It suggests that I’m on the right path, as the Apostle Paul (Rom 6:1) was accused of antinomianism. As this is the second time in two days that I’ve been accused of antinomianism in public, I take it that I must be doing the right thing. As Martyn Lloyd-Jones once said, if a preacher is never accused of antinomianism, he’s probably not preaching the gospel. What do you bet that Norm Shepherd, Mark Horne, Doug Wilson, John Barach, Steve Schlissel, and Steve Wilkins are never accused of antinomianism?
First answer: I have been accused of antinomianism. I think little children should be permitted to participate in the Lord’s Supper without first having to prove anything to the elders of a Church. I think we should preach that people who have fallen into the same sin hundreds of times are forgiven hundreds of times and are still Christians. Over and over again I am accused of lowering the bar, either not requiring enough “fruit” or else not allowing thorns to constitute counterevidence. It’s late, I’m too tired to find and create links, and anyone can google for whatever Rick Phillips has said about false assurance and children if they want to see this.
Second answer: The Apostle Paul was never accused of Antinomianism. Antinomianism means that you don’t have to obey the law of God. That’s not what Romans 6.1 is about. Romans 6.1 doesn’t say “What shall we say then? Is it irrelevant to grace whether we continue in sin?” No, what it says is, “What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound?” And here Paul is picking up on a topic he mentioned earlier,
But if our unrighteousness serves to show the righteousness of God, what shall we say? That “God is unrighteous to inflict wrath on us”? (I speak in a human way.) By no means! For then how could God judge the world? “But if through my lie God’s truth abounds to his glory, why am I still being condemned as a sinner?” And why not do evil that good may come?—as some people slanderously charge us with saying. Their condemnation is just.
The issue is not that God may save without caring about the moral behavior of the person saved. The issue is that God’s salvation was brought about through sin. Israel was a light to the nations and a blessing to all the families of the earth by breaking the covenant that promised them they would be a light to the nations and a blessing to all the families of the earth. Paul’s message was that Israel’s apostasy was God’s plan all along to bring about the trespass so that Jesus could become the focal point and God then could “condemn sin in the flesh” of Jesus (Romans 8.3).
Paul now confronted Israel with the fact that they had crucified their messiah and also with the fact that Israel’s salvation had now drawn nigh because they had done so. Some were saying, “Why should we have to repent if this was what God wanted? If God brings salvation from sin then we should just sin more and get more salvation.”
Let’s keep in mind how Paul actually did respond to charges of antinomianism:
Acts 21:20When they heard this, they praised God. Then they said to Paul: “You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law. 21They have been informed that you teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn away from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs. 22What shall we do? They will certainly hear that you have come, 23so do what we tell you. There are four men with us who have made a vow. 24Take these men, join in their purification rites and pay their expenses, so that they can have their heads shaved. Then everybody will know there is no truth in these reports about you, but that you yourself are living in obedience to the law. 25As for the Gentile believers, we have written to them our decision that they should abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality.”
26The next day Paul took the men and purified himself along with them. Then he went to the temple to give notice of the date when the days of purification would end and the offering would be made for each of them.
Mark,
I know that this wasn’t your point, but …
Isn’t it possible that a person is being accused of antinomianism simply because he is antinomian? I mention this because I have often heard the quotation from Martyn Lloyd-Jones used as though the orthodoxy of the speaker is true by definition.
“If you accuse me of being orthdox; that demonstrates that I am. If you accuse me of being a heretic; that also proves that I’m orthodox.” This is a pretty nice system, but it only works if I’m infallible.
While even the most faithful teachers are going to be misunderstood and even slandered; the first thing I hope to do when someone accuses me of teaching error is to discover whether or not I am. If I remain convinced that my teaching accurately reflects Scripture, then I want to discover if I could have explained things more clearly in a way that would have prevented the misunderstanding.
If Dr. Clark is repeatedly, and publicly, being accused of antinomianism – he may wish to examine what about his teaching is leading to this accusation rather than simply congratulating himself that being accused of error somehow demonstrates just how orthodox he must be.
David
p.s. I don’t know Dr. Clark and have no reason to doubt his orthodoxy.
Pingback: alastair.adversaria » Some Links