View source for Antinomianism

{{Short description|View which rejects laws or legalism}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=December 2024}}
'''Antinomianism''' ({{langx|grc|ἀντί}} [{{translit|grc|anti}}] 'against' and {{lang|grc|νόμος}} [{{translit|grc|nomos}}] 'law') is a term used to describe any view which rejects laws or [[Legalism (theology)|legalism]] and argues against moral, religious or social norms ({{langx|la|[[mores]]}}), or is at least considered to do so.<ref name= "merriam-webster.com">{{cite dictionary |title=antinomianism |dictionary=Dictionary of the English Language |publisher=Merriam-Webster |edition=online |url=https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/antinomianism}}</ref> The term has both religious and [[secular]] meanings.

<!--Christian religious meaning:-->
In some [[Christianity|Christian]] belief systems, an antinomian is one who takes the principle of [[Salvation in Christianity|salvation]] by [[Faith#Christianity|faith]] and [[divine grace]], to the point of asserting that the saved are not bound to follow the moral law contained in the [[Abrogation of Old Covenant laws|Old Covenant laws]].<ref>{{Cite book |title=Puritans and Puritanism in Europe and America |publisher=ABC-CLIO |year=2006 |isbn=978-1-57607678-1 |page=306}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Marie |first=André |date=17 September 2013 |title=Simian Antinomianism | work=catholicism.org |url=http://catholicism.org/ad-rem-no-216.html |access-date=28 May 2018 |publisher=Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary}}</ref>

The distinction between antinomian and other Christian takes on moral law is that antinomians believe that obedience to the law is motivated by an internal principle flowing from belief rather than from any external compulsion, devotion, or need.<ref name="Como 2004 36">{{Cite book |last= Como |first=David R. |year= 2004 |title=Blown by the Spirit: Puritanism and the emergence of an antinomian underground in pre-Civil-War England |publisher=Stanford University Press |isbn=978-0-80474443-0 |location= Stanford, CA |page=36 |url= https://books.google.com/books?id=uXorQ6Cm1kwC&pg=PP1}}</ref> Antinomianism has been considered{{By whom|date=November 2025}} to teach that believers have a "license to sin"<ref name="Anizor Price Voss 2021 p. 168">{{cite book |last1=Anizor |first1=U. |last2=Price |first2=R.B. |last3=Voss |first3=H. |title=Evangelical Theology |publisher=Bloomsbury Publishing |series=Doing Theology |year=2021 |isbn=978-0-567-67715-0 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=80IZEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA168 |access-date=30 January 2023 |page=168}}</ref> and that future sins do not require repentance.<ref name="Thurman 2019 p. 104">{{cite book |last=Thurman |first=S.F. |title=Equipped for Holiness |publisher=WestBow Press |year=2019 |isbn=978-1-9736-6776-6 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=I5emDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT104 |access-date=30 January 2023 |page=104}}</ref> [[Johannes Agricola]], to whom antinomianism was first attributed,<ref name="Encyclopedia Britannica 1998">{{cite web |title=religion |website=Encyclopedia Britannica |date=20 July 1998 |url=https://www.britannica.com/topic/antinomianism |access-date=6 January 2023}}</ref> stated that while non-Christians were still held to the [[613 Commandments|Mosaic law]], Christians were entirely free from it, being under the gospel alone. <ref name="Beeke Smalley 2021 p. 437">{{cite book |last1=Beeke |first1=J. |last2=Smalley |first2=P.M. |title=Reformed Systematic Theology, Volume 3: Spirit and Salvation |publisher=Crossway |year=2021 |isbn=978-1-4335-5994-5 |url= https://books.google.com/books?id=gdhCEAAAQBAJ&pg=PT437 |access-date=6 January 2023 |page=437}}</ref>

Examples of antinomians being confronted by the religious establishment include [[Martin Luther#Antinomian controversy|Martin Luther's critique of antinomianism]], the [[Ranters]] of the [[English Civil War]],<ref>{{Cite web |title=Ranters, religious sect |website=Encyclopedia Britannica |url=https://www.britannica.com/topic/Ranters |access-date=19 November 2024 |language=en}}</ref> and the [[Antinomian Controversy]] of the seventeenth-century [[Massachusetts Bay Colony]]. The charge of antinomianism has been levelled at Reformed, Baptist, and some nondenominational churches.<ref name="Dorner 1871 p. 352">{{cite book |last=Dorner |first=I.A. |title=History of Protestant Theology: Particularly in Germany : Viewed According to Its Fundamental Movement and in Connection with the Religious, Moral, and Intellectual Life |publisher=T. & T. Clark |issue=v. 1 |year=1871 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=mxNKAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA352 |access-date=18 April 2023 |page=352}}</ref><ref name="Howson 2021 p. 80">{{cite book |last=Howson |first=B. |title=Erroneous and Schismatical Opinions: The Question of Orthodoxy regarding the Theology of Hanserd Knollys (c. 1599–1691) |publisher=Brill |series=Studies in the History of Christian Traditions | year=2021 |isbn=978-90-04-47422-2 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=e81GEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA80 |access-date=18 April 2023 |page=80}}</ref><ref name="Smith 2001 p. 135">{{cite book |last=Smith |first=M. |title=An Ethics of Place: Radical Ecology, Postmodernity, and Social Theory |publisher=State University of New York Press |series=G - Reference,Information and Interdisciplinary Subjects Series |year=2001 |isbn=978-0-7914-4908-0 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=0AiC9mBxfgkC&pg=PA135 |access-date=18 April 2023 |page=135}}</ref>

<!--Antinomian views in other religions:-->
By extension, the word "antinomian" is also used to describe views in religions other than Christianity:
* the 10th&nbsp;century [[Sufi]] mystic [[al-Hallaj]] was accused of antinomianism.
* the 17th&nbsp;century [[kabbalistic]] rabbis [[Sabbatai Zevi]] and [[Nathan of Gaza|Nathan Benjamin Ashkenazi of Gaza]] were accused of antinomianism.
* the term is also used to describe certain practices or traditions in [[Frankism]].
* aspects of [[Vajrayana]] and [[Tantra]] that include [[sexual ritual]]s are sometimes described as "antinomian" in [[Buddhism]] and [[Hinduism]].<ref>{{cite book |first= Hugh B. |last=Urban |title=The Power of Tantra: Religion, sexuality, and the politics of south Asian studies |chapter= Five}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Wedemeyer |first1=Christian K. |title=Locating Tantric antinomianism - An essay toward an intellectual history of the 'practices/practice observance' (caryā/caryāvrata) |journal=Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies |date=2011 |volume=34 |issue=1–2 |pages=349–419 |url=https://journals.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/index.php/jiabs/article/view/10607 |language=en |issn=0193-600X}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last1=Urban |first1=Hugh B. |title=The power of tantra: Religion, sexuality, and the politics of South Asian studies |date=2010 |publisher=I.B. Tauris; Bloomsbury |location=London |isbn=9780857731586 |pages=125–146 |chapter=What About the Woman? Gender Politics and the Interpretation of Women in Tantra}}</ref>

==Christian views on antinomianism==
Antinomianism has been a point of doctrinal contention in the history of Christianity. At its root is an argument between salvation [[sola fide|through faith alone]] and on the basis of [[good works]] or [[works of mercy]].

