From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anne Hutchinson on Trial (1901) by Edwin Austin Abbey depicts the civil trial of Anne Hutchinson during the Antinomian Controversy of the Massachusetts Bay Colony on 7 November 1637



In Christianity, an antinomian is “one who holds that under the gospel dispensation of grace the moral law is of no use or obligation because faith alone is necessary to salvation”.[1]

The term antinomianism emerged soon after the Protestant Reformation (c.1517) and has historically been used as a pejorative against Christian thinkers or sects who carried their belief in justification by faith further than was customary.[2] Antinomianism in modern times is commonly seen as the theological opposite to Legalism or Works righteousness, the notion that obedience to religious law earns salvation. This makes antinomianism an exaggeration of justification by faith alone.

Examples are Martin Luther’s critique of antinomianism and the Antinomian Controversy of the 17th century Massachusetts Bay Colony. Although the term is 16th century, the topic has its roots in Christian views on the old covenant extending back to the 1st century. It can also be extended to any individual who rejects a socially established morality.[1] Few groups, other than Christian anarchism or Jewish anarchism, explicitly call themselves antinomian.
The term antinomianism derives from the Greek ἀντί (anti “against”) + νόμος (nomos “law”).[2]

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 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. However, consistent with the Reformed formula, “We are justified by faith alone but not by a faith that is alone”,[3] salvific faith has overall been seen as one that effected obedience, 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.[4] The contemporary Evangelical theologian J. I. Packer states that Antinomianism “which means being anti-law, is a name for several views.” [5]

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 oppposed to civil or ceremonial laws, are derivative of what St. Paul refers to as the natural law (Rom. 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 the 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.”[6]

Although the term designating this error came into use only in the sixteenth century, the doctrine itself can be traced in the teaching of the earlier heresies.[7] Early Gnostic sects were accused of failure to follow the Mosaic Law in terms that suggest the modern term “antinomian”. Some Gnostic sects did not accept parts of 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. Marcionism, though technically not gnostic, rejected the Hebrew Bible in its entirety. 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 Nicolaitanes, an early Gnostic sect.

See also: Martin Luther#Antinomian controversy
The term “antinomianism” was coined by Martin Luther during the Reformation, to criticize extreme interpretations of the new Lutheran soteriology.[4] 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.[4]
Upon hearing that he was being charged with 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.”[8] 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!”[9]

First Antinomian controversy
As early as 1525, Johannes Agricola, in his commentary on Luke, advanced his idea that the law was a futile attempt of God to work the restoration of mankind. He maintained that while non-Christians were still held to the Mosaic law, Christians were entirely free from it, being under the Gospel alone. He viewed sin as a malady or impurity rather than an offense rendering 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 was caused by the knowledge of the love of God alone.[4]
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 had 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.”[10]

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 still maintained that while the law must be used in the courthouse, 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.[4]

Luther, with reluctance, at last believed he had to make public comment against antinomianism and its promoters in 1538 and 1539.[11] Agricola apparently yielded, and Luther’s book Against the Antinomians (1539)[12] was to serve as Agricola’s recantation. This was the first use of the term Antinomian.[13][7] 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, though he had bound himself to remain at Wittenberg, left the city 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 than Luther.[4]

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.[4]
As a result, the Book of Concord rejects antinomianism in the last confession of faith. The Formula of Concord rejects antinominism in the fifth article, On the Law and the Gospel[14] and in the sixth article, On the Third Use of the Law.[15]

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).
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.”[16]

Quakers 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.

Blaise Pascal accused the Jesuits of antinomianism in his Lettres provinciales, charging that Jesuit casuistry undermined moral principles.

Charges against other groups
Other Protestant groups that have been accused of antinomianism include the Anabaptists and Mennonites. In the history of American Puritanism, Roger Williams and Anne Hutchinson were accused of antinomian teachings by the Puritan leadership of Massachusetts, see Antinomian Controversy. 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[17] are renewed under the New Covenant’s Law of Christ.

Biblical law in Christianity
See also: Split of early Christianity and Judaism, Christianity and Judaism, and Biblical law in Christianity

Icon of James the Just, whose judgment was adopted in the Apostolic Decree of Acts 15:19-29, c. 50 AD.

