This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
[[Anne Hutchinson#Civil trial|civil trial of Anne Hutchinson]] The anchor (#Civil trial) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Buddhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Buddhism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more details on the projects.BuddhismWikipedia:WikiProject BuddhismTemplate:WikiProject BuddhismBuddhism articles
This article has a neutrality flag, so let's start a discussion of what the appropriate tone for this article should be. I am not an expert on this topic, but I learned "antinomian" as describing one who values personal religious interpretation and experience over formally taught doctrine and theology - a tendency that is increasingly common and acceptable with the rise of pluralism. The article has a distinctly negative tone though, like it was written primarily by writers with with either: a) an agenda favoring traditional Christian theology or b) a mostly historical perspective focusing on less pluralistic times when this term had a more "subversive" than "individualist" connotation.
Here is Britannica's take which I think is a neutral (but brief) account. (Most other internet sources are from Christian organizations or churches and have a similar tone to the Wikipedia article).
(Greek anti, “against”; nomos, “law”), doctrine according to which Christians are freed by grace from the necessity of obeying the Mosaic Law. The antinomians rejected the very notion of obedience as legalistic; to them the good life flowed from the inner working of the Holy Spirit. In this circumstance they appealed not only to Martin Luther but also to Paul and Augustine.
The ideas of antinomianism had been present in the early church, and some Gnostic heretics believed that freedom from law meant freedom for license. The doctrine of antinomianism, however, grew out of the Protestant controversies on the law and the gospel and was first attributed to Luther’s collaborator, Johann Agricola. It also appeared in the Reformed branch of Protestantism. The left-wing Anabaptists were accused of antinomianism, both for theological reasons and also because they opposed the cooperation of church and state, which was considered necessary for law and order. For similar reasons, in the 17th century, Separatists, Familists, Ranters, and Independents in England were called antinomians by the established churches. In New England, Anne Hutchinson was accused of the doctrine when she said that the churches were preaching “the covenant of works.” The Evangelical movement at the end of the 18th century produced its own antinomians who claimed an inner experience and a “new life,” which they considered the true source of good works
.
Please list suggested neutrality changes below. -user:npatchett
1)Many sections of article is organized as "charges against" different sects, which assumes only negative connotation of the word. Perhaps an antinomian tendency in protestantism, the Society of Friends, etc is a real strength?
Hmm ... "Neutrality much improved?" The text still is riddled with blatantly negative POV towards antinomianism, e.g. "Charges against other groups ...Other Protestant groups that have been accused of antinomianism". I myself do not have an axe to grind either one way or the other, but I find this kind of text very unencyclopaedic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.118.5.119 (talk) 23:12, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Britannica quote is still better than the explanation here.
Also, I've just deleted the second para of the purported views of Christians on antinomianism, on the basis of generalisation and lack of support.
"Most Protestants consider themselves saved without having to keep the commandments of the Mosaic law as a whole... However, salvific faith is generally seen as one that produces obedience..."
This sounds anti-Protestant to me and is wrong anyway, for two reasons. The first reason is that Protestants very much do argue that they do keep to the Torah (Mosaic Law) as a whole, which is why it's included in the Bible. They differ from some Catholics primarily on the completeness and finality of the Bible, on the validity of additions to it. This is the essence of Luther's critique of Catholicism.
Secondly, it is wrong to see antinomianism primarily as a Protestant vs Catholic argument anyway. It is more of a Christian vs Judaism argument. Or more specifically it is a Jesus versus the Pharisees of His day argument (Mark 12:11). And again this is a matter of how God's law is obeyed rather than whether. Is a legalistic, literal view or an rational interpretation better? Good points are made on both sides. All Christians, by definition, do not obey every particular of the Torah. Otherwise they would be Jews. 92.40.110.168 (talk) 11:03, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the quote from the Sermon on the Mount is misused. Jesus is not saying that it is believers whom we will know by their fruits, but false prophets. Why don't we read it from verse 15 and onwards:
Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. (Matthew 7:15-23 KJV; emphasis added)
Then, if one would have read the entire chapter, it becomes very clear that the issue referred to in the quoted verses of Matt. 7:20-23 used in Antinomianism article is false prophets, not believers. I'll remove that passage and will keep removing it should anyone put it back there. There are other places in the Bible where it is actually spoken of how by their fruits believers will be known.
