Wikipedia states it's "a term coined by Martin Luther", so regardless if it's true or not Wikipedia will guarantee it will travel all over cyberspace as undisputed fact!
There's also a few books mentioning it. The Evangelical Dictionary of Theology states, "In fact, it was Luther who actually coined the word antinomianism in his theological struggle with his former student, Johann Agricola." The Collected Writings of James Henley Thornwell states, "The word was coined in the sixteenth century to denote the peculiar opinions of John Agricola and his followers in regard to the Law." The old Catholic Encyclopedia begins its entry on antinomianism by stating,
"The heretical doctrine that Christians are exempt from the obligations of moral law. The term first came into use at the Protestant Reformation, when it was employed by Martin Luther to designate the teachings of Johannes Agricola and his sectaries..."Update 7/2020: As per LW 73:3, "An Antinomian (a term coined by Martin Luther from the Greek anti ["against"] and nomos ["law"] is one who rejects God's Law in some way."
Posts
37 comments:
James,
Did Luther believe in baptismal regeneration?
That is a stupid question, TuaD, considering your constant rampages against the concept over on Gene Veith's blog. Anyone familiar enough with Lutheran Confessions, or even just some of the basic writings of Luther himself, would know Luther taught baptismal regeneration. Why exactly are you trying to derail the subject at hand with a needless question like that when even just a simple wikipedia search or reading the section on Baptism in the Small Catechism (texts copies of which can easily be found online at various places a google search would take you to) would answer your question? But more than likely you are more trying to derail the thread so you can go on your normal rants about the doctrine...if that is the case, please refrain so actual discussion of the topic at hand can take place.
Thank you. So Luther taught baptismal regeneration. And he observed or even coined the term "antinomianism."
Did Luther believe that someone could have so much antinomianism that they could lose their baptismal regeneration?
*laughs*
Can't even ask a question without making it lead to your normal rants, can ya?
I am bowing out here. Greater minds than mine over at Veith's blog have tried to reason with you over your patronizing rhetoric on the doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration over there. You neither care about what they have said or anything I have to say about the doctrine here. Your point is not to discuss the topic, but lampoon and attack the doctrine without care to either the nuanced position of the doctrine or the biblical foundations Lutherans derive it from. I will refrain from further cluttering of this discussion with completely off-topic comments, even if you will continue to attempt to troll every chance you get.
Everyone else, please remember, only you can prevent trolls being fed.
Justin (owner of the previous Unknown post)
Justin,
Aren't you the one who's ranting?
Anyways, could you put aside your emotionalism and answer the following question:
Did Luther believe that someone could have so much antinomianism that they could lose their baptismal regeneration?
Hi James,
Thanks for this enlightening post.
It will be interesting to trace if Luther coined this term.
Martin Yee
*sigh*
I am gonna kick myself for this, because I know where this is gonna go, but ok, even though I said I was not gonna play your game, here we go...
The way I understand it (and take with this the understanding, I am just a little over a year out of the Catechumenate, so I could be giving a bad description simply out of need for further study), it is not the antinomianism in and of itself that causes one to lose their salvation, the antinomianism would be a symptom of a loss of their faith and giving into the constant harassing of the Old Man and shipwrecking your faith rather than going back to your baptism through repentance and looking to God for the forgiveness of sins, even in the midst of the sins we commit as Christians because of the attack of the Old Man within us. Just as we would say that a man can be regenerated by the very Word of God preached and proclaimed, and fall away.
Baptism is a means, just like God's Word spoken to another, for the purpose of regeneration. Just like we would say that forgiveness is given us in both the Sacraments (the Lord's Supper and Baptism) and the Word. There is not a single means through which God acts through to give us his gifts.
The footnote in the Wikipedia article traced it to an article written by Augustus Lawrence Graebner in the Luther Cyclopedia published in 1899. Graebner also has a book published by Concordia Piblishing House in 1892 on American Lutheran Church history, see http://openlibrary.org/authors/OL6024849A/Augustus_Lawrence_Graebner
Me: "Did Luther believe that someone could have so much antinomianism that they could lose their baptismal regeneration?"
Justin "it is not the antinomianism in and of itself that causes one to lose their salvation, the antinomianism would be a symptom of a loss of their faith and giving into the constant harassing of the Old Man and shipwrecking your faith"
So are Lutherans saying that baptismal regeneration can be, and sometimes is, a temporary thing? After all, if a baptized Lutheran loses their faith and gives into the "constant harassing of the Old Man" and apostasizes, then they're no longer regenerate, are they?