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.[18] 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[19] 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 book of Acts 15:5.
But some believers who belonged to the sect of the Pharisees stood up and said, ‘It is necessary for them to be circumcised and ordered to keep the law of Moses.’
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[20] (the first being the Rejection of Jesus[21]), 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.
Beginning with Augustine of Hippo,[22] many have seen a connection to Noahide Law, while some modern scholars[23] reject the connection to Noahide Law[24] and instead see Lev 17-18[25] 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 any thing 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.
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 inapplicability of the Mosaic dietary laws.
Though the Apostolic Decree is no longer observed by many Christian denominations today, it is still observed in full by the Greek Orthodox.[26]
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.
—Exodus 29:8-9
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)
Supporting Pauline passages
See also: New Perspective on Paul, Pauline Christianity, and Paul the Apostle and Judaism

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.[27]

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).[citation needed] For example, in Acts 18:12-16, Paul is accused of “persuading .. people to worship God in ways contrary to the law.”
In Acts 21:21 James the Just explained his situation to Paul:
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.
Colossians 2:13-14 is sometimes presented as proof of Paul’s antinomistic views.[citation needed] 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.”[citation needed] The interpretation partly depends on the original Greek word χειρόγραφον which, according to Strong’s G5498,[28] literally means “something written by hand;” it is variously translated as “written code” or “record”, 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 (for what purpose?): “And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.” But this is more about Justification (theology) than antinomianism.[citation needed]
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 through Supersessionism. 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) The key word here is telos (Strong’s G5056).[29] Robert Badenas argues that telos is correctly translated as goal, not end, so that Christ is the goal of the Law.[30] 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.”[31]
Also cited (where? by whom?) is Ephesians 2:15: “Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace” KJV. 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 tables 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)
Some scholars consider Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount (particularly the Antitheses) to be an antitype of the proclamation of the Ten Commandments or Mosaic Covenant by Moses from the Biblical Mount Sinai.[citation needed]
Opposing Pauline passages
Those who oppose antinomianism invoke Paul[32] as upholding obedience to the law, in living out a saving faith:
“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
“Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.” Romans 3:31 KJV
“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
“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
“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? ” 1Corinthians 9:8-9 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.” 1Corinthians 14:34 KJV (Need cite for these selections -[citation needed])
“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.” 1Corinthians 5:11 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.” 1Corinthians 6:9-10:26 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.” 1Corinthians 10:7 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.” 1Corinthians 7:39 KJV
“Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry.” 1Corinthians 10:14 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
“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
“Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry.” Colossians 3:5 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.” 1Timothy 5:8 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 (Need cite for these selections -[citation needed])
The Catholic Encyclopedia article on “Judaizers”[33] 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”[34] notes the following reconciliation: “R. Emden, in a remarkable apology for Christianity contained in his appendix to “Seder ‘Olam,”[35] 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.”[35]
The Tübingen school of historians founded by F. C. Baur holds that in Early Christianity, there was 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.”[36] 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,[37] 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).[citation needed]

Paul versus James

See also: Antilegomena
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 works and not by faith alone”, that “faith without works is dead” (James 2:14–26). Historically, this statement has been difficult for Protestants to reconcile with their belief in justification by faith alone. Martin Luther, believing that his doctrines were refuted by this passage, suggested that the Epistle might be a forgery, and relegated it to an appendix in his Bible (although he later came to accept it as part of the canon).[citation needed] Though this may be interpreted through the word “justified.” It speaks that faith in Jesus Christ is the first step and that faith is justified through good works, he goes on to say that without spreading your love and faith, it is dead.[citation needed] Literature which discusses this includes the article on James 2:20 in Law and Gospel.[38] 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.”[citation needed] James appeals to his readers to follow the “Royal Law of Love” instead 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.[39]
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)

See also: Expounding of the Law, Great Commission, Hyperdispensationalism, and Halakha
The Torah prescribes the death penalty for desecrating the Sabbath by working (Exodus 31:14-17). To avoid any possibility of breaking the Torah commands, the Pharisees formulated strict interpretations and numerous traditions which they treated as laws. According to the Christians, Jesus criticized the Pharisees for this (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.” [40]
In the Gospel of Mark, Jesus’ disciples were picking grain for food on the Sabbath (Mark 2:23-28). When the Pharisees challenged Jesus over this, 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.”[41] There may be passages where the words of Jesus have been misinterpreted and were not really in contradiction with the Jewish law.[42]

In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus is sometimes said to refer to people he sees as “wicked” 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”.[43] 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.[citation needed] Several scholars argue that Matthew artificially lessened a claimed rejection of Jewish law so as not to alienate his intended audience.[citation needed] 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.”