You are using original research which is not allowed on wikipedia, see No Original Research and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. If you can cite a source for your claim, add it to the article, but don't use it as an excuse to blank a portion of the article which explains: "The Greek translated as evildoers is ergazomenoi ten anomian or literally workers of lawlessness. Footnote Reference: A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature Bauer, Gingrich, Danker. Also, Young's Literal Translation[1]: ye who are working lawlessness" 209.78.20.621:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First of all my intention was not to remove notes on Greek translations, but the Bible passage misused. Furthermore, what "research" is it that quotes that part of Matthew which I removed as relevant in the subject matter which is antinomianism? What I said above is not research, it's just facts. Saying that the passage at hand has anything to do with antinomianism is like saying Ahab chased Willy because he's a bad gardener, even though it clearly says something else. Jack Daw00:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lawlessness (anomia) is antinomianism. The "evildoers" are specified in the Greek as those who do things outside of the law, i.e. lawlessness. If you have a reference for an interpretation that produces a different Greek word, cite it, but don't blank the quote.209.78.19.10100:18, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We are obviously talking about two completely different things. I'm saying the quote refers not to whether one is justified by the law or not (legalism vs antinomianism) but to false prophets, and that Jesus rebukes them even if they did lawful things. I understand your point better now, but I still don't think the entire passage should be used, rather I think it should be pointed out that when Jesus rebukes workers of lawlessness the original Greek says "evildoers". But don't use the entire passage. You understand my point right?
No. Your "point" seems to be to agressively blank quotes. The "original" Greek says 'ergazomenoi ten anomian' or literally 'workers of lawlessness'. This is backed up by Young's Literal translation. Your claim seems to be that this means false prophets who Jesus rebukes even if they are followers of the law, an interpretation of the text - if you can provide a reference for that claim, add it to the article, but don't use that as an excuse to blank quotes. If you can't provide a reference for that claim it is original research and does not belong on wikipedia. 64.169.7.22219:13, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Liddell and Scott Greek-English Lexicon:
[2]
anomia:
A. lawlessness, lawless conduct
2. the negation of law
Young's Literal Translation[3]:
"and then I will acknowledge to them, that -- I never knew you, depart from me ye who are working lawlessness." (Matt 7:23)
The mention of 2 Peter 3:16 as supporting the claim that Paul's soteriology is somehow wrong is invald. It says Paul's writing (in general) is at times hard - it does not state which writings in particular. This should be removed/re-edited.
--DaXiong07:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is entirely focused on the mudslinging aspect of various Christian schisms. I personally think it should be deleted, but perhaps it would serve some use as part of the Schism article's Christianity section. There is very little encyclopedic content here, and what does exist can be trimmed down and moved elsewhere. --Nursethisviper05:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Antinomianism and Legalism (theology) are not schisms. There are plenty of Christian schisms if your goal is to expand the schism article. Here would be a good place to start: [4]
New Creation Church in Singapore is a strong advocate of the antinomiant message. As a result of this popular heresy, some of its members has found the excuse for unreasonable behavior to be acceptable, since they claim they have no need to be obedient to the Ten Commandments. This in itself is self-contradictory, as the Civil Laws of the society at large is based on the Ten Commandments.
This seems to me to be the sort of thing that references ought to be supplied for before it shows up in the article in chief. The article about the New Creation Church is also full of this sort of accusation, and gives no references other than a link to the church's official site. No church labels itself heretical. - Smerdis of Tlön14:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The New Testament clearly dictates that one who observes the law is the candidate for being under the power of the law.
Galatians 3:10 All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written:
"Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the book of the law"
Additionally, the scripture clearly reads that one places himself under a double curse if he preaches any other gospel which relies on observance of the law. Galatians 1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. The ten commandments were added to increase transgression. Romans 5:20 The Law came in so that the transgression would increase. It is impossible for believers to uphold the law by observing the law. Even the most spiritual new testament believers longed for their resurrection body . Philippians 3:21 Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body. Fortunately Christ never committed sin and additionally He upheld the law , so that believers would not need to try and obey the law since that has already been accomplished. The scripture mentions the trouble with humanity is a guilty conscience and that non spiritual deeds are ones that are done through the power of guilt i.e. "dead works" The aim of the gospel was to remove the striving for perfection, knowing that Christ had already been offered "the Lamb without blemish" and that His life and sacrifice was acceptable to God in our stead. The result of this belief (which is not antinomianism) is a willingness to serve God with a guilt free conscience. Hebrews 9:14 How much more will the blood of Christ, ... who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living GodPhil-hughes19:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I came to this article looking for info on the various pre-Reformation heretical sects which were condemned for antinomianism by the Catholic church. Not to have anything at all on them is a serious omission, isn't it? --62.253.36.11214:10, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the "Globalize/Christianity" template because I believe this article (although it does have a short section on the Tanakh) does not sufficiently represent non-Christian views of the subject.
Although, admittedly, the term "antinomianism" originally arose in a Christian context, it has long since expanded—as is perhaps fitting when the word's etymology as, more or less, "against the rule" is considered—to encompass roughly similar movements or personages in other faiths, which fact this article does not even touch upon.