An apostate Lutheran, even though they've been baptized, is no longer regenerate. Ergo, their original baptismal regeneration was of a temporary nature. Yes?
TuaD,
Like I said, I could be giving a incorrect picture of of doctrine out of ignorance, but from what I understand regeneration would leave an indelible mark that until death can always reassert itself and bring the person back to faith. So even an apostate can return to their faith, but one that never does the regeneration would be temporary, so to speak. Regeneration "sticks" only as long as the means through which God provides it life, which is faith, is active in the individual, but the mark of regeneration will always be there even if faith dies in the person the seed is in, and will become active again the moment faith is present.
Justin
Little note on my last comment since I may have been a little unclear...
"regeneration would leave an indelible mark that until death can always reassert itself and bring the person back to faith"
That should really read, "person back to salvation"...
Justin: "So even an apostate can return to their faith, but one that never does the regeneration would be temporary, so to speak."
Within Lutheran theology, that's consistent.
So a baptismally regenerated Lutheran could, with loss of faith in the end, die as a baptized unregenerate Lutheran and go to Hell.
TuaD: "So a baptismally regenerated Lutheran could, with loss of faith in the end, die as a baptized unregenerate Lutheran and go to Hell."
Yeah...a tree without water withers and dies.
And this is hardly news to you, as it has been stated to you multiple times by commenters on Veith's blog.
What is the point of constantly bringing Lutherans to the say the same thing over and over?
Justin
Justin: "What is the point of constantly bringing Lutherans to the say the same thing over and over?"
(1) Not all baptized Lutherans are aware that a baptized Lutheran can go to Hell. They think their baptism saves them.
(2) The nature and understanding and teaching on the meaning of the theological term "regeneration."
Lutherans teach that it can be a temporal effect.
Others teach that regeneration lasts throughout life. And cannot be lost.
Martin Yee said...
The footnote in the Wikipedia article traced it to an article written by Augustus Lawrence Graebner in the Luther Cyclopedia published in 1899.
OK, I found this reference. Upon a cursory skim of the entry, I don't see it anywhere saying Luther coined the term. I skimmed the entry quickly, but it appears to only describe Luther's battle with Agricola. Perhaps though it's there somewhere in the entry and I missed it.
http://books.google.com/books?id=H3NBAAAAYAAJ&dq=editions%3APvOVXlusAT0C&pg=PA18#v=onepage&q&f=false
Sorry guys, you're free to duke this one out, but I'm swamped with some other things at the moment. I'm Reformed, so I don't have any problem not agreeing with Luther's view. It's another occassion to chew the meat and spit out the bones. Keep in mind, I have that same paradigm for everything In read (except the Scriptures).
I have addressed this subject from time to time, here are two examples, I'm sure a search of the blog would reveal more-
On The Sacraments and "Reason": Differences Between Lutherans and the Reformed
Luther: Only Unbelief Causes Damnation
For other sources, from a Reformed perspective, this article at least outlines Luther's view and contrasts it with a Reformed perspective.
For standard Reformed sources I would use to define baptism in Lutheranism, see
Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (New Combined Edition) p. 477.
A.A. Hodge, Outlines of Theology (Revised edition), pp. 628-629.
James,
Wow! That article by D. Patrick Ramsey was terrific! Thanks for referring me to it!
Very insightful and well-researched and well-argued.
Here's one passage (among many) that stood out:
"A related problem is that Luther’s view of the efficacy of baptism is in tension with his belief that baptism signifies and accomplishes full and complete justification. This tension is created by the fact that baptized people apostatize. Since people apostatize then either baptism does not save infants or complete justification is not given in baptism. Though both options are unacceptable to Luther, the fact that the work of baptism is not completed until death lends itself to the latter. Interestingly, in order to resolve this tension, later Lutheranism taught that what is given in baptism can be lost."
Yes, it is a good article.
What's important to me, is not so much that Lutherans and Reformed disagree, but rather that we disagree with a correct representation of each other's views.
I admit that the Lutheran position on baptism is confusing, and I would further posit that a lot of Lutherans are confused about it as well.
We Lutherans love tension. :)
To add to the tension you have already mentioned that comes from our view on Baptism and Justification, I would say you would need to add in a bit of tension from the Lutheran view of Election as well.
