Lutheran Church Missouri Synod

The Misuse of God’s Law in Christian Living

The Scourge of Antinomianism

By Dr. Richard P. Bucher

So then, the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good . . . For we know that the Law is spiritual; but I am of flesh, sold into bondage to sin (Romans 7:12,14).

(Note: by "God's Law" in this article I basically mean the Ten Commandments and all those passages that further explain the Ten Commandments in the Old and New Testaments; In the Bible, everything is God's Law "which teaches what is right and God-pleasing and which condemns everything that is contrary to God's will" Formula of Concord, Epitome V:2).

One of the most vexing problems for the Christian Church throughout history has been how to use God's Law in Christian living, the area of sanctification. The area of justification is perhaps less problematic to many. We have been saved "apart from the Law" (Rom. 3:21). We are justified not by the works of the Law but by faith in Jesus Christ who fulfilled the Law and died on our behalf (Rom. 3:20-28; Rom. 8:1-3; Rom. 10:1-4; Gal. 2:16; Eph. 2:8-9).

But more difficult is this question: After the Christian is converted what place does God's Law, His commandments have in Christian living? As Paul points out in Romans 7 above, the difficulty lies not in God's Law. It is holy and good. The difficulty is caused by our fallenness.

Unfortunately, because of our fallenness, many Christians of yesterday and today, in fact, entire denominations and movements, have been guilty of two grave misuses of God's Law in Christian living. These two wrong ways of using God's Law in Christian living have warped the Christian faith, brought about a false piety, and have caused untold harm, frustration, or despair in the lives of God's people. What are these two misuses? The first misuse of God's Law is antinomianism: refusing to use God's Law in part or in whole. The second is legalism: basing one's relationship with God on His Law and insisting on laws and commandments that God does not insist on.

Antinomianism is an Ancient Error

The word "antinomianism" is derived from two Greek words, anti (against)and nomos (Law). As mentioned above, the word basically means refusing to preach or use God's Law in part or in whole. Antinomianism is hardly new. There are examples of it in the Old Testament (e.g., the false prophets that preached "peace," when there was no peace, Jer. 6:13-14; 14:13-14; 23:16-17) and the New (e.g., the Corinthians who used their "all things are permitted for me" slogan to justify all sorts of immoral behaviors, 1 Cor. 6:12ff.).

Since then, the charge of "antinomianism" has been heard in the Church in a variety of ways. But when Lutherans use the word, their understanding is first of all guided by a particular controversy that erupted during the lifetime of Martin Luther. This "Antinomian Controversy" involved one of Luther's coworkers, John Agricola.

John Agricola (1492?-1566) first came to Wittenberg as a student of Luther's in 1516. Luther's evangelical theology was liberating for him and he embraced Reformation theology. At first he was one of Luther's closest associates and was active in a variety of teaching and preaching assignments.

In 1537 the antinomian controversy erupted and continued for several years. Essentially Agricola taught that God's Law had no role to play in either the conversion or the sanctification of the Christian. He taught that the Law was no longer to be preached to Christians. They only needed to hear was the message of salvation, that Christ had died for them and they were forgiven by grace. Only the Gospel would guide them, not the Law.

During this time Luther and the Wittenberg theologians increasingly opposed Agricola's antinomian tendencies and several disputations were held to clarify the matter. Agricola was privately and then publicly rebuked and urged to recant his teachings. Several times he claimed to do this and reconciliations were achieved. Unfortunately, Agricola never changed his views. As proceedings were mounting against him and a trial was looming, he secretly left Wittenberg in 1540 and took a position as court preacher in Berlin.

The Proper Use of God's Law in Christian Living

What was good about the antinomian controversy was that it forced Luther and others to think more clearly about the place of Law & Gospel in the lives of Christians. In his teaching, Luther emphasized that God's Law must continue to be preached to Christians and this for several reasons (the following is taken largely from Luther's Against the Antinomians, Luther's Works 47:107-119; On the Councils and the Church, Luther's Works 41:113-114, 143,147; Schmalkald Articles III:2-3; Formula of Concord Articles IV-VI).