In the akin Judeo-Christian tradition, for instance, what of Mansur al-Hallaj and his statement ana al-Ḥaqq (أنا الحق), meaning "I am the Truth" or, by implication, "I am God", for which he was executed? or the Malamatiyya and Qalandariyah groups, who openly flaunted the rule of Islamic law through their behavior?
In short, all of these aspects (if not necessarily the specific examples mentioned) ought to be incorporated into this article so as to make it as unbiased, and as accurate, as possible. Any thoughts? —Saposcat21:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone really care about how Greek words and ideas are getting taken over to reflect things that lack specifics or the historical context of the words' pedigrees? If people have an english word and can use that english word like say "lawlessness" as a general term then shouldn't they? Why are cross cultural studies being attached to "borrowed words" when it is over and over again achingly apparent that suitable english words exist that can do the same things? Why are english speaking editors using Greek words to describe (Indian, Chinese, Tibetian, Mongolian, Japanese, Indo-chinese, French, African)-other cultures, that are not Greek? And are doing this on an English website. Once again when suitable english terms, phrases, words already exist? Let alone suitable words within the words or terms of original culture wishing to be depicted as well. You Saposcat post on your personal page that you have a degree in English and are living in Turkey, so tell me how fond are your Turkish friends, to say having their ideas being feed though Greek words, to then have them understood in English words to an English audience?
LoveMonkey03:57, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Though what you've said doesn't—to me, at least—entirely make sense, let me try to address some of your points.
"Does anyone really care about how Greek words and ideas are getting taken over to reflect things that lack specifics or the historical context of the words' pedigrees?"
Firstly, no, I don't think they generally do. In some cases, this may be a deplorable thing; but in this case, I doubt that it is. The word and idea of "antinomianism", as I said above, has long since been used to describe analogous movements, developments, or tendencies in contexts outside of a narrowly "Greek" context.
OK so other then the antinomian wikipedia :), could you show me where Greek words used to describe heresies against Greek christianity are used to describe Hindu concepts? By scholars in English? If so (here's an example hypostasis or heterodox), why would adding this extra step be of value, when one could just use the English word and not take a detour through Greek, or Latin or German or Slavic? A detour which serves no real purpose? Or not (and heres my point) use the culture or religion's word(s) or term for the same like concept? LoveMonkey15:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"If people have an english word and can use that english word like say "lawlessness" as a general term then shouldn't they? Why are cross cultural studies being attached to "borrowed words" when it is over and over again achingly apparent that suitable english words exist that can do the same things?"
Perhaps they should in certain cases, but if you are suggesting that the "cross[-]cultural" examples mentioned above be subsumed under the term "lawlessness", then you would be headed in the wrong direction insofar as "lawlessness" broadly implies an absence of law (as in society, for example), whereas "antinomianism", as per the OED, means "[t]he doctrine or practice of antinomians; avowed rejection of the moral law", and is specifically used in religious contexts; thus, it is entirely applicable (and, indeed, has often been applied) to the "cross[-]cultural" figures and movements mentioned.
Thus Oxford does not say that it is. You are excessing the bounds of the cultural limits of the word thus changing oh so subtly the word's meaning. Note Oxford stated that antinomianism is used in a religious context (or at least you posted that) so what Greek religious context? Did Greek speaking worshipers of Zeus refer to Christians as antinomian? If so where? Did they then as worshipers of Zeus also speak about Hindus in the same way? If so where? If you don't understand then maybe you shouldn't post until you do. Did english and German pagans refer to Christians as antinomian? Or did they have there own word for disrespect for tenets of christianity? Or even better, my point, wordS. LoveMonkey15:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Why are english speaking editors using Greek words to describe (Indian, Chinese, Tibetian, Mongolian, Japanese, Indo-chinese, French, African)-other cultures, that are not Greek? And are doing this on an English website."
I'd venture to say that they're doing it for roughly the same reason that you are using the Latin-derived words "editor" and "describe" to talk about a subject that is not directly linked to Roman culture;
I'd venture to say that you are misleading on purpose. Editor and describe are no longer "borrowed words" they are now "intergrated" and or "established" words. Subtle subtle subtle. Yes we intergrate but we are still communicating in English. Once again cultural limits keep "certain" words from being borrowed or we would just be speaking Greek won't we? I mean look and see how to say Goodbye in modern Greek. LoveMonkey15:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
i.e., the word has been an English word since at least the 17th century, and its meaning has broadened in that time (as adopted words tend to do, when their meaning does not narrow, at least). To find examples of the widespread application of this broader usage, simply have a look around Google Book Search: "antinomian Islam" returns 429 hits, "antinomian Buddhism" 399, and "antinomian Hinduism" 269. Admittedly, none of these are anywhere near "antinomian Christianity"'s 1,820 hits—but this is only to be expected, I should think, for a term that has its origins in Christianity.
