Antinomianism

[Zakuska]

In writing to the Romans Paul addresses the saints in general, which being in such a cosmopolitan city would consist of both Jew and Gentile. While the Epistle most likely is geared to the enlightenment of the Gentile saints many of its arguments are also given for the education of the Jews who might be present and from a Jewish perspective.

This is made obvious in Chapter 7 verse 1-4:

Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?

Lets stop right here... he's already mentioned Gentiles earlier who know the Law because it was written in their hearts. (Rom 2)

And just like you said earlier... John speaks of the Light of Christ that lights every man that comes into the world. So you'll have to excuse me if I don't find that particularly argument very persuasive.

And I agree that all the commandments are comprehended in one word "Love". I also agree that this is a higher law (ie the Law of Christ)

But here again... this causes all kinds of problems for Antinomian Faith Alone / Grace Alone / No obedience necessary for Salvation type Evangelicals.

Edited September 12, 2011 by Zakuska

[Palerider]

Lets stop right here... he's already mentioned Gentiles earlier who know the Law because it was written in their hearts. (Rom 2)

Wrong again........The gentiles do not "know" the law as a set of commandments and ordinances prescribed by Moses. They "obey" the law that is written in their hearts and is manifest to them by the promptings they have from their consciences which have been enlightened by the Spirit of Christ as described in John.

And just like you said earlier... John speaks of the Light of Christ that lights every man that comes into the world. So you'll have to excuse me if I don't find that particularly argument very persuasive.

Other than your disbelief in the scriptures I'm not seeing your point here.......

And I agree that all the commandments are comprehended in one word "Love". I also agree that this is a higher law (ie the Law of Christ)

But here again... this causes all kinds of problems for Antinomian Faith Alone / Grace Alone / No obedience necessary for Salvation type Evangelicals.

But my original point was (and still is) that your attempt to blanket stereotype evangelicals as believing that obedience to commandments and works are unneccessary, is narrow and uneducated, as is your understanding of salvation through the Grace offered by Christ's atonement. There are many who do not fall into the over-simplistic category you have created.

[KevinG]

But my original point was (and still is) that your attempt to blanket stereotype evangelicals as believing that obedience to commandments and works are unneccessary, is narrow and uneducated, as is your understanding of salvation through the Grace offered by Christ's atonement. There are many who do not fall into the over-simplistic category you have created.

...and yet there are many, many evangelicals and other protestants who have told me that my Mormon belief in faith plus works "cheapens the grace of Christ". I've been involved in too many discussions with EVs who cling to the notion that I as a Mormon don't have real faith in Christ while they as Evangelicals do -despite my testimony that Jesus Christ is my Savior and I am saved by His Grace (because I being a fallable human invariably fall short of perfection on my own).

In your many years of signing recommends for the LDS faithful you claim that some lacked true faith in Christ. I am curious how you discerned that given their affermative answer to the first temple recommend question. I am of the opinion that someone who was a Latter-day Saint for years and found no foundation in Christ was either asleep in their meetings or their current view reflects a psycological projection of their own doubts upon their former brethren and sisters.

Zakuska did not create an over-simplistic category. He is speaking of the sub-group of protestantism that is antinomian.

[Palerider]

...and yet there are many, many evangelicals and other protestants who have told me that my Mormon belief in faith plus works "cheapens the grace of Christ". I've been involved in too many discussions with EVs who cling to the notion that I as a Mormon don't have real faith in Christ while they as Evangelicals do -despite my testimony that Jesus Christ is my Savior and I am saved by His Grace (because I being a fallable human invariably fall short of perfection on my own).

In your many years of signing recommends for the LDS faithful you claim that some lacked true faith in Christ. I am curious how you discerned that given their affermative answer to the first temple recommend question. I am of the opinion that someone who was a Latter-day Saint for years and found no foundation in Christ was either asleep in their meetings or their current view reflects a psycological projection of their own doubts upon their former brethren and sisters.

Zakuska did not create an over-simplistic category. He is speaking of the sub-group of protestantism that is antinomian.

Oh I agree in some respects. You are nearly reiterating what I stated in my first post. There are as many evangelicals who get it wrong as there are Mormons.

Regarding your opinion of "someone who was a Latter Day Saint for years" and found no foundation in Christ (which I have never stated) , please see my posts to "Stormrider" in the discussion on "B of M historicity".

[Zakuska]

Palerider is right about one thing. Paul and those preaching with him were being accused of being Antinomians.

Romans 3

7 For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?

8 And not rather, (as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say,) Let us do evil, that good may come? whose damnation is just.

[Zakuska]

He's wrong about quite a few others...

Romans 1

13 Now I would not have you ignorant, brethren, that oftentimes I purposed to come unto you, (but was let hitherto,) that I might have some fruit among you also, even as among other Gentiles.

