A libertine is a person devoid of most moral principles, a sense of responsibility, or sexual
restraints, which they see as unnecessary or undesirable, and is
especially someone who ignores or even spurns accepted morals and forms
of behaviour observed by the larger society. Libertinism is described as an extreme form of hedonism.
Libertines put value on physical pleasures, meaning those experienced
through the senses. As a philosophy, libertinism gained new-found
adherents in the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries, particularly in France and Great Britain. Notable among these were John Wilmot, 2nd Earl of Rochester, and the Marquis de Sade.
History of the term
The word libertine was originally coined by John Calvin to negatively describe opponents of his policies in Geneva, Switzerland. This group, led by Ami Perrin,
argued against Calvin's "insistence that church discipline should be
enforced uniformly against all members of Genevan society".
Perrin and his allies were elected to the town council in 1548, and
"broadened their support base in Geneva by stirring up resentment among
the older inhabitants against the increasing number of religious
refugees who were fleeing France in even greater numbers". By 1555, Calvinists
were firmly in place on the Genevan town council, so the Libertines,
led by Perrin, responded with an "attempted coup against the government
and called for the massacre of the French. This was the last great
political challenge Calvin had to face in Geneva".
During the 18th and 19th centuries, the term became more associated with debauchery. Charles-Maurice de Talleyrand wrote that Joseph Bonaparte "sought only life's pleasures and easy access to libertinism" while on the throne of Naples.
Literature
Les Liaisons dangereuses (Dangerous Liaisons, 1782), an epistolary novel by Pierre Choderlos de Laclos, is a trenchant description of sexual libertinism. Wayland Young
argues: "... the mere analysis of libertinism ... carried out by a
novelist with such a prodigious command of his medium ... was enough to
condemn it and play a large part in its destruction."
Agreeable to Calvin's emphasis on the need for uniformity of discipline in Geneva, Samuel Rutherford
(Professor of Divinity in the University of St. Andrews, and Christian
minister in 17th-century Scotland) offered a rigorous treatment of
"Libertinism" in his polemical work "A Free Disputation Against
Pretended Liberty of Conscience" (1649).
A Satyr Against Reason and Mankind is a poem by John Wilmot, 2nd Earl of Rochester which addresses the question of the proper use of reason, and is generally assumed to be a Hobbesian critique of rationalism. The narrator subordinates reason to sense. It is based to some extent on Boileau's version of Juvenal's eighth or fifteenth satire, and is also indebted to Hobbes, Montaigne, Lucretius, and Epicurus, as well as the general libertine tradition.
Confusion has arisen in its interpretation as it is ambiguous as to
whether the speaker is Rochester himself, or a satirised persona. It criticises the vanities and corruptions of the statesmen and politicians of the court of Charles II.
Robert Darnton is a cultural historian who has covered this genre extensively. A three part essay in The Book Collector by David Foxen explores libertine literature in England, 1660-1745.
Critics have been divided as to the literary merits of William Hazlitt's Liber Amoris,
a deeply personal account of frustrated love that is quite unlike
anything else Hazlitt ever wrote. Wardle suggests that it was compelling
but marred by sickly sentimentality, and also proposes that Hazlitt
might even have been anticipating some of the experiments in chronology
made by later novelists.
One or two positive reviews appeared, such as the one in the Globe, 7 June 1823: "The Liber Amoris
is unique in the English language; and as, possibly, the first book in
its fervour, its vehemency, and its careless exposure of passion and
weakness—of sentiments and sensations which the common race of mankind
seek most studiously to mystify or conceal—that exhibits a portion of
the most distinguishing characteristics of Rousseau, it ought to be
generally praised". Dan Cruickshank in his book London's Sinful Secret
summarized Hazlitt's infatuation stating: "Decades after her death
Batsy (Careless) still haunted the imagination of the essayist William
Hazlitt, a man who lodged near Covent Garden during the 1820s, where he
became unpleasantly intimate with the social consequences of
unconventional sexual obsession that he revealed in his Liber Amoris of 1823, in which he candidly confessed to his infatuation with his landlord's young daughter."
Antinomianism (Ancient Greek: ἀντί [anti] "against" and νόμος [nomos] "law") is any view which rejects laws or legalism and argues against moral, religious or social norms (Latin: mores), or is at least considered to do so. The term has both religious and secular meanings.
In some Christian belief systems, an antinomian is one who takes the principle of salvation by faith and divine grace to the point of asserting that the saved are not bound to follow the moral law contained in the Ten Commandments.