The term ''antinomianism'' was coined by [[Martin Luther]] during the Reformation to criticize extreme interpretations of the new Lutheran [[soteriology]].<ref name="ALG">{{Source attribution}} {{cite encyclopedia |first1=August Lawrence |last1=Graebner |editor-last1=Jacobs | editor-first1= Henry Eyster |editor-first2=John Augustus William |editor-last2=Haas |date=1899 |title= Antinomianism |encyclopedia= Lutheran Cyclopedia |location=New York |publisher= Scribner |page=[https://archive.org/details/lutherd00jaco/page/n31/mode/2up 18] |url= https://books.google.com/books?id=93ErAAAAYAAJ |quote={{nbsp}}... Agricola was not cured of his perverse ideas, and later on even endeavored to represent Luther as being at variance with his own doctrine. After his [Agricola's] removal to Wittenberg he still maintained that the law must be used in the court-house, not in the church, that repentance must come by the Gospel only, and not precede but follow faith. As he endeavored to disseminate his doctrine in books, one of which was confiscated after it had gone into print, Luther, with reluctance and great anguish of his soul, at last saw himself constrained, after various warnings to Agricola, to come out in public disputations against Antinomianism and its promoters in 1538 and 1539. Agricola apparently yielded, and Luther's book ''Against the Antinomians'', in 1539 was to serve as Agricola's recantation. But the conflict flared up anew and continued, until Agricola even went so far as to bring suit against Luther{{nbsp}}...}} {{isbn|978-0-79055056-5}}</ref>  In the 18th century, [[John Wesley]], the founder of the [[Methodist]] tradition, severely attacked antinomianism.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Wesley |first1=John |title=An extract of the journal of the Rev. John Wesley |date=1827 |publisher=J. Kershaw |location=London |pages=199, 236–237, 346–347, 380 |url=https://archive.org/details/thejournal02wesluoft/page/n5/mode/2up |volume=II|issue=Number VII}}
* {{cite book |last1=Wesley |first1=John |title=A dialogue between an Antinomian and his friend |date=2010 | orig-date=First published 1745 by W. Strahan |publisher=Gale Ecco, Print Editions |isbn=9781171081746 |ref=none}}
* {{Cite book
  | title=A second dialogue between an Antinomian and his friend, by John Wesley (1703-1791)
  | last1=Wesley|first1= John |date=2003
  | orig-date=First published 1745, by W. Strahan; and sold by T. Trye; Henry Butler
  | location=Farmington Hills, Michigan. USA|publisher=Thomson Gale reproduction of original from the British Library [electronic resource]
  | language=en |ref=none
}}</ref>

According to some [[Christian denominations]], moral laws (as opposed to civil or ceremonial laws) are derivative of what St. Paul indirectly refers to as [[Natural law#Christianity|natural law]] (Rm 2.14–15). According to this point of view, the Mosaic law has authority only insofar as it reflects the [[Law of Christ|commands of Christ]] and the natural law. Christian sects and theologians who believe that they are less constrained by laws than critics consider customary are often called "antinomian" by those critics. Thus, classic Methodist commentator [[Adam Clarke]] held, "The Gospel proclaims liberty from the ceremonial law, but binds you still faster under the moral law. To be freed from the ceremonial law is the Gospel liberty; to pretend freedom from the moral law is Antinomianism."<ref>{{cite web |title=Galatians 5 |series=Adam Clarke Commentary |department= Bible Commentaries |website= Study Light |url= https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/acc/galatians-5.html }}</ref>

===Antinomianism in Gnosticism===
The term ''antinomian'' came into use in the sixteenth century; however, the doctrine itself can be traced in the teaching of earlier beliefs.<ref name= aveling /> Early [[Gnosticism|Gnostic]] sects were accused of failing to follow the Mosaic Law in a manner that suggests the modern term "antinomian". Most Gnostic sects did not accept the Old Testament moral law. For example, the [[Manichaean]]s held that their spiritual being was unaffected by the action of matter and regarded carnal sins as being, at worst, forms of bodily disease.<ref name= "EB1911">{{EB1911 |inline= y |wstitle=Antinomians|volume=2|pages=129–130}}</ref>
{{Blockquote | The Old Testament was absolutely rejected by most of the Gnostics. Even the so-called Judaeo-Christian Gnostics ([[Cerinthus]]), the Ebionite (Essenian) sect of the [[Pseudo-Clementine writings]] (the [[Elkesaites]]), take up an inconsistent attitude towards Jewish antiquity and the Old Testament. In this respect, the opposition to Gnosticism led to a reactionary movement. If the growing Christian Church, in quite a different fashion from Paul, laid stress on the literal authority of the Old Testament, interpreted, it is true, allegorically; if it took up a much more friendly and definite attitude towards the Old Testament, and gave a wider scope to the legal conception of religion, this must be in part ascribed to the involuntary reaction upon it of Gnosticism.<ref name= EB1911-Gnstcsm-12-157>{{EB1911 |inline=y |wstitle=Gnosticism |volume=12 |page=157 |first= Wilhelm |last=Bousset |author-link= Wilhelm Bousset}}</ref>
}}
[[Marcion of Sinope]] was the founder of [[Marcionism]] which rejected the [[Hebrew Bible]] in its entirety. Marcion considered the God portrayed in the Bible to be a lesser deity, a [[demiurge]], and he claimed that the law of Moses was contrived.<ref name= Milner-1860-p325>{{cite book |last1=Milner |first1=Vincent L.T. |last2=Adams |first2=Hannah |year= 1860 |title=Religious Denominations of the World |publisher= J.W. Bradley |page= [https://archive.org/details/religiousdenomin00milnuoft/page/n348 325] |url= https://archive.org/details/religiousdenomin00milnuof}}</ref>{{efn| He [Marcion] further maintained that the law of Moses, with its threats and promises of things terrestrial, was a contrivance of the evil principle in order to bind men still more to the earth.<ref name= Milner-1860-p325 />
}}
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 {{bibleref2|Revelation|2:6–15}}, which criticizes the [[Nicolaism|Nicolaitans]], possibly an early Gnostic sect.

===Lutheran views===
The term "antinomianism" was coined by Martin Luther during the Reformation, to criticize extreme interpretations of the new Lutheran [[soteriology]].<ref name= "ALG" /> The Lutheran Church benefited from early antinomian controversies by becoming more precise in distinguishing between [[law and gospel]] and justification and [[Sanctification in Christianity|sanctification]]. Martin Luther developed 258 theses during his six antinomian disputations, which continue to provide doctrinal guidance to Lutherans today.<ref name=ALG/>

Upon hearing that he was being charged with the rejection of the Old Testament moral law,{{r|tc|p=71|q={{nbsp}}... so that if any should have mistaken, what I had written, he might{{nbsp}}... in reason have been persuaded to call upon me, and demand these or the like questions. What? 'Good Doctor Luther, dost thou press so eagerly the ten Commandments, and yet teachest withal, that they must be rejected?' Thus they ought to have dealt with me; and not secretly undermine me behind my back{{nbsp}}...}} 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."<ref name ="tc">{{Cite book |access-date= 6 May 2025 |first=Martin |last=Luther |date=1539 |url= https://www.truecovenanter.com/truelutheran/luther_against_the_antinomians.html |title=A Treatise against Antinomians – written in an Epistolary way |via= True Covenanter |language=en}} This edition of Luther's treatise is excerpted from:
* {{cite book |last1=Rutherford |first1=Samuel |title=A Survey of the Spiritual Antichrist |date=1648 |at=Part II, chapter XI, pp. 69–80 |ref=none |url=https://archive.org/details/bim_early-english-books-1641-1700_a-survey-of-the-spiritua_rutherford-samuel_1648/page/n117/mode/2up |id=(Translated from the High Dutch in its entirety)}}</ref> In his "Introduction to Romans", Luther stated that saving faith is<ref>{{cite book |first=Martin |last= Luther |author-link=Martin Luther |orig-date=1522 |date=August 1994 |section=An Introduction to St. Paul's Letter to the Romans |title=Luther's German Bible |translator-last=Smith |translator-first=Robert E. |section-url=http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/luther-faith.txt}} from {{cite book |first=Martin |last=Luther |author-link=Martin Luther |year=1854 |title=Vermischte Deutsche Schriften |trans-title=Miscellaneous German Writings |editor-last=Irmischer | editor-first =Johann K. |place=Erlangen |publisher= Heyder & Zimmer |volume=63 |pages= 124–25}}</ref>
{{Blockquote |{{nbsp}}... 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{{nbsp}}... Thus, it is just as impossible to separate faith and works as it is to separate heat and light from fire!}} 