14 I am debtor both to the Greeks, and to the Barbarians; both to the wise, and to the unwise.

Romans is addressed to Gentiles not Jews and these Gentiles knew the Law. Especially since they had been converted and would be instructed in the Law. Which he reminds them about in Romans 13.

Edited September 13, 2011 by Zakuska

[Palerider]

He's wrong about quite a few others...

Romans 1

13 Now I would not have you ignorant, brethren, that oftentimes I purposed to come unto you, (but was let hitherto,) that I might have some fruit among you also, even as among other Gentiles.

14 I am debtor both to the Greeks, and to the Barbarians; both to the wise, and to the unwise.

Romans is addressed to Gentiles not Jews and these Gentiles knew the Law. Especially since they had been converted and would be instructed in the Law. Which he reminds them about in Romans 13.

Sorry, I stand by my previous post. Romans would have been profitable for both Jew and Gentile. Why would Paul (or any one else teaching Christ's Gospel) want to confuse the Gentile converts by teaching them the intricacies of the Law of Moses which were no longer neccessary?

It was this very thing which Paul was fighting against as evidenced in Galatians when the Judaizers came from the Church at Jerusalem attempting to convince the Gentile converts in Galatia that they needed to keep the law of Moses even though they had accepted Christ as the Savior.

I agree completely that Paul is the Apostle to the Gentiles and that the New Testament as a general rule was written for the Gentiles but to limit it strictly to them would be to fail to see (or ignore) the diverse audience that would have existed in the Roman Church. Ever heard of the term "diasporic Jew" ?

Edited September 15, 2011 by Palerider

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Well it would appear then that Antimomianism goes against the Bible, and is not consistant with what the Bible following Faith alone/by grace crowd believe.

Are you saying the Father of the Protestant movement is wrong? Then would the movement be “fruits of the poisonous tree”? Not to mention is blatant anti-Semitism; also anti-Biblical.

[seriously honestly]

Are you saying the Father of the Protestant movement is wrong? Then would the movement be “fruits of the poisonous tree”? Not to mention is blatant anti-Semitism; also anti-Biblical.

I'm saying the true faith/grace alone crowd doesn't believe that the "moral law is of no use or obligation because faith alone is necessary to salvation" as the definition of Antinomianism states. Believing such is unBiblical--we don't deny that works are an inseparable part of faith, or that moral conduct can be disregarded (see Romans 6) and it's incorrect to assume otherwise.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I'm saying the true faith/grace alone crowd doesn't believe that the "moral law is of no use or obligation because faith alone is necessary to salvation" as the definition of Antinomianism states. Believing such is unBiblical--we don't deny that works are an inseparable part of faith, or that moral conduct can be disregarded (see Romans 6) and it's incorrect to assume otherwise.

So from it’s conception it has evolved into something he never intended?

[seriously honestly]

So from it’s conception it has evolved into something he never intended?

From what's conception? The term Antiomianism, or the grace/faith alone belief?

[Zakuska]

I'm saying the true faith/grace alone crowd doesn't believe that the "moral law is of no use or obligation because faith alone is necessary to salvation" as the definition of Antinomianism states. Believing such is unBiblical--we don't deny that works are an inseparable part of faith, or that moral conduct can be disregarded (see Romans 6) and it's incorrect to assume otherwise.

Oh, I wish you would post over on CARM. They try and seperate faith and works all the time.

The posters are so Antinomial that anything one does, even if it is a condition of God such as Baptism, Repentance, etc. its seen as a work and can have no part what so ever to do with faith.

"Thus, it is just as impossible to separate faith and works as it is to separate heat and light from fire!" -- Martin Luther

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

From what's conception? The term Antiomianism, or the grace/faith alone belief?

I was speaking of Martin Luther, not the dictionary term of Antiomianism...the very person who started the movement away from the Catholic Church, which gave rise ot the EV Church and the whole idea that God expects nothing of people for Salvation. Of course Revelation teaches (and I mean the book) that we are judged according to our works, not "grace/ faith. Then there is Matthew 7: 21 which states that only those who obey win Salvation. But those are the words of Christ, not Paul.

Edited September 15, 2011 by Bill “Papa” Lee

[seriously honestly]

Oh, I wish you would post over on CARM. They try and seperate faith and works all the time.

The posters are so Antinomial that anything one does, even if it is a condition of God such as Baptism, Repentance, etc. its seen as a work and can have no part what so ever to do with faith.

"Thus, it is just as impossible to separate faith and works as it is to separate heat and light from fire!" -- Martin Luther

I do (I post as Girl_4_God over there) and I've tried to explain what I believe about the faith/works relationship (I can't really bring myself into go into depth though). I don't think people are trying to say "you should never do works", but rather the purpose of works (communication may not always be at its best...). I do, however, think a lot of LDS there have some preconceived notions about what the "faith alone" crowed really believe and that does add to the mess over there.