Though it is true that in Jesus Christ Christians have been set free from the curse and punishment of the Law (Gal. 3:13; 4:4), they still need the Law preached to them because they are still sinners. It is true that Christians are temples of the Holy Spirit who guides them through the new man. It is also true that Christians have the Law written on their hearts (Jeremiah 31:31-34; 2 Cor. 3:3). But in this life Christians are still saddled by the sinful flesh, which powerfully tempts them to sin against God (Romans 7:14-25; Gal. 5:16-24). Therefore the Ten Commandments and God's Law are needed to coerce the sinful flesh to follow the Spirit's leading; God's Law is needed to be a mirror, to open Christian's eyes to their sin and to drive them to Christ for forgiveness; God's Law is needed to be a guide, so that Christians do what He wants, not invent their own piety, good works, or worship.

Agricola's antinomianism, that the Law should not be preached to Christians, would be like someone arguing that it is wrong for a doctor to diagnose the illnesses of his patients; that it is wrong for a doctor to give advice about achieving good health through exercise and diet. The Law functions in the same way. It diagnoses areas of sin in our lives that are harmful to us. It gives us guidance on how to become spiritually healthy and God-pleasing in all we say, do, or think.

The New Antinomianism

Far from being of historical interest only, antinomianism is still among us. There is a new antinomianism that is with us in a variety of flavors. Some examples follow.

Robert Schuller is one of the clearest examples of modern day antinomianism. In the late 1980's Schuller sent his book Self Esteem: A Second Reformation to pastors and congregations throughout the United States. In this book, he repeatedly chastised those who preach the Law to Christians. He stated that the worst thing pastors can do is to tell their listeners that they are sinful, since this damages self-esteem. Instead people should only be told how good they are, how important they are to God. Not surprisingly, his following has grown. People generally flock to those who tell them what they want to hear. Unfortunately, for Dr. Schuller and those who listen to him, he is guilty of antinomianism, a terrible misuse of God's Law. As a result he preaches a counterfeit Christianity. For a Christianity that refuses to preach God's Law against sin has no need for a Savior who died to take away sin.

The Official Antinomians

Not all antinomians among us are as obvious as Robert Schuller. There is a second group that is more subtle. This group is made up of all those who officially refuse to preach the Law against things that the Bible clearly calls sin, things that have always been considered sin. They do this, they tell us, because they have discovered through careful study that God's Law doesn't condemn such behaviors, as we had "mistakenly" thought for 1900 years.

Recently a group of Christian organizations in Europe authored and published a new 95 Theses. Out of concern for the woeful state of Christendom throughout the world and in honor of Luther they have written, "95 Theses on the Situation of Church and Society in the `Year of Luther' 1996." Though we confessional Lutherans might disagree with this or that thesis, overall they are quite good and right on target. I encourage you to read them (ed. They appear in the June 17, 1996 issue of Christian News).

Those responsible for the new 95 Theses observe that at the time of the first 95 Theses it was said, "When in the box the money rings, the soul out of purgatory springs." But now it is said, "Everything is allowed -- and the Church blesses it." And in Thesis 27 they decry the fact that sin in the Biblical sense is being downplayed or denied. The thesis states, "This is seen in the assertion that the practice of homosexuality is neither sick nor sinful, that pornography, abortion, and euthanasia are not to be judged and the legalization of drugs would be helpful in decreasing criminal activities."

"Everything is allowed -- and the Church blesses it." What this describes is antinomianism! But it is not an antinomianism that refuses to preach any of God's Law. It is an antinomianism that reinterprets certain portions of God's Law so that they no longer condemn certain sins. Usually these sins are widespread and practiced by large groups that pressure the Church until finally a pastor, a congregation, or an entire denomination fall into antinomian ways. Sins like homosexuality, abortion, unlawful divorce, gambling (e.g., state lotteries), and sex outside of marriage (traditionally called "fornication.").

Unlike Schuller, who merely ignores God's Law, these antinomians reinterpret God's Law. They brashly reinterpret God's Law so that it no longer speaks against the behavior they are defending. God is not mocked!

The Unofficial Antinomians

There is a third group that I've decided to call the "unofficial antinomians." These are those who, though still officially holding to God's Law, refuse to preach certain parts of it. And, I am arguing here that the reason they refuse in large part is fear. Fear that the preaching of the Law might offend. And - most of all - fear that the preaching of the Law will decrease the numbers of the church. I maintain that the Church Growth Movement's almost idolatrous emphasis on numbers makes it much easier to slip into antinomianism. The Church Growth pastor often avoids preaching on anything that may negatively effect growth in numbers.