The Lutheran Churches teach that God rewards good works done by Christians; the [[Apology of the Augsburg Confession]] teaches: "We also affirm what we have often said, that although justification and eternal life go along with faith, nevertheless, good works merit other bodily and spiritual rewards and degrees of reward. According to 1 Corinthians 3:8, 'Each will receive his wages according to his labor.{{'"}}<ref name="Preus2025">{{cite web |last1=Preus |first1=James |title=Rewards for Good Works |url=https://christforus.org/NewSite/index.php/2025/01/02/rewards-for-good-works/ |publisher=Christ for Us |access-date=14 May 2025 |date=2 January 2025}}</ref>

The [[Lutheranism|Lutheran Churches]] label antinomianism as a [[Heresy in Christianity|heresy]].<ref name= "FailingerDuty2018">{{cite book |last1=Failinger |first1=Marie |last2=Duty |first2=Ronald W. |date=17 April 2017 |title=Lutheran Theology and Secular Law: The work of the modern state |publisher=Taylor & Francis |isbn=978-1-35199607-5 |page=81}}</ref>

====First antinomian controversy====
As early as 1525, [[Johannes Agricola]] advanced his idea, in his commentary on Luke, that the law was a futile attempt of God to work the restoration of mankind. He maintained that non-Christians were still held to the Mosaic law, while Christians were entirely free from it, being under the Gospel alone. He viewed [[Christian views on sin|sin]] as a malady or impurity rather than an offense that rendered the sinner guilty and damnable before God. The sinner was the subject of God's pity rather than of his wrath. To Agricola, the purpose of repentance was to abstain from evil rather than the contrition of a guilty conscience. The law had no role in repentance, which came about after one came to faith, and repentance was caused by the knowledge of the love of God alone.<ref name=ALG/>

In contrast, [[Philipp Melanchthon]] urged that repentance must precede [[Faith in Christianity#Lutheranism|faith]] and that knowledge of the moral law is needed to produce repentance.<ref name="EB1911"/> He later wrote in the [[Augsburg Confession]] that repentance has two parts. "One is contrition, that is, terrors smiting the conscience through the knowledge of sin; the other is faith, which is born of the Gospel, or of absolution, and believes that for Christ's sake, sins are forgiven, comforts the conscience, and delivers it from terrors."<ref>{{cite web |first=Corey |last=Mahler |date=8 November 2019 |title=The Augsburg Confession |website= Book of Concord |url=https://bookofconcord.org/augsburg-confession/}}</ref>

Shortly after Melanchthon drew up the ''1527 Articles of Visitation'' in June, Agricola began to be verbally aggressive toward him, but Martin Luther succeeded in smoothing out the difficulty at [[Torgau]] in December 1527. However, Agricola did not change his ideas and later depicted Luther as disagreeing with him. After Agricola moved to Wittenberg, he maintained that the law must be used in the courthouse but it must not be used in the church. He said that repentance comes from hearing the good news only and does not precede but rather follows faith. He continued to disseminate this doctrine in books, despite receiving various warnings from Luther.<ref name= ALG />

Luther, with reluctance, at last, believed that he had to make a public comment against antinomianism and its promoters in 1538 and 1539. Agricola apparently yielded, and Luther's book ''Against the Antinomians'' (1539){{r|tc}} was to serve as Agricola's recantation. This was the first use of the term Antinomian.<ref name= "aveling">{{cite encyclopedia |title=Antinomianism |encyclopedia=Catholic Encyclopedia | publisher=New advent |url=https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01564b.htm}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Antinomianism |publisher=Grace Valley Christian Center |url=http://members.dcn.org/gvcc/radio_trans/antinomianism.html |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090603044631/http://members.dcn.org/gvcc/radio_trans/antinomianism.html |archive-date=3 June 2009 |access-date=23 April 2009}}</ref> But the conflict flared up again, and Agricola sued Luther. He said that Luther had slandered him in his disputations, ''Against the Antinomians'', and in his ''On the Councils and Churches'' (1539). But before the case could be brought to trial, Agricola left the city, even though he had bound himself to remain at [[Wittenberg]], and moved to [[Berlin]] where he had been offered a position as preacher to the court. After his arrival there, he made peace with the [[Saxons]], acknowledged his "error", and gradually conformed his doctrine to that which he had before opposed and assailed. He still used such terms as 'gospel' and 'repentance' in a different manner from Luther.<ref name=ALG/>

====Second antinomian controversy====
<!--Linked from [[Template:Early Lutheran controversies]]-->
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.<ref name=ALG/>

As a result, the [[Book of Concord]] rejects antinomianism in the last confession of faith. The [[Formula of Concord]] rejects antinomianism in the fifth article, ''On the Law and the Gospel''<ref>See the Epitome of the Formula of Concord, article five, [http://www.bookofconcord.org/fc-ep.php#V.%20Law%20and%20Gospel ''Law and Gospel''] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160620220939/http://www.bookofconcord.org/fc-ep.php#V.%20Law%20and%20Gospel |date=20 June 2016 }}</ref> and in the sixth article, ''On the Third Use of the Law''.<ref>See the Epitome of the Formula of Concord, article six, [http://www.bookofconcord.org/fc-ep.php#VI.%20The%20Third%20Use%20of%20the%20Law. ''On the Third Use of the Law''] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160620220939/http://www.bookofconcord.org/fc-ep.php#VI.%20The%20Third%20Use%20of%20the%20Law. |date=20 June 2016 }}</ref>

===Reformed views===
[[File:Anne Hutchinson on Trial.jpg|thumb|right|''Anne Hutchinson on Trial'' (1901) by [[Edwin Austin Abbey]] depicts the [[Anne Hutchinson#Civil trial|civil trial of Anne Hutchinson]] during the [[Antinomian controversy]] of the [[Massachusetts Bay Colony]] on 7 November 1637]]

The ''[[Thirty-nine Articles]]'' of the Church of England (revised and altered by the [[Westminster Assembly]] of Divines, in 1643) condemns antinomianism, teaching that "no Christian man whatsoever is free from the obedience of the commandments which are called moral. By the moral law, we understand all the Ten Commandments taken to their full extent."<ref name="Neal1843">{{Cite book |last=Neal |first=Daniel |title=The History of the Puritans, Or Protestant Non-conformists |publisher=Harper |year=1843 |page=3 |language=en}}</ref> The [[Westminster Confession]], held by [[Presbyterian Church]]es, holds that the moral law contained in the Ten Commandments "does forever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof".<ref>{{Cite web |title=Westminster Confession of Faith: Chapter XIX – Of the Law of God |url=http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/index.html?body=/documents/wcf_with_proofs/ch_XIX.html |access-date=23 June 2017 |language=en}}</ref> The Westminster Confession of Faith further states: "Faith, thus receiving and resting on Christ and His righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification; yet it is not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but works by love."<ref>{{Cite book |title=Westminster Confession of Faith |chapter=XI. Of Justification |url=http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/wcf.htm |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110728132258/http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/wcf.htm |archive-date=28 July 2011 |via=the Spurgeon Library}}</ref>

