly be accused of antinomianism." (p 121) I certainly agree that Paul was not antinomian. In Romans 3:2-8, Paul even responds to the accusation by affirming the condemnation of antinomians. But for Jones to claim that Paul had a "large commanding gospel" in which the question should not be asked is to ignore not only the context but the content of Romans 6, which teaches that Christ was `alive to sin" (because of imputed sins) and that Christians are justified from sin (6:7) because the power of sin is the power of the law over a person "alive to sin" (guilty before God, as Christ was by imputed sin).Those who speak of "definitive sanctification" often assume that their own definition of sanctification is what we find taught in Romans 6. But Romans 6 shows that being united to Christ's death sets the elect apart by means of legal identification with Christ. The reason sin shall not reign is NOT that "we will practice less and less sin". The reason sin shall not reign over those sanctified by Christ's death is that they are now no longer under the law.Romans 6 is about Christ the public representative of the elect first being under condemnation, being under sin and death. Romans 6:7 "For one who has died has been justified from sin. 8 Now since we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. 9 We know that Christ, being raised from the dead, will never die again; death NO LONGER has dominion over him. 10 For the death he died HE DIED TO SIN once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God.We need to believe and trust on Christ, instead of merely copying "the faith of Christ" . CHRIST WAS NEVER UNDER GRACE AND IS STILL NOT UNDER GRACE. Christ was under the law because of the imputed sins of the elect. Romans 6 is about Christ's condemnation by the law and His death as satisfaction of that law. Christ after His resurrection is no longer under law. Christ's elect, after their legal identification with Christ's death, are no longer under law.The death of the justified elect is the SAME legal death that Christ died. The "definitive resurrection" of the elect in Romans 6 is the result of being set apart with Christ (and His death) from being under law.Christ was never under the power of sin in the sense of being unable not to sin. Christ was always unable to sin. The only way Christ was ever under the power of sin is by being under the guilt of sin. The guilt of the elect's sin was legally transferred by God to Christ. Christ's death to sin was death to the guilt of sin, and since the elect are united with His death, the death of the elect is also a death to the guilt of sin. Romans 6:7: "For one who has died has been justified from sin."Yet many commentators tell us that "set free from sin" must mean the elect's definitive transformation by the Holy Spirit so that the justified cannot habitually sin (or that their new nature cannot sin) or so that they sin less over time. They tell us that justification was in Romans chapter five but that chapter six is not about justification but about sanctification and union and final salvation.Without questioning each other. more and more people seem to agree that Romans 6 must be about something "more than imputation and justification" if it's to be a real answer to the question "why not sin?". But Romans 6 does not talk about Christ or His people not habitually sinning. Romans 6 locates the cause of "sin not reigning" in "not being under the law". Christ was never under the power of habitual sin , and the definitive death of the justified elect is His death.Romans 6:14 does not say, For sin shall not be your master, because the Holy Spirit has changed you so that you cannot habitually sin, but only occasionally and always with repentance. Romans 6:14 says, "For sin shall not by your master, because you are not under law but under grace."Christ also died to purchase every blessing, including the giving of the Holy Spirit and our believing the gospel. But it is not believing which frees the elect from the guilt of sin. What's definitive is being legally joined to Christ's death. (Also, Romans 6 says "baptized into" not "baptized by the Spirit into....)Bavinck--" The gospel, which really makes no demands and lays down no conditions, nevertheless comes to us in the form of a commandment, admonishing us to faith and repentance. The gospel covenant is pure grace, and nothing else, and EXCLUDES ALL WORKS. It gives what it demands, and fulfills what it prescribes. The Gospel is sheer good tidings, not demand but promise, not duty but gift."Jones is Augustinian in the sense that he has not much time for a distinction between what God does in us and what God already finished outside us in Christ. Even when it comes to Christ's priestly work, the emphasis is on Christ's present intercession and not his "death to sin" and the federal imputation of that death to those under Christ's headship.Augustine-"give what you command, and command what you will." Jones--"Christians CAN answer to the demands of the law in their justificaton ...AND ALSO THE GOSPEL DEMANDS OF THE LAW in their sanctification by the Spirit. (p 53)