"I admit that the Lutheran position on baptism is confusing, and I would further posit that a lot of Lutherans are confused about it as well."
Thanks James.
"We Lutherans love tension. :)"
There are different kinds of tension. Lutheran tension is not the good or helpful kind.
There are legitimate appeals to mystery and paradox. And there are illegitimate appeals to mystery and paradox.
And some folks sweep embarrassing stupidity under the rug named Mystery and hope no one notices.
TuaD: "And some folks sweep embarrassing stupidity under the rug named Mystery and hope no one notices."
Does this accurately describe Lutherans?
Oh no. Lutherans never do that.
;-)
TUAD,
"...a baptismally regenerated Lutheran could, with loss of faith in the end, die as a baptized unregenerate Lutheran and go to Hell."
I am no theologian but I am pretty sure that is not correct. An apostate Christian who was damned would be like the unregenerate person in the sense that he would die in his sins but it would still be incorrect to say that he is "unregenerate" since that would literally mean that he had never been born again:
"un" = "not;"
"re-" = "again;"
"generate" = "born."
There is nothing in the reality of apostasy and the possibility of losing one's salvation that should shake the believer's confidence, since he correctly knows with certainty that he is saved and trusts in Christ alone for his salvation. The apostate unbeliever would have good reason not to be confident of his salvation, but he almost certainly wouldn't care or believe in salvation anyway.
I cannot think of what that has to do with antinomianism and don't understand why you connected the two very different issues. I guess a Christian who went so far as to turn away from his salvation might turn toward some kind of "antinomianism" (and other errors as well) but that would most likely be the antinomianism of the libertine or hedonistic atheist who wants to do his own thing. Such a person would again have good reason to doubt his salvation but he would not likely be troubled by it until and unless God led him to repentance.
Steelikat,
I have read Lutheran pastors unhappily observing the antinomianism of some baptized Lutherans. These baptized antinomian Lutherans seemingly had the outworkings of a de facto belief in "Once baptized, always saved."
That is a problem of the Lutheran going against the teachings of their own Confessions, not Lutheran theology itself, TuaD. The person who believes in some odd, nonconfessional teaching, such as "once baptized, always saved" is believing it contra the very Confessions they say they hold, not because of the theology taught within them.
Justin
Justin,
TUAD likes to stir up controversy. He does it at Triablogue too. I just ignore him now.
LOL! You should ignore triablogue too, schultz.
Justin,
Do you think instruction in Lutheran parishes, catechisms, and Sunday school classes do a good job in making sure in making sure Lutherans don't subscribe to the erroneous belief of "once baptized, always saved"?
TuaD,
Just like any church body, the quality of teaching ranges from parish to parish, as does the level of Confessionalism. My particular church does quite well at maintaining a Confessional stance and pretty decent teaching.
Justin
Just like any church body, the quality of teaching ranges from parish to parish, as does the level of Confessionalism. My particular church does quite well at maintaining a Confessional stance and pretty decent teaching.
Yes, that follows.
It's the same even in my denomination. The people in my church are supposed to know something called "The Three Forms of Unity." Do they all know it? probably not.
did Luther coin the term "born again"?
thank you!
Jesus might have had something to do with its dissemination.
Matthew is right.
Luther did not coin this term. It certainly appears throughout his writings.
Luther certainly used the term antinomian (http://www.nlnrac.org/node/251); whether or not he was the first to use it is hard to prove.
I would argue that Luther was antinomian himself. His original theses opposed the corruptions of papal law and sought to spread the gospel by removing the gospel from legalistic language (latin) to make it accessible to many (german) and he preached salvation by internal rather than external force. Agricola, his former student, to whom "Against the Antinomians" was directed, took the law breaking a step further (as students are wont to do) by stating that true christians needn't follow mosaic law at all since they are In-Formed entirely by the law of the gospel. They are righteous. Luther was righteous. So was Agricola. And so on (Anne Hutchinson, Roger Williams, Martin Luther King, Jr, and all those who break a rotting human law for the sake of higher law).
Hi Caroline:
On a basic level, yes, Luther was an antinomian just like both you and I are antinomians. Every time a sin is committed against against a holy God, humans- whether, you, I, or Luther we prove that we are blatant law breakers and law haters.
But on a basic historical level: Luther was not an antinomian. I've written about this on the blog here a number of times over the years.
Post a Comment