However, a number of seventeenth-century English writers in the Reformed tradition held antinomian beliefs. None of these individuals argued that Christians should not obey the law. Instead, they believed that believers would spontaneously obey the law without external motivation.<ref name="Como 2004 36" /> Antinomianism during this period is likely a reaction against [[Arminianism]], as it emphasized free grace in salvation to the detriment of any participation on the part of the believer.<ref name="Wallace 1982 114">{{Cite book |last=Wallace |first=Dewey D. Jr. |title=Puritans and Predestination: Grace in English Protestant Theology, 1525–1695 |publisher=University of North Carolina Press |year=1982 |location=Chapel Hill, North Carolina, US |page=114}}</ref> [[John Eaton (divine)|John Eaton]] ({{fl|1619}}) is often identified as the father of English antinomianism.<ref name="Wallace 1982 114" /> [[Tobias Crisp]] (1600–1643), a [[Church of England]] priest who had been [[Arminian]] was later accused of being an antinomian.<ref>{{cite book |last=Granger |first=J. |year=1769 |title=A Biographical History of England |location=Great Britain |publisher=T. Davies}}</ref> He was a divisive figure for English [[Calvinist]]s, with a serious controversy arising from the republication of his works in the 1690s.<ref>{{cite book |first=Barry H. |last=Howson |title=Erroneous and Schismatical Opinions: The Questions of Orthodoxy Regarding the Theology of Hanserd Knollys (c.&nbsp;1599–1691) |year=2001 |page=158}}</ref> Also lesser known was the Anglican priest [[John Saltmarsh (priest)|John Saltmarsh]].

From the latter part of the 18th century, critics of Calvinists accused them of antinomianism. Such charges were frequently raised by Arminian<!--don't link here: [[MOS:SOB]]--> [[Methodism|Methodists]], who subscribed to a synergistic soteriology that contrasted with Calvinism's monergistic doctrine of justification. The controversy between [[Arminianism|Arminian]] and [[Calvinistic Methodists]] produced the notable Arminian critique of Calvinism: [[John William Fletcher|Fletcher]]'s ''Five Checks to Antinomianism'' (1771–1775).<ref name="EB1911" />

===Methodist views===
[[John Wesley]], the founder of the [[Methodist]] tradition, harshly criticized antinomianism,<ref name="YrigoyenWarrick2013" /> considering it the "worst of all heresies".<ref name="Hurst1903">{{Cite book |last=Hurst |first=John Fletcher |url=https://archive.org/details/johnwesleymetho00hursgoog |title=John Wesley the Methodist: A Plain Account of His Life and Work |publisher=Eaton & Mains |year=1903 |page=[https://archive.org/details/johnwesleymetho00hursgoog/page/n210 200] |language=en}}</ref> He taught that Christian believers are bound to follow the [[Ten Commandments|moral law]] and that they are to partake in the [[means of grace]] for their [[sanctification]].<ref name="YrigoyenWarrick2013">{{Cite book |last1=Yrigoyen |first1=Charles |title=Historical Dictionary of Methodism |last2=Warrick |first2=Susan E. |date=7 November 2013 |publisher=Scarecrow Press |isbn=9780810878945 |page=30 |language=en}}</ref> Methodists teach the necessity of following the moral law as contained in the Ten Commandments, citing [[Jesus in Christianity|Jesus']] teaching, "If ye love me, keep my commandments" (cf. John 14:15).<ref>{{Cite book |title=The Wesleyan Methodist Association Magazine |publisher=R. Abercrombie |year=1849 |volume=12 |page=368 |language=en}}</ref>

The [[Methodist Church]]es consider antinomianism to be a [[Heresy in Christianity|heresy]].<ref name="Hurst1903" />

===Quaker views===
[[Religious Society of Friends]] were charged with antinomianism due to their rejection of a graduate clergy and a clerical administrative structure, as well as their reliance on the Spirit (as revealed by the Inner Light of God within each person) rather than the Scriptures. They also rejected civil legal authorities and their laws (such as the paying of [[tithes]] to the State church and the swearing of oaths) when they were seen as inconsistent with the promptings of the Inner Light of God.

===Antinomian charges against other groups===
Other Protestant groups that have been accused of antinomianism include the [[Anabaptist]]s and [[Mennonite]]s. The [[Ranter]]s of 17th century England were one of the most outright antinomian sects in the history of Christianity. [[New Covenant Theology]] has been accused of antinomianism for their belief that the [[Ten Commandments]] have been abrogated, but they point out that nine of these ten are renewed under the New Covenant's [[Law of Christ]].<ref>''The Law, the Gospel, and the Modern Christian: Five Views'', Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993. {{ISBN|978-0-310-53321-4}}, also republished as ''Five Views on Law and Gospel'', page 343: "The entire Mosaic law comes to fulfillment in Christ, and this fulfillment means that this law is no longer a direct and immediate source of, or judge of, the conduct of God's people. Christian behavior, rather, is now guided directly by "the law of Christ". This "law" does not consist of legal prescriptions and ordinances, but of the teaching and example of Jesus and the apostles, the central demand of love, and the guiding influence of the indwelling Holy Spirit.", page 376: "The content of all but one of the Ten Commandments are taken up into "the law of Christ", for which we are responsible. (The exception is the Sabbath commandment, one that Heb. 3–4 suggests is fulfilled in the new age as a whole.)"</ref> [[John Eaton (divine)|John Eaton]], a leader in the antinomian underground during the 1630s, interpreted Revelation 12:1 with a quote recorded by [[Giles Firmin]]: ''"I saw a Woman Clothed with the Sun'' [That is, the Church Clothed with the righteousness of Christ, to her Justification] ''and the Moon,'' [that is, Sanctification] ''under her Feet."''  Scholars have speculated that the ''"sun"'' and ''"light"'' may have been code-words used to surreptitiously reveal antinomian sympathies.<ref>{{cite book |last= van Engen |first=A. |date= 2015 |title= Sympathetic Puritans: Calvinist fellow feeling in early New England}}</ref> Sects such as the [[Ranters]] and [[Christian Science]] were accused of teaching that sin was nonexistent while [[New England Theology]] was accused of teaching that sin was beneficial.<ref name="Levy 1995 p. 151">{{cite book | last=Levy | first=L.W. | title=Blasphemy: Verbal Offense Against the Sacred, from Moses to Salman Rushdie | publisher=University of North Carolina Press | year=1995 | isbn=978-0-8078-4515-8 | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=zZu63qz85nsC&pg=PA151 | access-date=3 June 2023 | page=151}}</ref><ref name="Leavitt 1999 p. 583">{{cite book | last=Leavitt | first=J.W. | title=Women and Health in America: Historical Readings | publisher=University of Wisconsin Press | year=1999 | isbn=978-0-299-15964-1 | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ELIJD2ErMgwC&pg=PA583 | access-date=3 June 2023 | page=583}}</ref><ref name="Holifield 2003 p. 153">{{cite book | last=Holifield | first=E.B. | title=Theology in America: Christian Thought from the Age of the Puritans to the Civil War | publisher=Yale University Press | year=2003 | isbn=978-0-300-10765-4 | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Db3g8Nxv5joC&pg=PA153 | access-date=3 June 2023 | page=153}}</ref>

===Biblical law in Christianity===
{{See also|Split of early Christianity and Judaism|Christianity and Judaism|Biblical law in Christianity}}
[[File:Saint James the Just.jpg|thumb|right|200px|[[Icon]] of [[James, brother of Jesus|James the Just]], whose judgment was adopted in the Apostolic Decree of {{bibleverse||Acts|15:19–29}}, c.&nbsp;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.<ref>[Fossum, Jarl; Munoa, Phillip. ''Jesus and the Gospels''], Thomson Learning, 2004</ref> Thus, as Christianity spread into new cultures, the early church was pressured by [[Judaizers]] and [[Pharisees]] 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 of the Apostles|Acts]]) is interpreted by some{{who|date= November 2018}} as recording the church slowly abandoning the "ritual laws" of Judaism, such as circumcision, [[Biblical Sabbath|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#Christianity|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 [[Apostles in the New Testament|apostles]] and [[Elder (Christianity)|elders]] met at [[Jerusalem in Christianity|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<ref>[http://jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=222&letter=B&search=Baptism Jewish Encyclopedia: Baptism]: "According to rabbinical teachings, which dominated even during the existence of the Temple (Pes. viii. 8), Baptism, next to [[Circumcision in the Bible|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."</ref> (the first being the idea that Jesus was the messiah<ref>[[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 ({{bibleverse||Acts|15:1}})."</ref>), was recorded in {{bibleverse||Acts|15:19–21}}:

{{Blockquote|Acts 15:(19) Wherefore my [James] sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the [[Gentiles]] are turned to God: (20) But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. (21) For [[Moses]] of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath day.|KJV}}

Beginning with [[Augustine of Hippo]],<ref>''Contra Faust'', 32.13</ref> many have seen a connection to [[Noahide Law]], while some modern scholars<ref>For example: [[Joseph Fitzmyer]], ''The Acts of the Apostles (The Anchor Yale Bible Commentaries)'', Yale University Press (2 December 1998), {{ISBN|0-300-13982-9}}, chapter V</ref> reject the connection to ''Noahide Law''<ref>{{bibleverse||Genesis|9|NIV}}</ref> and instead see Lev 17–18<ref>{{bibleverse||Lev|17–18|NIV}}</ref> 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 {{bibleverse||Leviticus|17}} and {{bibleverse-nb||Leviticus|20}}). James's list still includes some dietary commands, but many of those also passed out of some Christian traditions quite early. {{bibleverse||Acts|10:9–16}} describes the following vision, which was used to excuse early gentile Christians from the Mosaic dietary laws.
{{Blockquote|(9) [[Saint Peter|...Peter]] went up upon the housetop to pray about the sixth hour: (10) And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance, (11) And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth: (12) Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air. (13) And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat. (14) But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean. (15) And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common. (16) This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven.|KJV}}

Peter was perplexed about the vision in Acts 10. His subsequent explanation of the vision in Acts 11 gives no credence to antinomianism as it relates to the admission of Gentiles into covenant relationship with God.

Though the ''Apostolic Decree'' is no longer observed by many [[Christian denominations]] today, it is still observed in full by the [[Greek Orthodox]].{{efn|
[[Karl Josef von Hefele|K.J. von&nbsp;Hefele]]<ref name="hefele II">{{cite book |last1=von{{nbsp}}Hefele |first1=Karl Joseph |title=A history of the councils of the Church: From the original documents |date=1872 |publisher=T. & T. Clark |location=Edinburgh |page=328|author-link=Karl Josef von Hefele  |url=https://archive.org/details/ahistoryofthecou02hefeuoft/page/n3/mode/2up?view=theater |chapter=|volume=II |id=[English edition published with author name: Right Rev Charles Joseph Hefele, DD]}} {{isbn|978-0-404-03260-9}}</ref> notes:
{{bq|"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 [[Canons of the Apostles|Apostolic Canon]], expressly blames the Latins because they had ceased to observe this command.{{pb}}
"What the Latin Church, however, thought on this subject about the year&nbsp;400, is shown by [[Augustine of Hippo|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 III|Pope Gregory the Third]] (731) forbade the eating of blood or things strangled under threat of a penance of forty days."{{pb}}
"No one will pretend that the disciplinary enactments of any council, even though it be one of the undisputed [[Ecumenical council|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."<ref>{{cite book |editor1-last=Schaff|editor1-first=Philip |editor2-last=Wace |editor2-first=Henry |editor3-last=Percival |editor3-first=Henry R. |title=The Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Undivided Church |url= https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.viii.v.iv.ii.html|id=NPNF2-14; viii.v.iv.ii |volume=XIV|series=The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church}}</ref>}}
}} The [[Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church]] also preserves many Judaic customs.

In the [[Letter to the Hebrews]] ({{bibleref2|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:
{{Blockquote|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.|{{bibleref2|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====
{{original research|section|date=January 2016}}
{{See also|New Perspective on Paul|Pauline Christianity|Paul the Apostle and Judaism}}
[[File:PaulT.jpg|thumb|right|200px|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.<ref>[[Stephen L Harris|Harris, Stephen L.]], ''Understanding the Bible'', Palo Alto: Mayfield. 1985. p. 316–320. Harris cites {{bibleverse||Galatians|6:11}}, {{bibleverse||Romans|16:22}}, {{bibleverse||Colossians|4:18}}, {{bibleverse|2|Thessalonians|3:17}}, {{bibleverse||Philemon|19}}. [[Joseph Barber Lightfoot]] in his ''Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians'' writes: "At this point [{{bibleverse||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 ({{bibleverse|2|Thessalonians|2:2}}; {{bibleverse|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."</ref>]]

The [[Apostle Paul]], in his [[Pauline Epistles|Letters]], says that believers are saved by the unearned grace of God, not by good works, "lest anyone should boast",<ref>Ephesians 2:8-9</ref> 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. In modern Protestant orthodoxy, this passage is interpreted as a reference to justification by trusting Christ.{{cn|date=December 2023}}

Paul used the term ''freedom in Christ'', for example, {{Bibleref2|Galatians|2:4}}. Some understood this to mean "lawlessness" (i.e. not obeying Mosaic Law).<ref>{{Cite web |date=2011 |title=Paul's Assessment of Christian Freedom |url=https://www.baylor.edu/content/services/document.php/140018.pdf |url-status=live |access-date=15 October 2021 |website=Christian Reflection: A Series in Faith and Ethics|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130807154746/http://www.baylor.edu/content/services/document.php/140018.pdf |archive-date=7 August 2013 }}</ref> For example, in {{Bibleref2|Acts|18:12–16}}, Paul is accused of "persuading ... people to worship God in ways contrary to the law."

In [[Acts 21]], [[James, brother of Jesus|James the Just]] explained his situation to Paul:
{{quote|but they have been informed about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs.|Acts 21:21, New King James Version<ref>{{bibleverse|Acts|21:21|NKJV}}</ref>}}

{{Bibleref2|Colossians|2:13–14}} is sometimes presented as proof of Paul's antinomistic views. For example, the [[NIV]] translates these verses: "... he forgave us all our sins, having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross." But, the [[NRSV]] translates this same verse as: "... he forgave us all our trespasses, erasing the record that stood against us with its legal demands. He set this aside, nailing it to the cross." This latter translation makes it sound as though it is a ''record of trespasses'', rather than ''the Law itself'', that was "nailed to the cross."{{citation needed|date=November 2012}} The interpretation partly depends on the original Greek word {{lang|grc|χειρόγραφον}} which, according to Strong's G5498,<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm|archive-url=https://archive.today/20120721065815/http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G5498&t=KJV|url-status=dead|title=Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon|archive-date=21 July 2012|access-date=27 October 2021}}</ref> literally means "something written by hand;" it is variously translated as "the bond" (RSV, NAB), "written code" (NIV), or "record" (ESV, NRSV, CEB), as in a record of debt.