Ok then why are you not then re-enforcing the words pedigree with your edits instead of treating as a general term? I mean you can't have it both ways because by forcing it you are creating confusion. LoveMonkey15:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"You Saposcat post on your personal page that you have a degree in English and are living in Turkey, so tell me how fond are your Turkish friends, to say having their ideas being feed through Greek words, to then have them understood in English words to an English audience?"
I fail to see what this pseudo-ad hominem and possibly rhetorical question has to do with anything under discussion here. —Saposcat06:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you do Saposcat, because it isn't an ad hom or rhetorical question or point at all. Its a cultural point. Its a very subtle point, but here I will just be direct. You don't refer to your fellow humans there in Turkey as Turkeys, do you? I mean people from Armenian are Armenians and People from Russia are Russians so why are not people from Turkey -Turkeys? Its called cultural understanding. But this is the same line of thinking or logic you are using to hijack Greek Christian terms and using them superimposed onto hindu and buddhist terms. When historically this was not done. Greeks in Greece might do it, but the understanding and outcome of the message would be different because they are in the Greek culture. Even if the words history does not call for such a treatment. This is an English wikipedia. People here don't hang out in Greece and if they did they would not got to Greek people and say things like antinonimianism is the word for lawlessness, now would they? Would they say to a Greek, "hey those Turkeys on Cyprus are antinomianal"? Of course they would not. Because it would be wrong. But they would if they followed the way YOU are depicting the cultural understanding of the word, then such behavior would be completely proper. But I can see you like avoiding the point or missing it altogether, in order to claim ignorance, about such subtle things. I believe people are allowed to have opinion. You are no exception. Could you however use the word lawless or anarchy or anti- (fill in the blank here) authority instead since I really don't think its appropiate to do what you are suggesting. I am sure your response will re-enforce your appearence of lack of respect for Greek culture :) Or since you know so much about the word tell me how do the Greeks use it? Oh and could you stop editing out that Greek cultural usage out of the article under the guise of global word usage and understanding. Pretty please. It's a Greek word why can not it's Greek understanding be posted? I mean I am sorry the words pedigree is getting in the way of your global agenda and all. Are you going to add to the Hebrew like term Minuth the same edits? Probably not. Tell me why? LoveMonkey14:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I won't intercalate my comments up above this time, because it'll start to get mighty confusing, I think.
"[W]hy would adding this extra step be of value, when one could just use the English word and not take a detour through Greek, or Latin or German or Slavic?"
The thing that would be "of value" here—as I see it, anyhow—is that insofar as this is an encyclopedia, it should seek to be comprehensive. Hence, if "antinomian" or "antinomianism" are or have been often used to refer to tendencies beyond Christianity (as they have, though the former adjectival form more than the latter), then they should be included here. I say this because "antinomian" is the term I have seen used time and again in my studies of such figures as the ones I mentioned above, and so when I came to Wikipedia's antinomianism page (via a redirect of "antinomian"), I was surprised to see essentially no mention of anything outside of the Christian tradition.
"Or not (and heres my point) use the culture or religion's word(s) or term for the same like concept?"
This would indeed be the ideal (although I wonder if it would get us into the same sort of scrap we're having about a specialist Greek term); however, the problem could be that there's no precise word for the general concept in question in each of the languages/cultures/religions mentioned. For instance, the (traditional) Chinese for "antinomianism"—which would be perhaps the most appropriate in the context of Zen—is "反律法主義" fǎn lǜ fǎ zhǔ yì, but this term is not used outside of reference to the Christian tendency. This does not mean that the idea or concept does not exist, of course, but simply that cultural considerations (presumably) have not led to the term's arising in a Chinese Buddhist context.
"You are excessing the bounds of the cultural limits of the word thus changing oh so subtly the word's meaning."
I appreciate what you are saying with this sentence, but I am not doing so. I am simply pointing out a way in which the word is already being used in (admittedly somewhat specialized) English-language and non-Christian contexts.
"Did Greek speaking worshipers of Zeus refer to Christians as antinomian?"
Of course they didn't use the word, because—be it of Greek origin or not—the word was not coined until the 16th century by Martin Luther, in reference to Johannes Agricola.
"Once again cultural limits keep 'certain' words from being borrowed or we would just be speaking Greek won't we?"
Perhaps, but the fact is that this word has been borrowed into English for non-Greek and non-Christian concepts. To attempt to limit an article to a certain context and deny reference to other contexts in which that word is used veers pretty close to violating WP:NPOV.