The distinction between antinomian and other Christian views on
moral law is that antinomians believe that obedience to the law is
motivated by an internal principle flowing from belief rather than from
any external compulsion. Johann Agricola, to whom Antinomianism was first attributed to, stated "If you sin, be happy, it should have no consequence."
Antinomianism has been a point of doctrinal contention in the history of Christianity, especially in Protestantism, given the Protestant belief in justification through faith alone versus justification on the basis of merit or good works or works of mercy. Most Protestants consider themselves saved without having to keep the commandments of the Mosaic law as a whole; that is, their salvation does not depend upon keeping the Mosaic law. However, salvific
faith is generally seen as one that produces obedience, consistent with
the reformed formula, "We are justified by faith alone but not by a
faith that is alone," in contrast to rejecting moral constraint.
The term antinomianism was coined by Martin Luther during the Reformation to criticize extreme interpretations of the new Lutheran soteriology. In the 18th century, John Wesley, the founder of the Methodist tradition, severely attacked antinomianism.
A general consensus
has been historically reached as to which laws of the Old Testament
Christians are still enjoined to keep. These moral laws, as opposed to
civil or ceremonial laws, are derivative of what St. Paul indirectly
refers to as natural law (Rm 2.14–15). Mosaic law has authority only insofar as it reflects the commands of Christ
and the natural law. Christian sects and theologians who believe that
they are freed from more moral constraint than is customary are often
called "antinomian" by their critics. Thus, classic Methodist
commentator Adam Clarke
held, "The Gospel proclaims liberty from the ceremonial law, but binds
you still faster under the moral law. To be freed from the ceremonial
law is the Gospel liberty; to pretend freedom from the moral law is
Antinomianism."
Antinomianism in Gnosticism
The term antinomian came into use in the sixteenth century; however, the doctrine itself can be traced in the teaching of earlier beliefs. Early Gnostic
sects were accused of failing to follow the Mosaic Law in a manner that
suggests the modern term "antinomian". Most Gnostic sects did not
accept the Old Testament moral law. For example, the Manichaeans
held that their spiritual being was unaffected by the action of matter
and regarded carnal sins as being, at worst, forms of bodily disease.
The Old Testament was absolutely
rejected by most of the Gnostics. Even the so-called Judaeo-Christian
Gnostics (Cerinthus), the Ebionite (Essenian) sect of the
Pseudo-Clementine writings (the Elkesaites), take up an inconsistent
attitude towards Jewish antiquity and the Old Testament. In this
respect, the opposition to Gnosticism led to a reactionary movement. If
the growing Christian Church, in quite a different fashion from Paul,
laid stress on the literal authority of the Old Testament, interpreted,
it is true, allegorically; if it took up a much more friendly and
definite attitude towards the Old Testament, and gave a wider scope to
the legal conception of religion, this must be in part ascribed to the
involuntary reaction upon it of Gnosticism.
Marcion of Sinope was the founder of Marcionism which rejected the Hebrew Bible in its entirety. Marcion considered the God portrayed in the Bible to be a lesser deity, a demiurge, and he claimed that the law of Moses was contrived.
Such deviations from the moral law were criticized by proto-orthodox
rivals of the Gnostics, who ascribed various aberrant and licentious
acts to them. A biblical example of such criticism can be found in Revelation 2:6–15, which criticizes the Nicolaitans, possibly an early Gnostic sect.
Lutheran views
The
term "antinomianism" was coined by Martin Luther during the
Reformation, to criticize extreme interpretations of the new Lutheran soteriology. The Lutheran Church benefited from early antinomian controversies by becoming more precise in distinguishing between law and gospel and justification and sanctification.
Martin Luther developed 258 theses during his six antinomian
disputations, which continue to provide doctrinal guidance to Lutherans
today.
Upon hearing that he was being charged with the rejection of the Old Testament moral law,
Luther responded: "And truly, I wonder exceedingly, how it came to be
imputed to me, that I should reject the Law or Ten Commandments, there
being extant so many of my own expositions (and those of several sorts)
upon the Commandments, which also are daily expounded, and used in our
Churches, to say nothing of the Confession and Apology, and other books
of ours." In his "Introduction to Romans," Luther stated that saving faith is,
a living, creative, active and
powerful thing, this faith. Faith cannot help doing good works
constantly. It doesn't stop to ask if good works ought to be done, but
before anyone asks, it already has done them and continues to do them
without ceasing. Anyone who does not do good works in this manner is an
unbeliever… Thus, it is just as impossible to separate faith and works
as it is to separate heat and light from fire!"