And so, rather conveniently, these antinomians never seem to preach on the prevalent sins of the day or other sections of Scripture they deem controversial because such teachings might offend. But isn't God's Law supposed to offend? Paul wasn't kidding when he wrote that "the Law works wrath" (Rom. 4:15). It makes people angry to have their sin uncovered and condemned. It is embarrassing and humbling to discover that one has been wrong. The Law works wrath, sometimes even violently! Steven suffered such violence because he faithfully proclaimed God's Law (Acts 7). And many of the Old Testament prophets endured a similar fate. In the face of such anger and in the face of our own innate desire to be well liked, it is hard to preach the Law against popular and prevalent sins. This is why the temptation to antinomianism is so strong.

But if the Law is not preached against those living in "controversial sins," what will become of such people? With no one to warn them, they will be blind to their sin, blind to their danger. They will have false security: they will wrongly think that all is well between God and them when in reality His anger is boiling over and they are in danger of losing their salvation.

Like Luther before him, C.F.W. Walther saw this danger of antinomianism and warned his students against it:

When people begin to engage in all manner of sinful practices with impunity and imagine that everybody will have to regard them as good Christians provided they attend church and go to Communion, the pastor must say to himself: "It is time that I lay down the Law to my people, lest I live in careless ease while my hearers are going to perdition and lest they rise up to accuse me on the Last Day and say: "You are the cause why we have to suffer eternal torment" . . . Accordingly, we may not preach the Gospel, but must preach the Law to secure sinners. We must preach them into hell before we can preach them into heaven. By our preaching our hearers must be brought to the point of death before they can be restored to life by the Gospel. They must be made to realize that they are sick unto death before they can be restored to health by the Gospel. First their own righteousness must be laid bare to them, so that they may see of what filthy rags it consists, and them, by the preaching of the Gospel, they are to be robed in the garment of the righteousness of Christ (The Proper Distinction Between Law and Gospel, 13th Evening Lecture, p. 118).

These comments amplify the truth that antinomianism is, finally, lovelessness. For it puts those living in no-longer-preached-against sins in grave spiritual danger. It gives them the impression either overtly or covertly that all is well with their spiritual health when a spiritual cancer may be raging undetected inside them.

Is this Lutheran?

One last point must be dealt with. Is such an emphasis on the Law Lutheran? How can it be Lutheran when Lutherans have always been the people of the Gospel, the promoters of an evangelical theology. In the antinomianism controversy this very question was put to Martin Luther by Agricola and company. Agricola appealed to Luther's earlier writings in which the reformer had often disparaged the Law and urged the Gospel. To this (fortunately for us!) Luther responded in his candid way.

True it is that at the early stage of this movement we began strenuously to teach the gospel and made use of these words which the Antinomians now quote. But the circumstances of that time were very different from those of the present day. Then the world was terrorized enough when the pope or the visage of a single priest shook the whole of Olympus, not to mention earth and hell . . . To the consciences of men so oppressed, terrified, miserable, anxious, and afflicted, there was no need to inculcate the law. The clamant need then was to present the other part of the teaching of Christ in which he commands us to preach the remission of sin in his name, so that those who were already sufficiently terrified might learn not to despair, but to take refuge in the grace and mercy offered in Christ.

Now, however, when the times are very dissimilar from those under the pope, our Antinomians those suave theologians retain our words, our doctrine, the joyful tidings concerning Christ, and wish to preach this alone, not observing that men are other than they were under that hangman, the pope, and have become secure, froward, wicked violators yea, Epicureans who neither fear God nor men. Such men they confirm and comfort by their doctrine (WA 39I, 597ff. English translation from James Mackinnon, Luther and the Reformation (4 vols.; London, 1930), IV, 171-172. Quoted in LW 47:104-105).

How eloquently this speaks to our time. For the times have changed! We Lutherans need to open our eyes. We dwell among an Epicurean people, a people so brazen that they transgress God's Law without guilt and then demand that the Church bless it. Is this not a time when the part of Christ's teaching which desperately needs to be heard is the Law, not the Gospel?

Let us preach the Law! Let us preach it as Christ preached it, as His apostles did, as the Church always has. The Law that they preached accused. The Law that they preached offended. The Law that they preached was the hammer of God that crushed consciences, that filled those who heard with a holy dread. The Law that they preached condemned not the peripheral but the prevalent sins of the day. It was specific not vague. And most of all, the Law that they preached convinced all who took it to heart that their greatest need was forgiveness. And it drove them to Jesus Christ to receive this forgiveness by faith.