In [[2 Corinthians 3]], Paul says,
{{quote|who also made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. But if the ministry of death, written and engraved on stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of the glory of his countenance, which glory was passing away, how will the ministry of the Spirit not be more glorious? For if the ministry of condemnation had glory, the ministry of righteousness exceeds much more in glory. For even what was made glorious had no glory in this respect, because of the glory that excels. For if what is passing away was glorious, what remains is much more glorious. Therefore, since we have such hope, we use great boldness of speech— unlike Moses, who put a veil over his face so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the end of what was passing away. But their minds were blinded. For until this day the same veil remains unlifted in the reading of the Old Testament, because the veil is taken away in Christ. But even to this day, when Moses is read, a veil lies on their heart. Nevertheless when one turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. Now the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.|2 Corinthians 3:6–17, New King James Version<ref>{{bibleverse|2 Corinthians|3:6–17|NKJV}}</ref>}}

Some{{who|date= November 2018}} cite {{bibleref2|Acts|13:39}}: "And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses." {{bibleref2|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)

In [[Galatians 3]], Paul describes the Galatians as "foolish" for relying on being observant to the Law:
{{quote|O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you that you should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed among you as crucified? This only I want to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being made perfect by the flesh? Have you suffered so many things in vain—if indeed it was in vain? Therefore He who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you, does He do it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?|Galatians 3:1–5, New King James Version<ref>{{bibleverse|Galatians|3:1–5|NKJV}}</ref>}}

He goes on to say that the purpose of the Law was to lead people to Christ, so once people believe in Christ, they are no longer under the Law:
{{quote|But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed. Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified [[Justification (theology)|justified]] by faith. But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.|Galatians 3:23–25, New King James Version<ref>{{bibleverse|Galatians|3:23–25|NKJV}}</ref>}}

In {{bibleref2|Galatians|4:21–31}}, Paul compares the [[Old Covenant]] with the New Covenant. In this comparison, he equates each covenant with a woman, using the wives of [[Abraham]] as examples. The old covenant is equated with the slave woman, [[Hagar]], and the new covenant is equated with the free woman [[Sarah]] ({{bibleref2|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.
{{quote|For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, the other by a freewoman. But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through promise, which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants: the one from [[Mount Sinai]] which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar— for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in [[Arabia Petraea|Arabia]], and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children— but the [[New Jerusalem|Jerusalem above]] is free, which is the mother of us all.|Galatians 4:22–26, New King James Version<ref>{{bibleverse|Galatians|4:22–26|NKJV}}</ref>}}

[[File:Bloch-SermonOnTheMount.jpg|thumb|300px|right|Christians believe that Jesus is the mediator of the New Covenant in {{bibleverse||Hebrews|8:6}}. Depicted is his [[Sermon on the Mount]] in which he commented on the Law.]]

{{Bibleref|Romans|10:4}} is sometimes translated: "For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth" (KJV), or "Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes" (NRSV). The key word here is ''telos'' (Strong's G5056).<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm|archive-url=https://archive.today/20120730033951/http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G5056&t=KJV|url-status=dead|title=Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon|archive-date=30 July 2012|access-date=27 October 2021}}</ref> Robert Badenas argues that ''telos'' is correctly translated as goal, not end, so that Christ is the ''goal'' of the Law.<ref>Badenas, Robert (1985). ''Christ the End of the Law, Romans 10.4 in Pauline Perspective''. Sheffield (UK): JSOT Press. {{ISBN|0-905774-93-0}}</ref> [[N. T. Wright]] in his ''New Testament for Everyone'' translates this verse as: "The Messiah, you see, is the goal of the law, so that covenant membership may be available for all who believe."<ref>Wright, N. T. (2011). ''The New Testament for Everyone''. London: SPCK.</ref> [[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."<ref>''[[Unvarnished New Testament]]'', 1991, {{ISBN|0-933999-99-2}}</ref>

Also cited{{where|date=November 2014}}{{by whom|date=November 2014}} is {{bibleref2|Ephesians|2:15}}: "He has abolished the law with its commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new humanity in place of the two, thus making peace," NRSV. Another passage cited is {{bibleref2|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 {{bibleref2|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." {{bibleref2|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." {{bibleref2|Hebrews|8:13}}. It identifies the first covenant which is disappearing in {{bibleref2|Hebrews|9:1–5}}. Particularly the "stone tablets of the covenant" in Hebrews 9:4 referred directly to the Ten Commandments.<ref>{{bibleverse|Hebrews|9:1–5|NKJV}}</ref>
{{quote|Then indeed, even the first covenant had ordinances of divine service and the earthly sanctuary. For a [[tabernacle]] was prepared: the first part, in which was the [[Temple menorah|lampstand]], the table, and the [[showbread]], which is called the sanctuary; and behind the second veil, the part of the tabernacle which is called the [[Holy of Holies|Holiest of All]], which had the golden censer and the [[ark of the covenant]] overlaid on all sides with gold, in which were the golden pot that had the [[manna]], [[Aaron's rod]] that budded, and the [[Tablets of Stone|tablets of the covenant]]; and above it were the cherubim of glory overshadowing the [[mercy seat]].|Hebrews 9:1–5, New King James Version}}

However, the notion that the Ten Commandments have been abrogated, as found in [[New Covenant Theology]], is challenged by some.<ref>''In Defense of the Decalogue: A Critique of New Covenant Theology'', Richard Barcellos, Founder's Press, 2001. Barcellos is an associate professor of New Testament Studies at the Midwest Center for Theological Studies.</ref>{{Request quotation|date=March 2015}}

Some scholars consider Jesus' [[Sermon on the Mount]] (particularly the [[Matthew 5#Antitheses|Antitheses]]) to be an antitype of the proclamation of the Ten Commandments or [[Mosaic Covenant]] by Moses from the [[Biblical Mount Sinai]].{{citation needed|date=November 2012}}

====Opposing Pauline passages====
Those who oppose antinomianism invoke Paul as upholding obedience to the law:<ref>[http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/lawandgrace.html#Some Law and Grace]</ref>
* "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." {{bibleref|Romans|8:7–8}} KJV
* "But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel." {{bibleverse|1|Timothy|5:8|KJV}} KJV
* "But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat." {{bibleverse|1|Corinthians|5:11|KJV}} KJV
* "Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right. Honour thy father and mother; which is the first commandment with promise;" {{bibleref|Ephesians|6:1–2}} KJV
* "Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law." {{bibleref|Romans|3:31}} KJV
* "For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law; For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified." {{bibleref|Romans|2:12–13}} KJV
* "For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience. " {{bibleref|Ephesians|5:5–6}} KJV
* "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God." {{bibleverse|1|Corinthians|6:9–10:26|KJV}} 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." {{bibleverse|1|Corinthians|14:34|KJV}} KJV
* "Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry." {{bibleref|Colossians|3:5}} KJV
* "Neither be ye idolaters, as were some of them; as it is written, The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play." {{bibleverse|1|Corinthians|10:7|KJV}} 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." {{bibleref|Galatians|5:19–21}} KJV
* "Say I these things as a man? or saith not the law the same also? For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen?" {{bibleverse|1|Corinthians|9:8–9|KJV}} 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." {{bibleverse|1|Corinthians|7:39|KJV}} KJV
* "Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry." {{bibleverse|1|Corinthians|10:14|KJV}} 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." {{bibleref|Acts|25:8}} KJV

====Theology====
The ''[[Catholic Encyclopedia]]'' (1910) article on "Judaizers" notes: "Paul, on the other hand, not only did not object to the observance of the Mosaic Law, as long as it did not interfere with the liberty of the Gentiles, but he conformed to its prescriptions when occasion required ({{bibleverse|1|Corinthians|9:20}}). Thus he shortly after the Council of Jerusalem circumcised [[Saint Timothy|Timothy]] ({{bibleref2|Acts|16:1–3}}), and he was in the very act of observing the Mosaic ritual when he was arrested at Jerusalem ({{bibleverse-nb||Acts|21:26}} sqq.)."<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08537a.htm |title=CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Judaizers |website=www.newadvent.org}}</ref>

The ''[[Jewish Encyclopedia]]'' article on "Gentile: Gentiles May Not Be Taught the Torah"<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/6585-gentile |title=GENTILE |website=jewishencyclopedia.com}}</ref> notes the following reconciliation: "[[Rabbi Emden|R. Emden]], in a remarkable apology for Christianity contained in his appendix to "Seder 'Olam,"<ref name="ReferenceA">Emden, R. "Appendix to "Seder 'Olam," pp. 32b–34b, Hamburg, 1752</ref> gives it as his opinion that the original intention of Jesus, and especially of Paul, was to convert only the Gentiles to the [[Seven Laws of Noah|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."<ref name="ReferenceA" />

