Probably most Christians who have read the first three chapters of Genesis assume that they know what happened in the Garden of Eden. But there is a problem. It is very difficult to approach this subject without a bias. This is because most theological systems, in order to make their systems work, have made assumptions about what happened in Eden that are not found in the Bible. These assumptions are taught in seminaries and find their way into sermons and Christian books without being challenged. In fact, anyone who does challenge them, even with sound biblical support, runs the risk of being labeled a heretic. Well, I am going to run that risk in this article and, in doing so, pop a few balloons full of hot air theology.
Antinomianism comes from the Greek anti, “against,” and nomos, “law.” Literally, it means “against law.” It is used to refer to a doctrine that centers on the belief that grace frees a Christian from the law. Detailed definitions differ. Yet, when a theologian labels someone an antinomian, he or she almost always intends it negatively or pejoratively. Antinomian is a dirty word in theological circles. But do those who fit some of the most common definitions of antinomian really deserve such scorn? Is what these definitions describe truly unbiblical? In this article, I want to discuss the most common definitions of antinomianism and compare them with the Bible. I also want to reveal their origin. Could it be that many of us sovereign grace, New Covenant believers fit the definitions of antinomian and don’t even realize it? Would that be a bad thing?
I think that if you were to ask a representative sample of average churchgoers to name two apostles, they would most often name Peter and Paul. Today, we might call Peter and Paul the powerhouses of early Christianity. Peter was the apostle to the Jews, and Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles (Galatians 2:7). So, it was no small thing when these two men had a head-to-head confrontation in Antioch. Paul records it in Galatians 2. I want to go over those verses, explain what really happened, and point out why the outcome was crucial for the truth of the Gospel.
[This article was revised in January 2019: Further information.]
Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount has been called the epitome of His ethical teaching, His manifesto, and the key of the whole Bible. To understand the Sermon on the Mount and its relevance for you, you need to know who was Jesus’ intended audience and whether Jesus was correcting the misunderstandings of the scribes and Pharisees, whether He was fulfilling the role of the new Lawgiver by giving a new law, or whether He had an entirely different purpose.
The following is excerpted from "On Two Kinds of Obedience," a tract written by Michael Sattler. He was also the author of the Schleitheim Confession, which was originally printed under the title, "Brotherly Agreement of Some Children of God." This confession is generally recognized as the first confession of those who were called "Anabaptists" by their persecutors.
Obedience is of two kinds, servile and filial. The filial has its source in the love of the Father, even though no other reward should follow, yea even if the Father should wish to damn His child; the servile has its source in a love of reward or of oneself. The filial ever does as much as possible, apart from any command; the servile does as little as possible, yea nothing except by command. The filial is never able to do enough for Him; but he who renders servile obedience thinks he is constantly doing too much for Him.