First antinomian controversy
As early as 1525, Johannes Agricola
advanced his idea, in his commentary on Luke, that the law was a futile
attempt of God to work the restoration of mankind. He maintained that
non-Christians were still held to the Mosaic law, while Christians were
entirely free from it, being under the Gospel alone. He viewed sin
as a malady or impurity rather than an offense that rendered the sinner
guilty and damnable before God. The sinner was the subject of God's
pity rather than of his wrath. To Agricola, the purpose of repentance
was to abstain from evil rather than the contrition of a guilty
conscience. The law had no role in repentance, which came about after
one came to faith, and repentance was caused by the knowledge of the
love of God alone.
In contrast, Philipp Melanchthon urged that repentance must precede faith and that knowledge of the moral law is needed to produce repentance. He later wrote in the Augsburg Confession
that repentance has two parts. "One is contrition, that is, terrors
smiting the conscience through the knowledge of sin; the other is faith,
which is born of the Gospel, or of absolution, and believes that for
Christ's sake, sins are forgiven, comforts the conscience, and delivers
it from terrors."
Shortly after Melanchthon drew up the 1527 Articles of Visitation in June, Agricola began to be verbally aggressive toward him, but Martin Luther succeeded in smoothing out the difficulty at Torgau
in December 1527. However, Agricola did not change his ideas and later
depicted Luther as disagreeing with him. After Agricola moved to
Wittenberg, he maintained that the law must be used in the courthouse
but it must not be used in the church. He said that repentance comes
from hearing the good news only and does not precede but rather follows
faith. He continued to disseminate this doctrine in books, despite
receiving various warnings from Luther.
Luther, with reluctance, at last, believed that he had to make a
public comment against antinomianism and its promoters in 1538 and 1539.
Agricola apparently yielded, and Luther's book Against the Antinomians (1539) was to serve as Agricola's recantation. This was the first use of the term Antinomian. But the conflict flared up again, and Agricola sued Luther. He said that Luther had slandered him in his disputations, Against the Antinomians, and in his On the Councils and Churches (1539). But before the case could be brought to trial, Agricola left the city, even though he had bound himself to remain at Wittenberg, and moved to Berlin where he had been offered a position as preacher to the court. After his arrival there, he made peace with the Saxons,
acknowledged his "error", and gradually conformed his doctrine to that
which he had before opposed and assailed. He still used such terms as
gospel and repentance in a different manner from Luther's.
Second antinomian controversy
The antinomian doctrine, however, was not eliminated from Lutheranism. Melanchthon and those who agreed with him, called Philippists, were checked by the Gnesio-Lutherans in the Second Antinomian Controversy during the Augsburg Interim.
The Philippists ascribed to the Gospel alone the ability to work
repentance, to the exclusion of the law. They blurred the distinction
between Law and Gospel by considering the Gospel itself to be a moral
law. They did not identify Christ's fulfillment of the law with the
commandments which humans are expected to follow.
As a result, the Book of Concord rejects antinomianism in the last confession of faith. The Formula of Concord rejects antinomianism in the fifth article, On the Law and the Gospel and in the sixth article, On the Third Use of the Law.
The Articles of the Church of England, Revised and altered by the Assembly of Divines, at Westminster, in the year 1643
condemns antinomianism, teaching that "no Christian man whatsoever is
free from the obedience of the commandments which are called moral. By
the moral law, we understand all the Ten Commandments taken to their
full extent." The Westminster Confession, held by Presbyterian Churches,
holds that the moral law contained in the Ten Commandments "does
forever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience
thereof".
The Westminster Confession of Faith further states: "Faith, thus
receiving and resting on Christ and His righteousness, is the alone
instrument of justification; yet it is not alone in the person
justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is
no dead faith, but works by love."
However, a number of seventeenth-century English writers in the
Reformed tradition held antinomian beliefs. None of these individuals
argued that Christians would not obey the law. Instead, they believed
that believers would spontaneously obey the law without external
motivation. Antinomianism during this period is likely a reaction against Arminianism, as it emphasized free grace in salvation to the detriment of any participation on the part of the believer. John Eaton (fl. 1619) is often identified as the father of English antinomianism. Tobias Crisp (1600–1643), a Church of England priest who had been Arminian and was later accused of being an antinomian. He was a divisive figure for English Calvinists, with a serious controversy arising from the republication of his works in the 1690s. Also lesser known was John Saltmarsh (priest).