"why are you not then re-enforcing the words pedigree with your edits instead of treating as a general term? I mean you can't have it both ways because by forcing it you are creating confusion."
I wish you had expressed this sentence in a clearer way, as I can't quite get at the meaning of it. If you are wondering why I didn't just immediately edit the article to include non-Christian contexts, it was partly out of consideration and wanting to get other views (such as your own) on any possible additions before just implementing them, and partly out of perfectionism and not wanting to put the relevant information directly into the article until it could be shaped, written, and referenced first (which, of course, takes time). If this was not what you were saying with the above sentence, then please clarify what you meant.
"But this is the same line of thinking or logic you are using to hijack Greek Christian terms and using them superimposed onto hindu and buddhist terms."
Again, I'm not the hijacker here, as that particular action was carried out quite a while ago. Moreover, I think "hijack" is a pretty excessive term inasmuch as using the term "antinomian" in an additional (i.e., non-Christian) context does not, in fact, shatter its meaning in the Christian context—so long, of course, as one is always careful to point out whatever differences, be they subtle or obvious, do exist. And again, there may well be no explicit Hindu or Buddhist term used to refer, within the respective faiths, to the ideas contained in "antinomian".
"People here don't hang out in Greece and if they did they would not got to Greek people and say things like antinonimianism is the word for lawlessness, now would they? Would they say to a Greek, "hey those Turkeys on Cyprus are antinomianal"? Of course they would not. Because it would be wrong. But they would if they followed the way YOU are depicting the cultural understanding of the word, then such behavior would be completely proper."
No, they would not. My line of thinking would not lead to that at all. The adjective "antinomian" (again, in its non-Christian contexts, if you will momentarily forgive me for using it as such) refers to a tendency within a specific religion to deliberately and openly flout some or all of that religion's articles of faith. To use it outside of a religious context would be incorrect, and to use it to refer to someone of an entirely different faith would also be incorrect. But if, say, an American Theravadin Buddhist were to point to Yunmen's reference to the Buddha as a "dried shit-stick" and say, "Hey! That's antinomian!", he or she would be using the word entirely correctly, as could be attested by scores of (admittedly less colloquial) references.
"Or since you know so much about the word tell me how do the Greeks use it?"
As you point out, this is the English Wikipedia, and so how the Greeks may or may not use the word is not wholly relevant; the word is used in English, as already pointed out, in both Christian contexts (which would presumably be somewhat akin to how a Greek person might use the term, though I honestly don't know) and non-Christian contexts (about which I do know). (I'm sure, incidentally, that I have just convinced you somehow that I have a "lack of respect for Greek culture"; so be it.)
"Oh and could you stop editing out that Greek cultural usage out of the article under the guise of global word usage and understanding. Pretty please. It's a Greek word why can not it's Greek understanding be posted? I mean I am sorry the words pedigree is getting in the way of your global agenda and all."
Look—whatever the Greek cultural usage is, I'm not going to be "editing [it] ... out of the article under the guise of global word usage and understanding". I'm not going to edit anything out of the article; the information in the article as it is now must stay, and it must precede whatever else goes into the article, because the Christian usage of the term is the most important. Hence, its "Greek understanding" can, should, and must be posted. I am aware that the word has a pedigree in Greek and Christian contexts, and I agree that those are the primary contexts of the word ... but the word also has a pedigree in non-Christian contexts, and I simply propose that those be added to the article after the explanation of the primary use of the term. My "global agenda" is simply that, if someone comes to this article as I did—i.e., by means of references to antinomianism in Islamic- or Buddhist-oriented English-language texts—they should be able to find something more relevant to their search. That's all.
"Are you going to add to the Hebrew like term Minuth the same edits? Probably not. Tell me why?"
You're correct; I'm not. Why? Because this is the English Wikipedia. "Antinomian" is derived from Greek (so far as I know), but exists in English, and is used in English-language texts in the contexts outlined above. "Min" or "minim" or "minuth" is not (again, so far as I know) used in those same contexts, even if the word itself may refer to the same or an analogous idea.