The Tübingen school of historians founded by [[Ferdinand Christian Baur|F. C. Baur]] holds that in [[Early Christianity]], there was a conflict between [[Pauline Christianity]] and the [[Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem#Bishops of Jerusalem|Jerusalem Church]] led by James the Just, [[Simon Peter]], and [[John the Apostle]], the so-called "Jewish Christians" or "Pillars of the Church."<ref>[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08280a.htm ''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)."</ref> In many places Paul writes that he was an observant Jew and that Christians should "uphold the Law" ({{bibleref2|Romans|3:31}}). In {{bibleref2|Galatians|2:14}}, part of the [[Incident at Antioch]],<ref>[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08537a.htm Catholic Encyclopedia: Judaizers] see section titled: "THE INCIDENT AT ANTIOCH"</ref> Paul publicly accused Peter of [[judaize|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., {{bibleref2|Galatians|5:19–21}}, {{bibleverse|1|Cor|6:9–10}}). In {{bibleverse|1|Corinthians|7:10–16|NIV}} 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 ({{bibleref2|Galatians|2:6–10|NIV}}).{{citation needed|date=November 2012}}

====Paul versus James====
{{See also|Antilegomena}}
The [[Epistle of James]], in contrast, states that we are to obey the Law of God and that "a person is justified by works and not by faith alone" ({{bibleref2|James|2:14–26}}). Historically, this statement has been difficult for Protestants to reconcile with their belief in [[Sola Fide|justification by faith alone]] as it appears to contradict Paul's teaching that works don't justify (Romans 4:1–8). Martin Luther, believing that his doctrines were refuted by James's conclusion that works also justify, suggested that the Epistle might be a forgery, and relegated it to an appendix in his Bible. Literature which discusses this includes the article on ''James 2:20'' in ''Law and Gospel''.<ref>{{bibleref2|James|2:20}}</ref> {{bibleverse|Romans|2:6|NKJV}}, {{Bibleref2|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." {{bibleref2|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|date=November 2012}} James appeals to his readers to follow the "Royal Law of Love" instead of in the preceding verses (James 2:8–9). But the scholar [[Alister McGrath]] says that James was the leader of a Judaizing party that taught that Gentiles must obey the entire Mosaic Law.<ref>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 ..."</ref>

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:
<blockquote>"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)</blockquote>

====Jesus====
{{See also|Expounding of the Law|Great Commission|Hyperdispensationalism|Halakha}}
The Torah prescribes the death penalty for desecrating the Sabbath by working ({{bibleverse||Exodus|31:14–17}}). To avoid any ''possibility'' of breaking the simple and few original Torah commands, the Pharisees formulated and added several thousand strict laws and numerous traditions which they treated as laws. According to the Christians, Jesus criticized the Pharisees for adding to the law ({{bibleref2|Mark|7:7–9}}). The ''Jewish Encyclopedia'' article on Jesus notes:
<blockquote>"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."<ref>[http://jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=254&letter=J&search=Jesus "Jesus"], ''Jewish Encyclopedia''</ref></blockquote>

In the [[Gospel of Mark]], Jesus' disciples were picking grain for food on the Sabbath ({{bibleref2|Mark|2:23–28}}). This was against one of the Pharisaic laws that had been added to the original Torah law which prohibited work on the Sabbath day. When the Pharisees challenged Jesus over breaking their law, he pointed to Biblical precedent and declared that "the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath". Some claim Jesus rejected complete adherence to the [[Torah]]. Most scholars hold that Jesus did not reject the law, but directed that it should be obeyed in context. [[E. P. Sanders]] notes, "No substantial conflict existed between Jesus and the Pharisees with regard to Sabbath, food, and purity laws. ... The church took some while to come to the position that the Sabbath need not be kept, and it is hard to think that Jesus explicitly said so."<ref>E. P. Sanders, ''Jesus and Judaism'', 1985 SCM Press {{ISBN|0-334-02091-3}}, pp. 264–69.</ref> There may be passages where the words of Jesus have been misinterpreted and were not really in contradiction with the Jewish law.<ref>[http://jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=245&letter=N&search=Gospel#703 "New Testament: Misunderstood Passages"], ''Jewish Encyclopedia''</ref> Jesus never once broke the Torah, yet he did denounce the added Pharisaic rules and openly defied the Pharisees.

In the [[Gospel of Matthew]], Jesus is sometimes said to refer to wicked people with the term ''ergazomenoi tēn anomian'' ({{lang|grc|ἐργαζόμενοι τὴν ἀνομἰαν}})—e.g., {{bibleverse||Matthew|7:21–23}}, {{bibleverse||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".<ref>''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".</ref> In Hebrew, lawlessness would imply "Torahlessness". Matthew appears to present Jesus as equating wickedness with encouraging antinomianism. Scholars view Matthew as having been written by or for a Jewish audience, the so-called Jewish Christians. Several scholars argue that Matthew artificially lessened a claimed rejection of Jewish law so as not to alienate his intended audience.{{citation needed|date=November 2012}} But, Jesus called for full adherence to the commandments ({{bibleref2|Matthew|5:19–21}}) He declared: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the [[Neviim|Prophets]]; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." ({{bibleref2|Matthew|5:17}}). A parallel verse to {{bibleref2|Matthew|7:21}} is {{bibleref2|James|1:22}}.

{{bibleverse|1|John|3:4|NRSV}} states: "Everyone who commits [[sin]] is guilty of lawlessness; sin is lawlessness."

==Islamic antinomianism==
{{See also|Naskh (tafsir)|Shath}}
{{Further|Alawites|Bektashi Order|Esoteric interpretation of the Quran}}
In Islam, the law — which applies not only to religion, but also to areas such as politics, banking, and sexuality — is called ''[[Sharia|sharīʿah]]'' ({{lang|ar|شريعة}}), and traditionally draws from four primary sources:
# the [[Quran]], which is Islam's central religious text;
# the [[Sunnah]], which refers to actions practised during the time of the prophet Muḥammad, and is often thought to include the ''[[Hadith|ḥadīth]]'', or recorded words and deeds of Muḥammad;
# ''[[Ijma|Ijmāʿ]]'', which is the consensus of the ''[[Ulema|ʿulamāʾ]]'', or class of Islamic scholars, on points of practice;
# ''[[Qiyas|Qiyās]]'', which—in [[Sunni Islam|Sunnī Islam]]—is a kind of analogical reasoning conducted by the ʿulamāʾ upon specific laws that have arisen through appeal to the first three sources; in [[Shia Islam]], ''[['Aql|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 (Islam)|shirk]]'' ("association of another being with God"); ''[[bidʻah]]'' ("innovation"); ''[[Kafir|kufr]]'' ("disbelief"); ''[[Haram|ḥarām]]'' ("forbidden"); etc.{{citation needed|date=November 2014}}

As an example, the 10th&nbsp;century Sufi mystic al-Hallaj was executed for ''shirk'' for, among other things, his statement ''[[Anal Haq|ana al-Ḥaqq]]'' ({{lang|ar|أنا الحق}}), meaning "I am the Truth". As {{lang|ar|الحق}} ''al-Ḥaqq'' ("the Truth") is one of the [[Names of God in Islam]], this would imply he was saying: "I am God."<ref>Pratt 72</ref> Expressions like these are known as ''[[shath|šaṭḥiyyāt]]''. Another individual who has often been termed antinomian is [[Ibn Arabi]], a 12th and 13th-century scholar and mystic whose doctrine of ''[[Sufi metaphysics|waḥdat al-wujūd]]'' ("unity of being") has sometimes been interpreted as being [[Pantheism|pantheistic]], and thus ''shirk.''<ref>Chittick 79</ref>