From the latter part of the 18th century, critics of Calvinists
accused them of antinomianism. Such charges were frequently raised by
Arminian Methodists, who subscribed to a synergistic soteriology that
contrasted with Calvinism's monergistic doctrine of justification. The
controversy between Arminian and Calvinistic Methodists produced the notable Arminian critique of Calvinism: Fletcher's Five Checks to Antinomianism (1771–75).
Methodist views
John Wesley, the founder of the Methodist tradition, harshly criticized antinomianism, considering it the "worst of all heresies". He taught that Christian believers are bound to follow the moral law and that they are to partake in the means of grace for their sanctification. Methodists teach the necessity of following the moral law as contained in the Ten Commandments, citing Jesus' teaching, "If ye love me, keep my commandments" (cf. John 14:15).
Quaker views
Religious Society of Friends
were charged with antinomianism due to their rejection of a graduate
clergy and a clerical administrative structure, as well as their
reliance on the Spirit (as revealed by the Inner Light of God within
each person) rather than the Scriptures. They also rejected civil legal
authorities and their laws (such as the paying of tithes
to the State church and the swearing of oaths) when they were seen as
inconsistent with the promptings of the Inner Light of God.
Antinomian charges against other groups
Other Protestant groups that have been accused of antinomianism include the Anabaptists and Mennonites. The Ranters of 17th century England were one of the most outright antinomian sects in the history of Christianity. New Covenant Theology has been accused of antinomianism for their belief that the Ten Commandments have been abrogated, but they point out that nine of these ten are renewed under the New Covenant's Law of Christ. John Eaton, a leader in the antinomian underground during the 1630s, interpreted Revelation 12:1 with a quote recorded by Giles Firmin: "I saw a Woman Clothed with the Sun [That is, the Church Clothed with the righteousness of Christ, to her Justification] and the Moon, [that is, Sanctification] under her Feet." Scholars have speculated that the "sun" and "light" may have been code-words used to surreptitiously reveal antinomian sympathies.
The question of the obligation to follow the Mosaic Law was a point
of contention in the Early Christian Church. Many early converts were
Greek and thus had less interest in adherence to the Law of Moses than
did the earliest Christians, who were primarily Jewish and already
accustomed to the Law. Thus, as Christianity spread into new cultures, the early church was pressured
to decide which laws were still required of Christians, and which were
no longer required under the New Covenant. The New Testament,
(especially the book of Acts) is interpreted by some as recording the church slowly abandoning the "ritual laws" of Judaism, such as circumcision, Sabbath and kosher law, while remaining in full agreement on adherence to the "divine law", or Jewish laws on morality, such as the Ten Commandments. Thus, the early Christian church incorporated ideas sometimes seen as partially antinomian or parallel to Dual-covenant theology, while still upholding the traditional laws of moral behavior.
The first major dispute over Christian antinomianism was a dispute over whether circumcision was required of Christians. This happened at the Council of Jerusalem, which is dated to about 50 AD and recorded in the Acts of the Apostles:
"And certain men which came down
from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised
after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved."
The apostles and elders met at Jerusalem, and after a spirited discussion, their conclusion, later called the Apostolic Decree, possibly a major act of differentiation of the Church from its Jewish roots (the first being the idea that Jesus was the messiah), was recorded in Acts 15:19–21:
Acts 15:(19) Wherefore my [James] sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles
are turned to God: (20) But that we write unto them, that they abstain
from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things
strangled, and from blood. (21) For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath day.
— KJV
Beginning with Augustine of Hippo, many have seen a connection to Noahide Law, while some modern scholars reject the connection to Noahide Law and instead see Lev 17–18 as the basis.
James sets out a preliminary list of commands which Gentiles
should obey. Gentiles were not required to be circumcised but were
required to obey the four beginning requirements to be part of the
larger congregation. This passage shows that the remainder of the
commandments would follow as they studied "Moses" in the Synagogues. If
Gentiles did not follow this reduced requirement, they risked being put
out of the Synagogue and missing out on a Torah education (in Leviticus 17 and 20).
James's list still includes some dietary commands, but many of those
also passed out of some Christian traditions quite early. Acts 10:9–16 describes the following vision, which was used to excuse early gentile Christians from the Mosaic dietary laws.
(9) ...Peter
went up upon the housetop to pray about the sixth hour: (10) And he
became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he
fell into a trance, (11) And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel
descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four
corners, and let down to the earth: (12) Wherein were all manner of
fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things,
and fowls of the air. (13) And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter;
kill, and eat. (14) But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten
anything that is common or unclean. (15) And the voice spake unto him
again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou
common. (16) This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again
into heaven.