As a summary, let me give you an idea of the extent of my proposal: in the article's first sentence, perhaps change the word "theology" to "religion" (insofar as "theology" doesn't apply to all the religions that "antinomian" can be applied to); however, later on in the appropriate place in the article, a link to theology or Christian theology will of course be supplied. Beyond that slight change, all I would do is—after the "Antinomianism among Christians" section—add extra sections discussing the word's use in the contexts of certain other faiths where the term is applicable (and has been applied). That's all. It won't be endangering the word's fundamental meaning or original applications in any way; it will simply be pointing out other areas in which the term can be and has been used. Cheers. —Saposcat19:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This history isn't comprehensive enough - Antinomians were in conflict with Philo of Alexandria over correct interpretation of Hebrew Scripture. This development is critical for the development of Gnostic sects in later centuries! Readeraml (talk) 22:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I say that first and foremost you add to the article each of the cultural and or language terms that you think share a common degree of meaning with antinomianism. I even added the first one - minuth. This is where this should start. I mean look at the lunacy of articles like Soteriology and how the article is almost completely lost. Something has to give. Also let me reply and clarify. You claim that you don't know and or care how a Greek word is used by Greeks but that your going to do work on the article anyway. You also state that you don't care if you disrespect Greeks. But you are going to define a Greek word.
Also by your standard if I state I think you are being anti-ethnic, that is very close to NPOV. That is misuse again. I suggest maybe also learing alittle more chinese. There are words for rebelling against the religion moral law and authority in chinese.
LoveMonkey19:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am entirely willing to add links to any cultural/language terms that have some degree of commonality with "antinomianism", and will do so.
As for Soteriology, I'll agree that it's pretty damn shabby as is; but I don't agree that it's "almost completely lost"—it just hasn't so far been worked on and organized well by someone able and willing to do so.
I admit that I claim that I "don't know ... how a Greek word is used by Greeks", but I do not say that I "don't ... care". What I said was that "how the Greeks may or may not use the word is not wholly relevant" to the article in question, insofar as the word has a certain definite meaning in current English usage outside of its original Greek-derived, Reformation-era context.
Also, I did not state that I "don't care if [I] disrespect Greeks"; I said: "I'm sure ... that I have just convinced you somehow that I have a 'lack of respect for Greek culture'; so be it" in response to what I saw as the unfounded assumption in your sentence "I am sure your response will re-enforce your appearence of lack of respect for Greek culture". The "so be it" there was not a way of saying "I don't care if I disrespect Greeks"; it was rather a way of saying "I don't mind so much if you choose to misunderstand me as being disrespectful of Greeks". If you failed to understand my statement that way (as you seem to have done), then I apologize for my lack of clarity. (But note that NPOV standards do not really apply on talk pages, so you can call me whatever you please.)
Finally, let me reiterate, the simple fact is that I'm not "going to define a Greek word"; I am going to essentially give examples of already defined additional uses of the word "antinomian". —Saposcat21:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An additional point: I wonder if somewhat splitting the term into "Antinomianism" / "Antinomian" (with a capital "A", referring to the term as used in a Christian context) and "antinomianism" / "antinomian" (with a lowercase "a" as it is invariably used in non-Christian contexts) might somehow help clarify anything once the non-Christian viewpoints start going into the article. The main thing I might worry about with that is whether that would veer too close to original research (which I guess I'm already being charged with anyhow, aren't I?). Any thoughts? —Saposcat21:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well one Irenaeus and Plotinus might just be in order. To see the word from the right (dexter) and the left (sinister). It might service the article well to have its history posted. If it is Greek then let it be greek. 1LoveMonkey22:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment, the article includes an ISBN in error:
* Hall, Robert W., [[Anchor Bible Series|Anchor Bible Dictionary]], ''Antinomianism'' ISBN 0-385-19353-1 038542583X {{Please check ISBN|Calculated check digit (X) doesn't match given.}}
I am going to update this to what I believe is the correct ISBN as well as the correct author (editor) for the dictionary. Not having the dictionary in front of me, I'm going to go with the ISBN for the 6 volume set rather than just one volume. Please advise if I am in error. Kind Regards, Keesiewonder23:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Among the many problems with this article as a whole, it says Pascal accused the Jesuits of antinomianism. This seems to imply the Jesuits were/are Protestant. I think that might be news to them!
--DaXiong07:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I have found that the religious orders within the Catholic Church were often formed to reform the Church as a whole. Communities were formed to live within a rule, and those communities often innovated in ways not quite in line with Canon Law. However, the mark of those orders were that they remained connected to the Church and thus could, hopefully, influence the Church as a whole. Thus, they could be termed "protestant" albeit with a small "p".
The article says "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".