Apart from individuals, entire groups of Muslims have also been called antinomian. One of these groups is the [[Nizari Isma'ilism|Nizārī Ismāʿīlī Shīʿa]], who have always had strong [[Millenarianism|millenarian]] tendencies arising partly from persecution directed at them by Sunnīs. Influenced to a certain extent by Gnosticism,<ref>See, for example, {{cite web |url=http://lexicorient.com/e.o/ismailis.htm |title=Isma'ilism |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170102062302/http://lexicorient.com/e.o/ismailis.htm |archive-date=2 January 2017 |website=Encyclopaedia of the Orient (lexicorient.com)}}</ref> the Ismāʿīlīs developed a number of beliefs and practices—such as their belief in the ''[[Imamate in Ismaili doctrine|imamatte]]'' and an esoteric exegesis of the Qurʾān—that orthodox Sunnī Muslims considered being ''shirk'' and, hence, to be seen as antinomian.<ref>Daftary 47; Clarence-Smith 56</ref> Certain other groups that evolved out of Shīʿah belief, such as the [[Alawites]]<ref>Bar-Asher & Kofsky, 67 ''ff.''</ref> and the [[Bektashi Order]],<ref>Schimmel 338</ref> have also been considered antinomian. The Bektashis, particularly, have practices that diverge from conventional Islamic practice, such as the consumption of alcoholic beverages, the non-wearing of the ''[[hijab|ḥijāb]]'' ("veil") by women, and gathering in the ''[[cemevi]]'' in preference to the mosque.<ref>Weir "[http://www.beyond-the-pale.co.uk/albanian4.htm Differences Between Bektashism and Islamic Orthodoxy] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20050728104107/http://www.beyond-the-pale.co.uk/albanian4.htm |date=28 July 2005 }}"</ref>

==Nonreligious antinomianism==
[[George Orwell]] was a frequent user of "antinomian" in a secular (and always approving) sense. In his 1940 essay on [[Henry Miller]], "Inside the Whale", the word appears several times, including one in which he calls [[A. E. Housman]] a writer in "a blasphemous, antinomian, 'cynical' strain", meaning defiant of arbitrary societal rules.

The psychologist [[Nathan Adler (psychologist)|Nathan Adler]] defined the "antinomian personality type" as "manifested by one whose frame of reference is threatened or has been disrupted. He suffers from a breakdown in the balance of his control and release mechanisms and from the permeability of his body boundaries."<ref>{{Cite book |last=Powell |first=Adam J. |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=-MyhCgAAQBAJ&q=%22Nathan+Adler%22+psychology&pg=PA88 |title=Irenaeus, Joseph Smith, and God-Making Heresy |publisher=Fairleigh Dickinson University Press |year=2015 |isbn=9781611478723 |pages=88 |via=Google Books}}</ref>

In his study of late-20th-century western society, ''[[The Age of Extremes]]'', the historian [[Eric Hobsbawm]] used the term in a sociological sense.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Hobsbawm |first1=Eric |title=The Age of Extremes|date=1994 |publisher=Pantheon Books |url-access =registration |isbn=978-0-394-58575-8 |page=332 |url=https://archive.org/details/ageofextremeshis00hobs/page/332/mode/2up}}</ref>

==See also==
{{Portal|Christianity}}
{{div col|colwidth=15em}}
* [[Abrogation of Old Covenant laws]]
* [[Antinomian controversy]] - 1630s Massachusetts
* [[Christian anarchism]]
* [[Christian liberty]]
* [[Christian–Jewish reconciliation]]
* [[Christian universalism]]
* [[Covenant (biblical)]]
* [[Do what thou wilt]]
* [[Frankism]]
* [[Free Grace theology]]
* [[Heterodoxy]]
* [[Historical reliability of the Acts of the Apostles]]
* [[Legalism (theology)]]
* [[Libertine]]
* [[Minuth]]
* [[Montanism]]
* [[Relativism]] ([[moral relativism]])
* [[Neonomianism]]
* [[Sovereign citizen movement]]
* [[Supersessionism]]
{{div col end}}

==Footnotes==
{{notelist}}

==References==
{{reflist|22em}}

==Sources==
{{refbegin|22em}}
* Badenas, Robert. ''Christ the End of the Law, Romans 10.4 in Pauline Perspective''. Sheffield (UK): JSOT Press, 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}}.
* 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}}.
* [[James D. G. Dunn|Dunn, James D.G.]] ''Jesus, Paul and the Law'' 1990 {{ISBN|0-664-25095-5}}
* ''Encyclopaedia of the Orient''. "[http://lexicorient.com/e.o/ismailis.htm Isma'ilism] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170102062302/http://lexicorient.com/e.o/ismailis.htm |date=2 January 2017 }}". Retrieved 10 October 2006.
* [[David Noel Freedman|Freedman, David Noel]], editor. (1998). [[Anchor Bible Series|Anchor Bible Dictionary]], article on ''Antinomianism'' by Hall, Robert W., {{ISBN|0-385-19351-3}}
* G. Kawerau, in A. Hauck's ''Realencyklopadie'' (1896)
* [[J. C. L. Gieseler]], ''Ch. Hist.'' (New York ed. 1868, vol. iv.)
* J. H. Blunt ''Dict. of Doct. and Hist. Theol.'' (1872)
* 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}}
* [[Peter Linebaugh]] and Marcus Rediker. ''The Many-Headed Hydra''. Beacon Press, Boston, 2000
* 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 ''[http://www.beyond-the-pale.co.uk/albanian4.htm The Bektashi Order of Dervishes] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20050728104107/http://www.beyond-the-pale.co.uk/albanian4.htm |date=28 July 2005 }}''. Retrieved 10 October 2006.
{{refend}}

==External links==
{{Wikiquote}}
{{Wiktionary|antinomianism}}
* [https://www.academia.edu/4900677/The_Two_Faces_of_Religious_Radicalism_-_Orthodox_Zealotry_and_Holy_Sinning_in_Nineteenth_Century_Hasidism_in_Hungary_and_Galicia  Benjamin Brown, 'The Two Faces of Religious Radicalism – Orthodox Zealotry and Holy Sinning in Nineteenth Century Hasidism in Hungary and Galicia']
* [http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect1chpt3.htm#art1 Catholic Catechism on The Moral Law] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080529050930/http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect1chpt3.htm#art1 |date=29 May 2008 }}
* [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09071a.htm Catholic Encyclopedia: Moral Aspect of Divine Law]
* [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10582c.htm Catholic Encyclopedia: Mosaic Legislation]
* [http://jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=1585&letter=A&search=antinomianism Jewish Encyclopedia: Antinomianism]
* [http://jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=254&letter=J&search=Jesus#1000 Jewish Encyclopedia: Jesus: Attitude Toward the Law]
* [http://jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=245&letter=N#700 Jewish Encyclopedia: New Testament – For and Against the Law]
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20090329005908/http://jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=283&letter=S&search=Paul%20of%20Tarsus#978 Jewish Encyclopedia: Saul of Tarsus: Paul's Opposition to the Law]
* [http://www.thepaulpage.com New Perspective on Paul]
* [http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/encyc01/Page_196.html Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge: Antinomianism]
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20070926235640/http://www.chc.org.sg/english/sermons/antinomianism.htm Sermon on Antinomianism]

{{Early Lutheran Controversies}}
{{Heresies condemned by the Catholic Church}}
{{Authority control}}

[[Category:Christian anti-Gnosticism]]
[[Category:Salvation in Protestantism]]
[[Category:Christian terminology]]
[[Category:Early Christianity and Gnosticism]]
[[Category:Religious ethics]]
[[Category:Mosaic law in Christian theology]]
[[Category:Heresy in Christianity]]