— KJV
Peter was perplexed about the vision in Acts 10. His subsequent
explanation of the vision in Acts 11 gives no credence to antinomianism
as it relates to the admission of Gentiles into covenant relationship
with God.
In the Letter to the Hebrews (Hebrews 7:11–28), it is written that under the Old Testament Law, priests had to be from the tribe of Levi, Aaron, and his sons:
Bring his sons and dress them in
tunics and put headbands on them. Then tie sashes on Aaron and his sons.
The priesthood is theirs by a lasting ordinance. In this way you shall
ordain Aaron and his sons.
It is pointed out that Jesus was from the tribe of Judah, and thus
Jesus could not be a priest under the Old Testament Law, as Jesus is not
a descendant of Aaron. It states that the Law had to change for Jesus
to be the High Priest: "For when there is a change of the priesthood,
there must also be a change of the law." (Hebrews 7:12)
Artist depiction of Saint Paul Writing His Epistles, 16th century (Blaffer Foundation Collection, Houston, Texas). Most scholars think Paul dictated his letters to a secretary.
The Apostle Paul, in his Letters, says that believers are saved by the unearned grace of God, not by good works, "lest anyone should boast", and placed a priority on orthodoxy (right belief) before orthopraxy (right practice). The soteriology of Paul's statements in this matter has long been a matter of dispute. The ancient gnostics interpreted Paul, for example in 2 Peter 3:16,
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 Protestant
orthodoxy, however, this passage is interpreted as a reference to
justification by trusting Christ.
Paul used the term freedom in Christ, for example, Galatians 2:4. 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 they are informed of thee, that
thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake
Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither
to walk after the customs.
— KJV
Colossians 2:13–14 is sometimes presented as proof of Paul's antinomistic views. For example, the NIV
translates these verses: "... 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."
But, 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." This latter translation makes it
sound as though it is a record of trespasses, rather than the Law itself, that was "nailed to the cross." The interpretation partly depends on the original Greek word χειρόγραφον which, according to Strong's G5498,
literally means "something written by hand;" it is variously translated
as "the bond" (RSV, NAB), "written code" (NIV), or "record" (ESV, NRSV,
CEB), as in a record of debt.
2 Corinthians 3:6–17 says,
"Who also hath made us able ministers of the new
testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth,
but the spirit giveth life. But if the ministration of death, written
and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel
could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his
countenance; which glory was to be done away: How shall not the
ministration of the spirit be rather glorious? For if the ministration
of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of
righteousness exceed in glory. For even that which was made glorious had
no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth. For if
that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is
glorious. Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of
speech: And not as Moses, which put a veil over his face, that the
children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is
abolished: But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth
the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which
vail is done away in Christ. But even unto this day, when Moses is read,
the vail is upon their heart. Nevertheless when it shall turn to the
Lord, the vail shall be taken away. Now the Lord is that Spirit: and
where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." (KJV)
Some cite Acts 13:39: "And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses." Romans 6
states twice that believers are not under the law: Romans 6:14 "For sin
shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but
under grace." and Romans 6:15 "What then? shall we sin, because we are
not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.". KJV
Galatians 3:1–5
describes the Galatians as "foolish" for relying on being observant to
the Law: "(1) O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye
should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been
evidently set forth, crucified among you? (2) This only would I learn of
you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing
of faith? (3) Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now
made perfect by the flesh? (4) Have ye suffered so many things in vain?
if it be yet in vain. (5) He therefore that ministereth to you the
Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the
law, or by the hearing of faith?" KJV
Galatians 3:23–25 says that the purpose of the Law was to lead people to Christ, once people believe in Christ, they are no longer under the Law:
"(23) But before faith came, we were kept under the law,
shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. (24)
Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we
might be justified by faith.(25) But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster." KJV
Christians believe that Jesus is the mediator of the New Covenant in Hebrews 8:6. Depicted is his Sermon on the Mount in which he commented on the Law.
In Galatians 4:21–31, Paul compares the Old Covenant
with the New Covenant. In this comparison, he equates each covenant
with a woman, using the wives of Abraham as examples. The old covenant
is equated with the slave woman, Hagar, and the new covenant is equated
with the free woman Sarah.(Galatians 4:22–26).
He concludes this example by saying that we are not children of the
slave woman, but children of the free woman. In other words, we are not
under the old covenant, we are under the new covenant.