See also: Crazy wisdom
Among some Buddhist groups there are types of ‘antinomianism’ which may act as a gloss for ‘left-handed attainment’ (Sanskrit: Vamachara): naturalist/spontaneous antinomianism, ritualist/philosophical antinomianism, and empirical antinomianism.[citation needed] 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).[44] 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 concept. (refer Panchamakara; Ganachakra).
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.[45]

Main articles: Aghori, Tantra, and Vamachara

See also: Naskh (tafsir)
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 it is traditionally organized around four primary sources:
the Qurʾān, 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 Shīʿah 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”); bidʿah (“innovation”); kufr (“disbelief”); ḥarām (“forbidden”); etc.
As an example, the 10th-century Sufi mystic Mansur Al-Hallaj was executed for shirk for, among other things, his statement ana al-Ḥaqq (أنا الحق), meaning “I am the Truth”. As al-Ḥaqq (“the Truth”) is one of the 99 names of God in Islamic tradition, this would imply he was saying: “I am God.”[46] Expressions like these are known as Shathiyat. Another individual who has often been termed antinomian is Ibn al-ʿArabi, a 12th–13th century scholar and mystic whose doctrine of waḥdat al-wujūd (“unity of being”) has sometimes been interpreted as being pantheistic, and thus shirk.[47]
Apart from individuals, entire groups of Muslims have also been called antinomian. One of these groups is the Ismāʿīlī Shīʿīs, who have always had strong millenarian tendencies arising partly from persecution directed at them by Sunnīs. Influenced to a certain extent by Gnosticism,[48] the Ismāʿīlīs developed a number of beliefs and practices—such as their belief in the imāmah and an esoteric exegesis of the Qurʾān—that were different enough from Sunnī orthodoxy for them to be condemned as shirk and, hence, to be seen as antinomian.[49] Certain other groups that evolved out of Shīʿah belief, such as the Alawites[50] and the Bektashis,[51] have also been considered antinomian. The Bektashis, particularly, have many practices that are especially antinomian in the context of Islam, such as the consumption of alcohol, the non-wearing of the ḥijāb (“veil”) by women, and gathering in the cemevi in preference to the mosque.[52]

Left-hand path
Main article: Left-hand path and right-hand path
In contemporary studies of esotericism, antinomianism is regarded as “a central ingredient in Left-Hand Path spiritualities,”[53] and understood as “nonconformity through the concept of transgression”.[54] This extends the modern usage of the term, from simply implying that “moral laws are relative in meaning and application”,[55] to include the avowed irreligion manifest in modern Satanism.

Nonreligious usage
In his study of late-20th-century western society the historian Eric Hobsbawm[56] stated that there was a new fusion of demotic and antinomian characteristics that made the period distinct, and appeared to be likely to extend into the future. For him there is now a readiness by the mass of people to have little sense of obligation to obey any set of rules that they consider arbitrary, or even just constraining, whatever its source. This may be facilitated by one or more of several changes. These include the tendency to live outside settled communities, the growth of enough wealth for most people to have a wide choice of styles of living and a popularised assumption that individual freedom is an unqualified good.
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.