No, that is not what James says. He says that if you claim to have faith, but your faith does not affect what you do, then your claim is a sham. I suggest that this sentence be re-written if not taken out entirely. (NB, I'm Catholic, if anyone wonders.) Jhobson111:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not Catholic, but Jhobson1 has it correct; James says that WE are justified by works, not that our faith is justified by our works. This needs to be corrected. 71.61.254.106 (talk) 03:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you follow the link at the end of the quotes from James, you will see that James has been misquoted. If something is put in quotations it should be correct. Here is the text. "14 What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? 15 Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. 16 If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? 17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead." It does not read "we are justified by works..." That maybe one interpretation of the text, but it is not what is written in James. The article should be edited to be accurate. CaKeAb — Preceding unsigned comment added by CrKeAb (talk • contribs) 21:10, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am not one who subscribes to the philosophy that all sides, no matter how strained, must be presented as equally viable, but the problem with this article is that it needs to present a more coherent explanation of the topic, and is more biased toward the Catholic side. While from the beginning of the article sola fide is implicated in Antinomianism, Protestantism from early on has overall upheld the teaching that grace is not contrary to morality, a charge which was not first faced by the Reformationists, but by Jesus (Mt. 9:9-11; 12:1,2) and Paul (Rm. 6:1; Gal. 2:17) and refuted by both. Rather than the N.T. conveying an inconsistent soteriology in this regard, the highest degree of morality is enjoined upon believers, (Rm. 8:4; 2Pt. 3:14) grace being the means, with sins of the heart as well as the body being condemned, (1Cor. 6:9-10; Gal. 5:19-21) while offering redemption to the lowest of sinners. (Tits 3:3-5) As for the Reformationists, the Westminster Confession of Faith 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." (11:2)
The most noted evangelical Bible commentators have historically upheld this. Barnes notes on Titus 1:16 ("They profess that they know God; but in works they deny, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.") "Full of a pretended faith, while utterly destitute of those works by which a genuine faith is accredited and proved." Henry: "There are many who in word and tongue profess to know God, and yet in their lives and conversations deny and reject him; their practice is a contradiction to their profession."
In addition to the morality of the law being upheld, the issue is what manner of faith is salvific: one that professes but denies the Lord Jesus by continued degradation, or one that characteristically manifests the "obedience of faith", by which the redeemed are made manifest. (1Thes. 1; Heb. 5:9; 6:9; 1Jn. 5:13) If i had more time and energy now I could do some editing, but here are a couple evangelical sources:
J.I. Packer (Concise Theology, Pp. 178-180) sees 5 strains of Antinomianism:
Dualistic Antinomianism (Gnostic) This view sees salvation as for the soul only, and bodily behavior as irrelevant both to God’s interest and the soul’s health…
Spirit-centered Antinomianism …puts such trust in the Holy Spirit’s inward prompting as to deny any need to be taught by the law how to live. Freedom from the law as a way of salvation is assumed to bring with it freedom from the law as a guide to conduct.
Christ-centered Antinomianism …argues that God sees no sin in believers, because they are in Christ, who kept the law for them, and therefore what they actually do makes no difference, provided that they keep believing.
Dispensational Antinomianism …denies that biblical law is God’s direct command and affirms that the Bible’s imperative statements trigger the Word of the Spirit, which when it comes may or may not correspond exactly to what is written.
Situationist Antinomianism …says that a motive and intention of love is all that God now requires of Christians, and the commands of the Decalogue and other ethical parts of scripture, for all that they are ascribed to God directly, are mere rules of thumb for loving, rules that love may at times disregard. [5]
J. M. Sterrett (Banner of Truth, 2002, p. 41) defined Antinomianism as follows: "In its widest sense the term is used to designate the doctrines of extreme fanatics who deny subjection to any law other than the subjective caprices of the empirical individual, though this individual is generally credited as the witness and interpreter of the Holy Spirit." (From his article in Hastings Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics) The term itself was invented by Luther in his controversy with Johannes Agricola. Agricola in his anxiety to conserve the principle of salvation by faith held that even the Ten Commandments are abrogated for the Christian. "Art thou steeped in sin, an adulterer or a thief? If thou believest, thou art in salvation. All who follow Moses must go to the Devil. To the gallows with Moses!" [6]Daniel1212 (talk) 17:16, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon my brevity and unfamiliarity with this process. With that said it appears to me that the "Christian" parts of this article were written from a non-dispensational or more specifically a covent theological point of view. Phrases like "While there is wide agreement within Mainstream Christianity that "antinomianism" is heresy" smack heavily of covent theology which often also claims that dispensationalists are heretics. Charles Ryrie in Dispensationalism Today (Moody Press) states that the Mosaic Law was applicable during that dispensation from Egypt to Calvary. However, during the Church Age or the Dispensation of Grace, we are no longer bound by that economy if you will but are instead bound a seperate and distinct economy until the fulfillment of the Gentile Church and the beginning of the Millennium, which starts yet another dispensation. This writer sweeps this away by not mentioning antinomianism in relation to dispensationalism at all, as if to make the unspoken statement that views other than the authors are Non-mainstream heresy. Many Evangelicals believe that the Mosaic Dispensation is God's economy with the nation of Israel and His special people, the Hebrews. They believe the present Church Age is God's economy with those saved by faith in Jesus Christ during this Dispensation of Grace. While Evangelicals might not be considered "mainstream", I believe heretical is going a bit too far. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.253.210.238 (talk) 05:12, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are shortcoming with this article, though i have tried to improve it, one of which is its lack of perspicuity in describing what antinomianism most predominately pertains to, which is not the abrogation of the ceremonial law, and of the entire law of Mose as a means of salvation, but that of the keeping of the moral law as an effect of walking in the Spirit faith, and in so doing seeking to fulfill all that of its depth. (Rm. 8:4)
While the believer does not seek justification on the basis of his fulfilling the law, as if he could escape Hell or merit eternal life thereby, (Rm. 4; Titus 3:5) yet true faith is marked by seeking to become practically what he is positionally by faith in Christ and His blood and righteousness, (Col. 3:1-3ff; Gal. 5:25) not in his own or that of a church, etc. (Eph. 2:8,9) And while the believer is accepted in the Beloved by faith, (Eph. 1:6) yet such are to seek full approval from the Lord by the obedience of faith, (2Co. 5:9,10) "who will render to every man according to his deeds." (Rm. 2:6)
The pejorative use of antinomianism best fits those who suppose that Christians are to live without regard to the moral code of the O.T., which the N.T. abundantly upholds and expands, but live according to an abstract subjective morality as "led by the Spirit," or those who imagine that what one does in his body cannot be sin. Likely such are "them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate." (Revelation 2:15) Daniel1212 (talk) 23:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have just modified 2 external links on Antinomianism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I needed to look up "cultural antinomianism." Your article was of no help. I get the literal "lawlessness" aspect, but had no clue as to how the concept of antinomianism in the religious context could be borrowed and used in a different, secular, context.
Reason?
You launch off into historical religious factions & heresies w/o clearly stating meaning of the word "antinomian" apart from the suggestion of, perhaps, lawlessness.
Source of the puzzling usage: Paul R. McHugh, M.D., Psychiatrist, in "Psychiatric Misadventures," published in American Scholar Magazine (1992); available online in text form, p. 4, at:
Would Rasputin, with his (alleged, I'm no expert on him) idea of committing the greatest sins possible, then repenting, producing the greatest repentance and thereby pleasing God, be part of this? I suppose the difference would be a lack of repentance in Antinomianism, or at least a lack of it's necessity, repentance, coming if it does, out of natural human morals without any supernatural aspect.
I suppose Rasputin could be seen as *demonstrating* god's grace, from an Antinomian point of view.
The article says, "In Christianity, 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 Law of Moses." I don't care if this is in the Encyclopaedia Brittanica; it's ridiculous. No Christians, as far as we know, have believed that Christians are bound to follow the Law of Moses since about the 1st century AD, in which St Paul argued over the issue with Peter and others, and clearly and repeatedly stated that Christians are not bound to follow the Law of Moses.
(Many Christians believe they must follow the 10 Commandments, but that is not what is meant by the Law of Moses. Just click on the link and go to the Wikipedia article on it if you doubt that.) Philgoetz (talk) 05:09, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely, I would agree. I used to be formerly Antinomian too. This teaching is also known as "Easy Believism", that somebody gets saved by simply believing without repentance and then can live any way he wants. It is pretty popular in Independent Baptist Churches. Three people who taught/teach that way were/are Jack Hyles, Curtis Hutson and Steven Anderson. All of them teach that only the sin of unbelief condemns a person to hell. I personally would not agree, even though I used to agree, yet we read verses like Rev. 21:8. I believe in eternal security. Yet, I oppose Calvinism. I believe the teaching of an original sin goes against scripture. Theologians I would agree with would involve A.W. Tozer, Peter Ruckman and Ray Comfort.
I would describe Antinomianism as thinking a Christian could continue in sin that grace may abound. Hence, disobedience of the moral laws (thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not lie, thou shalt have no other gods before me, thou shalt not commit adultery etc.). It has nothing to do with the Sabbath or food laws, which Jesus nailed on the cross from what I read. MrLW97 (talk) 22:49, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A new section on Nicolaism has been added to the Antinomianism article. I think that the entry on Nicolaism is too long and gives too much weight (WP:UNDUE) to a very minor sect. It's a good story, but do we need to know the details of his devotion to his "beautiful wife" and how he was overpowered by "his burning desire"? I would like to edit the section down. Any objections? - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 03:02, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The page's subject contradicts Vajrayana philosophy, in that the view of Vajrayana is all inclusive. Thus, there is no "transgression", which I edited out since it it's incorrect. The RS doesn't provide specific quotations, but if an editor can provide a quote then give a ping. Pasdecomplot (talk) 23:34, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=small}