"(22) For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the
one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. (23) But he who was of the
bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by
promise. (24) Which things are an allegory: for these are the two
covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage,
which is Agar. (25) For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and
answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her
children. (26) But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother
of us all." KJV (Galatians 4:30–31)
Romans 10:4
is sometimes translated: "For Christ is the end of the law for
righteousness to every one that believeth" (KJV), or "Christ is the end
of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes"
(NRSV). The key word here is telos (Strong's G5056). Robert Badenas argues that telos is correctly translated as goal, not end, so that Christ is the goal of the Law. N. T. Wright in his New Testament for Everyone
translates this verse as: "The Messiah, you see, is the goal of the
law, so that covenant membership may be available for all who believe." Andy Gaus'
version of the New Testament translates this verse as: "Christ is what
the law aims at: for every believer to be on the right side of [God's]
justice."
Also cited is Ephesians 2:15:
"He has abolished the law with its commandments and ordinances, that he
might create in himself one new humanity in place of the two, thus
making peace," NRSV. Another passage cited is Romans 7:1–7,
especially Romans 7:4 "Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead
to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another,
even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth
fruit unto God." and Romans 7:6 "But now we are delivered from the law,
that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of
spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter." KJV
The first covenant (made with Israel, as recorded in the Old Testament) is compared with the new covenant in Hebrews 8–9.
In Hebrews 8:6–7: "But the ministry Jesus has received is as superior
to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old
one, and it is founded on better promises. For if there had been
nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought
for another." It goes on to say that the problem with the first covenant
was with the people who were supposed to keep it and that in the new
covenant: "I will put my laws into their minds, and write them on their
hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people." Hebrews 8:10
The first covenant was said to be obsolete, and would soon
disappear: "By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one
obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear." Hebrews 8:13. It identifies the first covenant which is disappearing in Hebrews 9:1–5. Particularly the "stone tablets of the covenant" in Hebrews 9:4 referred directly to the Ten Commandments.
"Now the first covenant had regulations for worship and
also an earthly sanctuary. A tabernacle was set up. In its first room
were the lampstand, the table, and the consecrated bread; this was
called the Holy Place. Behind the second curtain was a room called the
Most Holy Place, which had the golden altar of incense and the
gold-covered ark of the covenant. This ark contained the gold jar of
manna, Aaron's staff that had budded, and the stone tablets of the
covenant. Above the ark were the cherubim of the Glory, overshadowing
the atonement cover." (Hebrews 9:1–5)
However, the notion that the Ten Commandments have been abrogated, as found in New Covenant Theology, is challenged by some.
Those who oppose antinomianism invoke Paul as upholding obedience to the law:
"Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not
subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are
in the flesh cannot please God." Romans 8:7–8 KJV
"But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his
own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel." 1 Timothy 5:8 KJV
"But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man
that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater,
or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not
to eat." 1 Corinthians 5:11 KJV
"Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right. Honour
thy father and mother; which is the first commandment with promise;" Ephesians 6:1–2 KJV
"Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law." Romans 3:31 KJV
"For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without
law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
(For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of
the law shall be justified." Romans 2:12–13 KJV
"For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor
covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of
Christ and of God. Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because
of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of
disobedience. " Ephesians 5:5–6 KJV
"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of
God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor
adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor
thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners,
shall inherit the kingdom of God." 1 Corinthians 6:9–10:26 KJV
"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not
permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under
obedience, as also saith the law." 1 Corinthians 14:34 KJV
"Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth;
fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and
covetousness, which is idolatry." Colossians 3:5 KJV
"Neither be ye idolaters, as were some of them; as it is written, The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play." 1 Corinthians 10:7 KJV
"Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery,
fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred,
variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings,
murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you
before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such
things shall not inherit the kingdom of God." Galatians 5:19–21 KJV
"Say I these things as a man? or saith not the law the same also?
For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth
of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen?" 1 Corinthians 9:8–9 KJV
"The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if
her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will;
only in the Lord." 1 Corinthians 7:39 KJV
"While he answered for himself, Neither against the law of the Jews,
neither against the temple, nor yet against Cæsar, have I offended any
thing at all." Acts 25:8 KJV
Theology
The Catholic Encyclopedia
(1910) article on "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 the Council of Jerusalem circumcised Timothy (Acts 16:1–3), and he was in the very act of observing the Mosaic ritual when he was arrested at Jerusalem (21:26 sqq.)."