^ Jump up to: a b Merriam-Webster Dictionary, “antinomianism”
^ Jump up to: a b Encyclopædia Britannica: Antinomianism
Jump up ^ [“Essential Truths of the Christian Faith” p. 191
^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g Augustus Lawrence Graebner. “Antinomianism.” Lutheran Cyclopedia. New York: Scribner, 1899. p. 18
Jump up ^ J.I. Packer, Concise Theology, pp. 178-180
Jump up ^ The Adam Clarke Commentary, Gal. 5:13
^ Jump up to: a b Aveling, Francis. “Antinomianism.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 1. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1907. 29 Jun. 2013
Jump up ^ “A Treatise against Antinomians, written in an Epistolary way”
Jump up ^ Luther, “An Introduction to St. Paul’s Letter to the Romans”, Luther’s German Bible of 1522 by Martin Luther, (1483-1546), Translated by Rev. Robert E. Smith from DR. MARTIN LUTHER’S VERMISCHTE DEUTSCHE SCHRIFTEN, Johann K. Irmischer, ed. Vol. 63 (Erlangen: Heyder and Zimmer, 1854), pp. 124-125. [EA 63:124-125] August 1994
Jump up ^ Augsburg Confession, Article XII: Of Repentance
Jump up ^ An English translation of the text of the theses and disputations against the antinomians is available in M. Luther, Only the Decalogue Is Eternal.
Jump up ^ Dr. Martin Luther. “A Treatise Against the Antinomians”. Retrieved 2012-11-07.
Jump up ^ Antinomianism
Jump up ^ See the Epitome of the Formula of Concord, article five, Law and Gospel
Jump up ^ See the Epitome of the Formula of Concord, article six, On the Third Use of the Law
Jump up ^ [Westminster Confession of Faith, CHAPTER XI. Of Justification.
Jump up ^ The fourth commandment (Exodus 20:8) of the Decalogue is not repeated in the New Testament.
Jump up ^ [Fossum, Jarl; Munoa, Phillip. Jesus and the Gospels], Thomson Learning, 2004
Jump up ^ In Acts 6:13-14 Saint Stephen is accused by “false witnesses” of speaking against the law, presumably a minor dispute.
Jump up ^ Jewish Encyclopedia: Baptism: “According to rabbinical teachings, which dominated even during the existence of the Temple (Pes. viii. 8), Baptism, next to circumcision and sacrifice, was an absolutely necessary condition to be fulfilled by a proselyte to Judaism (Yeb. 46b, 47b; Ker. 9a; ‘Ab. Zarah 57a; Shab. 135a; Yer. Kid. iii. 14, 64d). Circumcision, however, was much more important, and, like baptism, was called a “seal” (Schlatter, Die Kirche Jerusalems, 1898, p. 70). But as circumcision was discarded by Christianity, and the sacrifices had ceased, Baptism remained the sole condition for initiation into religious life. The next ceremony, adopted shortly after the others, was the imposition of hands, which, it is known, was the usage of the Jews at the ordination of a rabbi. Anointing with oil, which at first also accompanied the act of Baptism, and was analogous to the anointment of priests among the Jews, was not a necessary condition.”
Jump up ^ McGrath, Alister E., Christianity: An Introduction, Blackwell Publishing,(2006), ISBN 1-4051-0899-1, Page 174: “In effect, they [Jewish Christians] seemed to regard Christianity as an affirmation of every aspect of contemporary Judaism, with the addition of one extra belief — that Jesus was the Messiah. Unless males were circumcised, they could not be saved (Acts 15:1).”
Jump up ^ Contra Faust, 32.13
Jump up ^ For example: Joseph Fitzmyer, The Acts of the Apostles (The Anchor Yale Bible Commentaries), Yale University Press (December 2, 1998), ISBN 0-300-13982-9, chapter V
Jump up ^ Genesis 9
Jump up ^ Lev 17-18
Jump up ^ Karl Josef von Hefele’s commentary on canon II of Gangra notes: “We further see that, at the time of the Synod of Gangra, the rule of the Apostolic Synod with regard to blood and things strangled was still in force. With the Greeks, indeed, it continued always in force as their Euchologies still show. Balsamon also, the well-known commentator on the canons of the Middle Ages, in his commentary on the sixty-third Apostolic Canon, expressly blames the Latins because they had ceased to observe this command. What the Latin Church, however, thought on this subject about the year 400, is shown by St. Augustine in his work Contra Faustum, where he states that the Apostles had given this command in order to unite the heathens and Jews in the one ark of Noah; but that then, when the barrier between Jewish and heathen converts had fallen, this command concerning things strangled and blood had lost its meaning, and was only observed by few. But still, as late as the eighth century, Pope Gregory the Third (731) forbade the eating of blood or things strangled under threat of a penance of forty days. No one will pretend that the disciplinary enactments of any council, even though it be one of the undisputed Ecumenical Synods, can be of greater and more unchanging force than the decree of that first council, held by the Holy Apostles at Jerusalem, and the fact that its decree has been obsolete for centuries in the West is proof that even Ecumenical canons may be of only temporary utility and may be repealed by disuse, like other laws.”
Jump up ^ Harris, Stephen L., Understanding the Bible, Palo Alto: Mayfield. 1985. p. 316-320. Harris cites Galatians 6:11, Romans 16:22, Colossians 4:18, 2 Thessalonians 3:17, Philemon 19. Joseph Barber Lightfoot in his Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians writes: “At this point [Galatians 6:11] the apostle takes the pen from his amanuensis, and the concluding paragraph is written with his own hand. From the time when letters began to be forged in his name (2 Thessalonians 2:2; 2 Thessalonians 3:17) it seems to have been his practice to close with a few words in his own handwriting, as a precaution against such forgeries… In the present case he writes a whole paragraph, summing up the main lessons of the epistle in terse, eager, disjointed sentences. He writes it, too, in large, bold characters (Gr. pelikois grammasin), that his handwriting may reflect the energy and determination of his soul.”
Jump up ^ Strong’s G5498
Jump up ^ Strong’s G5056
Jump up ^ Bandas, Robert. Christ the End of the Law, Romans 10.4 in Pauline Perspective, 1985, ISBN 0-905774-93-0
Jump up ^ Unvarnished New Testament, 1991, ISBN 0-933999-99-2
Jump up ^ Law and Grace
Jump up ^ Catholic Encyclopedia: Judaizers
Jump up ^ “Gentile: Gentiles May Not Be Taught the Torah”
^ Jump up to: a b Emden, R. “Appendix to “Seder ‘Olam,” pp. 32b-34b, Hamburg, 1752
Jump up ^ Catholic Encyclopedia: “St. James the Less”: “Then we lose sight of James till St. Paul, three years after his conversion (A.D. 37), went up to Jerusalem. … On the same occasion, the “pillars” of the Church, James, Peter, and John “gave to me (Paul) and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the Gentiles, and they unto the circumcision” (Galatians 2:9).”
Jump up ^ Catholic Encyclopedia: Judaizers see section titled: “THE INCIDENT AT ANTIOCH”
Jump up ^ James 2:20
Jump up ^ McGrath, Alister E., Christianity: An Introduction, Blackwell Publishing (2006). ISBN 1-4051-0899-1, p. 174: “Paul notes the emergence of a Judaizing party in the region — that is, a group within the church which insisted that Gentile believers should obey every aspect of the law of Moses, including the need to be circumcised. According to Paul [reference is made to Galatians, but no specific verse is given], the leading force behind this party was James … the brother of Jesus …”
Jump up ^ “Jesus”, Jewish Encyclopedia
Jump up ^ E. P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 1985 SCM Press ISBN 0-334-02091-3, pp. 264-9.
Jump up ^ “New Testament: Misunderstood Passages”, Jewish Encyclopedia
Jump up ^ A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, Bauer, Gingrich, Danker; Young’s Literal Translation: “ye who are working lawlessness”; New American Standard Bible: “You who practice lawlessness”; NKJV: “you who practice lawlessness”
Jump up ^ Trungpa, C. (2001) Crazy Wisdom (Boston).
Jump up ^ Nydahl, O. (2004). “Verrückte Weisheit: und der Stil des Verwirklichers” Buddhismus Heute 37: 48–57. Retrieved 2012-12-14. Translated as: Nydahl, O. (2003). “Crazy Wisdom”. Diamond Way Time 1: 48–54. Retrieved 2012-12-14.
Jump up ^ Pratt 72
Jump up ^ Chittick 79
Jump up ^ See, for example, “Isma’ilism” at Encyclopaedia of the Orient.
Jump up ^ Daftary 47; Clarence-Smith 56
Jump up ^ Bar-Asher & Kofsky, 67 ff.
Jump up ^ Schimmel 338
Jump up ^ Weir “Differences Between Bektashism and Islamic Orthodoxy”
Jump up ^ Granholm, Kennet. Embracing Others than Satan: The Multiple Princes of Darkness in the Left-Hand Path Milieu, in Contemporary Religious Satanism: A Critical Anthology. Ashgate Publishing (2009) pp. 84-101.
Jump up ^ Petersen, Jesper Aagaard. Smite Him Hip and Thigh: Satanism, Violence, and Transgression, in Violence and New Religious Movements, Oxford University Press, 2011. p. 353.
Jump up ^ Jawad, Haifaa. Seyyed Hossein Nasr and the Study of Religion in Contemporary Society. American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences, 22.2 (2005), p.63
Jump up ^ Age of Extremes, 1992
See also