The debate over the relationship between law and gospel has waged since the time of the Christ with some affirming justification by the grace of God provides the believer freedom from the law and with others declaring a more legalistic approach suggesting that salvation includes a heavy dose of law keeping. Somewhere in the middle of those two extremes lies the biblical approach to justification and sanctification and Mark Jones, in his book Antinomianism: Reformed Theology’s Unwelcome Guest efforts to explore this topic using the 17th century debate that waged on this very topic as the backdrop for his discussion.While the word antinomianism literally means “against God’s law”, one would be hard pressed to find a theologian or pastor, at least one worthy of such a calling, presenting the idea that the believer is no longer tied to any sense of obedience or structure by which obedience can be determined. Jones rightly notes that defining the term antinomianism and identifying those who follow the tenets of that construct is difficult unless this approach is examined as “a system of thought…carefully understood in its historical context, rather than simply according to its etymology.”Thus, in the first chapter of this helpful book, Jones explains in great detail the historical background of antinomianism, its adherents, as well as those who spoke out and wrote against it. He rightly notes the first antinomians were Adam and Eve with their misunderstanding of God’s grace and His commands to not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. With that said, Jones spends most of his effort looking at this issue as it existed in the time of the Puritans, in particular in England and New England. While some may view this as an unnecessary historical interlude, understanding the viewpoints of those both for and against antinomianism to include how theological constructs such as justification and sanctification were viewed by the Puritan divines as well as those of the antinomian persuasion is vital to grasping how this issue developed over time.Building on that historical foundation, Jones then makes the salient comment that “Discussions and writings on holiness often lack a strong Christological basis and center” further noting “Without a robust affirmation of the holiness of Christ, and all that means, calls to holiness, however stirring they may be will inevitably devolve into a form of man-centered pietism.” Understanding the proper balance between gospel and law, grace and obedience is rooted in a correct understanding of the person and work of Christ. Those without a properly developed Christology often center their own theology far too much on the grace extended at the cross while ignoring the life Christ lived on our behalf, a life that also provides the believer the standard for holiness. This necessarily includes some level of human responsibility for obedience to God’s commands which is something those of the antinomian persuasion vehemently argue against and as Jones notes the antinomian often believes there is “no longer a continuing role for God’s moral law in the life of the believer.”Of particular note in recent conversations is the role of the law in the life of the believer. Jones aptly comments “The role of the law in the life of the Christian has historically been one of the most difficult and contentious points in divinity.” Addressing many of the concerns that have existed over the years on this issue, Jones ably works through the various positions on the role of the law demonstrating the tension that exists among theologians on this important issue. This concern was rampant during the 17th century and Jones spends a good deal of time looking at the opposing positions noting that when it comes to trying to define the position of the antinomian camp, “A close reading of antinomian writings from the seventeenth century shows that they were not always clear. Ambiguity was a hallmark of their utterances on the law, and they lacked the sophistication found in the writings of men like Sibbes, Goodwin, and Owen.” While the antinomians often looked for the means by which to diminish the importance of the law, the Westminster Confession of Faith and the sermons and writings of the Puritan divines viewed obedience to the law as a continued importance for the believer. Jones states “Because of the greater indicatives of the new covenant, the imperatives are not relaxed, but in fact are strengthened.” He is also careful to continually note that any level of obedience is through the work of the Holy Spirit and the process of progressive sanctification, thus avoiding any notation that somehow the believer is able to accomplish good works of their own accord.Another valuable discussion in this timely book is that of the issue of rewards, a discussion sorely missing from the sermon series of most pastors today likely due to the association of rewards with the supposed naughty term of “law”. Jones engages some hefty theological terminology in this chapter such as the word impetration, a term related to Christ’s mediatorial work. Jones avers the issue with the antinomian approach is they “essentially blurred the distinction between impetration and application. They were so concerned to maintain the graciousness of salvation that they not only denied that there were no conditions for salvation..but also suggested that even in the application of salvation man does not “act”. While some may balk at the idea of any condition for salvation, Jones is careful to define that phrase even further noting “The Reformed held firmly to the view that the elect have no role in impetrating their salvation. That hone belongs exclusively to Christ. But in the application of salvation, man plays a role” meaning there is the need for the bride to be an obedient bride through the work of the Holy Spirit bringing them to a place of maturity in the faith.With books of this subject matter, it is quite easy for the author to slip into an accusatory and polemic writing style, along the way lambasting those who take the opposing position. Jones thankfully avoids such an approach, instead choosing to work through the antinomian position and the Reformed position in great detail and with much grace, noting the complexity of the issue being discussed. While many individuals who affirm the antinomian position are indeed noted by name to include Tullian Tchividjian whose book Jesus + Nothing = Everything is noted by Jones as somewhat of the impetus for him writing this book on antinomianism, Jones leaves the polemics at the door instead approaching this subject matter with theological precision with a focus on demonstrating the clear pitfalls of the imbalance found in the antinomian position regarding obedience and the place of God’s law.I highly recommend this book for the more seasoned believer and especially for pastors and Seminary students. Holiness is a vital part of the Christian walk and understanding the proper balance between the indicative and the imperative, two intimately related aspects of justification and sanctification. Jones saliently outlines for the reader the proper approach to the issue of law and gospel and this is a book that will serve as a needed corrective for the problematic extremes of too much grace and too much law.

Equipped yourselves.

I read this book as part of research into the so called hyper grace teachers currently on the scene. I found it informative and well presented, highlighting the historic development of Antinomianism, together with discussions of the various theological issues it presents.

An excellent and thoughtful book. Clear and easy to read -highly commended.

Awesome and insightful