The Jewish Encyclopedia article on "Gentile: Gentiles May Not Be Taught the Torah" notes the following reconciliation: "R. Emden, in a remarkable apology for Christianity contained in his appendix to "Seder 'Olam," gives it as his opinion that the original intention of Jesus, and especially of Paul, was to convert only the Gentiles to the seven moral laws of Noah
and to let the Jews follow the Mosaic law — this explains the apparent
contradictions in the New Testament regarding the laws of Moses and the
Sabbath."
The Tübingen school of historians founded by F. C. Baur holds that in Early Christianity, there was a conflict between Pauline Christianity and the Jerusalem Church led by James the Just, Simon Peter, and John the Apostle, the so-called "Jewish Christians" or "Pillars of the Church." 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, Paul publicly accused Peter of judaizing.
Even so, he says sins remain sins and upholds by several examples the
kind of behaviour that the church should not tolerate (e.g., Galatians 5:19–21, 1 Cor 6:9–10). In 1 Corinthians 7:10–16
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 conforming to what the Lord said. But, this may mean he
received direct knowledge of what the Lord wanted him to teach through
the Holy Ghost (Galatians 2:6–10).
The Epistle of James, in contrast, states that we are to obey the Law of God and that "a person is justified by works and not by faith alone" (James 2:14–26). Historically, this statement has been difficult for Protestants to reconcile with their belief in justification by faith alone
as it appears to contradict Paul's teaching that works don't justify
(Romans 4:1–8). Martin Luther, believing that his doctrines were refuted
by James's conclusion that works also justify, suggested that the
Epistle might be a forgery, and relegated it to an appendix in his
Bible. Literature which discusses this includes the article on James 2:20 in Law and Gospel. Romans 2:6, Ephesians 2:8–10, and Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification.
James also wrote: "For whoever keeps the whole law and yet
stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. For he who
said, 'Do not commit adultery,' also said, 'Do not murder.' If you do
not commit adultery but do commit murder, you have become a lawbreaker."
James 2:10–11.
One interpretation is that people who want to keep the Old Testament
Law must perfectly keep all of the Law—"an impossible task."
James appeals to his readers to follow the "Royal Law of Love" instead
of in the preceding verses (James 2:8–9). But the scholar Alister McGrath says that James was the leader of a Judaizing party that taught that Gentiles must obey the entire Mosaic Law.
Paul made a statement that appears to agree with James, saying
that "both" faith produced as a result of repentance (the initial
requirement for justification) "and" works (the evidence or proof of
true faith) must exist together:
"So then, King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the
vision from heaven. First to those in Damascus, then to those in
Jerusalem and in all Judea, and to the Gentiles also, I preached that
they should repent and turn to God and prove their repentance by their deeds." Acts 26:19–20 (NIV)
The Torah prescribes the death penalty for desecrating the Sabbath by working (Exodus 31:14–17). To avoid any possibility
of breaking the simple and few original Torah commands, the Pharisees
formulated and added several thousand strict laws and numerous
traditions which they treated as laws. According to the Christians,
Jesus criticized the Pharisees for adding to the law (Mark 7:7–9). The Jewish Encyclopedia article on 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 Bet Hillel and Bet Shammai were occurring about the time
of his maturity."
In the Gospel of Mark, Jesus' disciples were picking grain for food on the Sabbath (Mark 2:23–28).
This was against one of the Pharisaic laws that had been added to the
original Torah law which prohibited work on the Sabbath day. When the
Pharisees challenged Jesus over breaking their law, 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. P. Sanders
notes, "No substantial conflict existed 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."
There may be passages where the words of Jesus have been misinterpreted
and were not really in contradiction with the Jewish law. Jesus never once broke the Torah, yet he did denounce the added Pharisaic rules and openly defied the Pharisees.
In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus is sometimes said to refer to wicked people with the term ergazomenoi tēn anomian (ἐργαζόμενοι τὴν ἀνομἰαν)—e.g., Matthew 7:21–23, Matthew 13:40–43.
Due to this negative context, the term has almost always been
translated as "evildoers", although it literally means "workers of
lawlessness".
In Hebrew, lawlessness would imply "Torahlessness". 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 his intended audience. But, Jesus called for full adherence to the commandments (Matthew 5:19–21) He declared: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the 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.
1 John 3:4 states: "Everyone who commits sin is guilty of lawlessness; sin is lawlessness."
Buddhist antinomianism
Among some Buddhist groups there are types of "antinomianism" that may act as a gloss for "left-handed attainment" (Sanskrit: vamachara): naturalist / spontaneous antinomianism, ritualist / philosophical antinomianism, and empirical antinomianism.