Christianity portal
Biblical law in Christianity
Christian Anarchism
Christian–Jewish reconciliation
Christian liberty
Council of Jerusalem
Covenant (biblical)
Do what thou wilt
Free Grace theology
Historical reliability of the Acts of the Apostles
Legalism (theology)
Badenas, Robert. Christ the End of the Law, Romans 10.4 in Pauline Perspective 1985 ISBN 0-905774-93-0 argues that telos is correctly translated as goal, not end, so that Christ is the goal of the Law, end of the law would be antinomianism.
Bar-Asher, Me’ir Mikha’el and Kofsky, Aryeh. The Nuṣayrī-ʿAlawī Religion: An Enquiry into its Theology and Liturgy. Leiden: Koninklijke Brill NV, 2002. ISBN 90-04-12552-3.
J. H. Blunt Dict. of Doct. and Hist. Theol. (1872)
Chittick, William C. The Sufi Path of Knowledge: Ibn Al-Arabi’s Metaphysics of Imagination. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1989. ISBN 0-88706-885-5.
Clarence-Smith, W.G. Islam and the Abolition of Slavery. London: C. Hurst & Co. (Publishers) Ltd, 2006. ISBN 1-85065-708-4.
Daftary, Farhad; ed. Mediaeval Ismaʿili History and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996. ISBN 0-521-45140-X.
Dunn, James D.G. Jesus, Paul and the Law 1990 ISBN 0-664-25095-5
Encyclopaedia of the Orient. “Isma’ilism”. Retrieved 10 October 2006.
Freedman, David Noel, editor. (1998). Anchor Bible Dictionary, article on Antinomianism by Hall, Robert W., ISBN 0-385-19351-3
J. C. L. Gieseler, Ch. Hist. (New York ed. 1868, vol. iv.)
G. Kawerau, in A. Hauck’s Realencyklopadie (1896)
Luther, Martin. Only the Decalogue Is Eternal: Martin Luther’s Complete Antinomian Theses and Disputations. Minneapolis: Lutheran Press, 2008. ISBN 978-0-9748529-6-6
Pratt, Douglas. The Challenge of Islam: Encounters in Interfaith Dialogue. Aldershot, Hampshire: Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2005. ISBN 0-7546-5122-3.
Riess, in I. Goschler’s Dict. Encyclop. de la théol. cath. (1858)
Schimmel, Annemarie. Mystical Dimensions of Islam. ISBN 0-8078-1271-4.
Weir, Anthony. “Differences Between Bektashism and Islamic Orthodoxy” in The Bektashi Order of Dervishes. Retrieved 10 October 2006.
This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press
Peter Linebaugh and Marcus Rediker. The Many-Headed Hydra. Beacon Press, Boston, 2000
External links