There may also be those who subscribe to all or some combination of
these three types. Not all Buddhist schools accept antinomian thought as
skillful.
Naturalist antinomians believe that enlightened beings may
spontaneously break monastic codes of conduct while living out a natural
state of enlightened mind. Another view is that an enlightened mind
responds to circumstances based on Buddhist morality, rather than the
legalism of the monastic codes and that the "break" is not therefore
spontaneous. There are tales of Buddhists who perform acts that appear
to be bizarre or immoral, sometimes referred to as 'crazy wisdom' (Tibetan: yeshe chölwa). The movement of the Nyönpa in Seventeenth-Century Tibet has strong associations with antinomian behavior as well.
Ritualist antinomians, such as some Tantric Buddhists,
may practice which seemingly may appear to be breaking the codes of
conduct in specific religious rituals designed to teach non-duality or
other philosophical concepts.
Empirical antinomians may break or disregard traditional ethical
or moral rules that they believe are unconducive to the individual's
contemplative life. They view such codification as having arisen in
specific historical-cultural contexts and, as such, not always
supportive of Buddhist training. Thus the individual and the community
must test and verify which rules promote or hinder enlightenment.
In Islam, the law — which applies not only to religion, but also to areas such as politics, banking, and sexuality — is called sharīʿah (شريعة), and traditionally draws from four primary sources:
the Quran, which is Islam's central religious text;
the Sunnah, which refers to actions practised during the time of the prophet Muḥammad, and is often thought to include the ḥadīth, or recorded words and deeds of Muḥammad;
Ijmāʿ, which is the consensus of the ʿulamāʾ, or class of Islamic scholars, on points of practice;
Qiyās, which—in 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 Shia Islam, ʿaql ("reason") is used in place of qiyās
Actions, behavior, 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 God"); bidʻah ("innovation"); kufr ("disbelief"); ḥarām ("forbidden"); etc.
As an example, the 10th century Sufi mystic al-Hallaj was executed for shirk for, among other things, his statement ana al-Ḥaqq (أنا الحق), meaning "I am the Truth". As الحقal-Ḥaqq ("the Truth") is one of the Names of God in Islam, this would imply he was saying: "I am God." Expressions like these are known as šaṭḥiyyāt. Another individual who has often been termed antinomian is Ibn Arabi, a 12th and 13th-century scholar and mystic whose doctrine of waḥdat al-wujūd ("unity of being") has sometimes been interpreted as being pantheistic, and thus shirk.
Apart from individuals, entire groups of Muslims have also been called antinomian. One of these groups is the Nizārī Ismāʿīlī Shīʿa, who have always had strong millenarian tendencies arising partly from persecution directed at them by Sunnīs. Influenced to a certain extent by Gnosticism, the Ismāʿīlīs developed a number of beliefs and practices—such as their belief in the imamatte and an esoteric exegesis of the Qurʾān—that orthodox Sunnī Muslims considered being shirk and, hence, to be seen as antinomian. Certain other groups that evolved out of Shīʿah belief, such as the Alawites and the Bektashi Order,
have also been considered antinomian. The Bektashis, particularly, have
practices that diverge from conventional Islamic practice, such as the
consumption of alcoholic beverages, the non-wearing of the ḥijāb ("veil") by women, and gathering in the cemevi in preference to the mosque.
In Western esotericism the left-hand path and right-hand path are the dichotomy between two opposing approaches to magic. This terminology is used in various groups involved in the occult and ceremonial magic. In some definitions, the left-hand path is equated with malicious black magic or black shamanism, while the right-hand path with benevolent white magic.
Other occultists have criticised this definition, believing that the
left/right dichotomy refers merely to different kinds of working and
does not necessarily connote good or bad magical actions.
Nonreligious antinomianism
George Orwell was a frequent user of "antinomian" in a secular (and always approving) sense. In his 1940 essay on Henry Miller, "Inside the Whale", the word appears several times, including one in which he calls A. E. Housman a writer in "a blasphemous, antinomian, 'cynical' strain", meaning defiant of arbitrary societal rules.
The psychologist, Nathan Adler,
defined the "antinomian personality type" as "manifested by one whose
frame of reference is threatened or has been disrupted. He suffers from a
breakdown in the balance of his control and release mechanisms and from
the permeability of his body boundaries."
In his study of late-20th-century western society the historian Eric Hobsbawm used the term in a sociological sense.
_flip.png)