Look up antinomianism in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
New Perspective on Paul
Jewish Encyclopedia: Antinomianism
Catholic Encyclopedia: Moral Aspect of Divine Law
Catholic Encyclopedia: Mosaic Legislation
Catholic Catechism on The Moral Law
Henry Eyster Jacobs, Lutheran Cyclopedia p. 18, “Antinomianism”
Antinomians in the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica
Sermon on Antinomianism
Jewish Encyclopedia: New Testament – For and Against the Law
Jewish Encyclopedia: Jesus: Attitude Toward the Law
Jewish Encyclopedia: Saul of Tarsus: Paul’s Opposition to the Law
Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge: Antinomianism
Early Lutheran Controversies

Name of controversy

Article of FoC resolving it
Persons, parties, documents, and topics pertaining to the controversy

Adiaphoristic (1548–55) | X.
Philipp Melanchthon
Matthias Flacius

Majoristic (1551–62) | VI.
Georg Major
Justus Menius
Nicolaus von Amsdorf
Nicolaus Gallus

Synergistic (1555–60) | II.
Philipp Melanchthon
Johann Pfeffinger
Victorinus Strigel
Matthias Flacius
On the Bondage of the Will

Flacian (1560–75) | I.
Matthias Flacius
Simon Musaeus
Victorinus Strigel

Osiandrian–Stancarian (1549–66) | III.
Andreas Osiander
Johann Funck
Franciscus Stancarus
Philipp Melanchthon
Matthias Flacius
Andreas Musculus
Victorinus Strigel

Antinomian (1527–56) | V. · VI.
Johannes Agricola
Andreas Poach
Anton Otto
Matthias Flacius

Crypto-Calvinist (1560–75) | VII.
Philipp Melanchthon
Augsburg Confession Variata
Albert Rizaeus Hardenberg
Joachim Westphal (of Hamburg)
Martin Chemnitz
Maximilian Mörlin
The Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ

Descent into Hell (15??–53) | IX.
Johannes Aepinus
Descent into Hell

Predestination (1561–63) | XI.
Johannes Marbach
Hieronymus Zanchi

Lutheranism portal
Christian law
Judeo-Christian topics
Christian theological movements
Judaism-related controversies
Islam and other religions
Christianity-related controversies
Schisms in Christianity
Schisms in Judaism
Old Testament theology
Ethical theories
Theories of law
Early Christianity and Gnosticism
Christian terms
Heresy in Christianity
Christian theology
Christian soteriology

About abyssum

I am a retired Roman Catholic Bishop, Bishop Emeritus of Corpus Christi, Texas