Antinomianism

Antinomianism means “no law” or “against law” and it obviously falls into the category of non-absolutism. The idea is that there are no binding moral laws; everything is relative.

Among the ancients antinomianism was embodied in such philosophical systems as processism, hedonism, and skepticism. Processism means everything is in flux or changing, nothing is being, everything is becoming or in process, thus its name. This works out ethically that values are as transitional as situations, thus there are no absolute moral laws. Second is hedonism, which is the pursuit of pleasure. The idea here is that pleasure is essentially good and pain is essentially bad, so then proper ethical values are measured by what results in the most pleasure and the least pain. Thirdly, skepticism says all judgment should be reserved because no one knows. So then there is no established basis or absolute moral law by which to question the value of others.

In the medieval world antinomianism came to bear in thinking such as intentionalism, voluntarism, and nominaliam. Intentionalism says that right is determined by one’s intent. Thus matters not how horrific the results, or even how detestable the means, it is the thought that matters. Voluntarism says that right is something that is changeable. Although the human moral code is willed by God, it is not based in God’s immutable nature, but is only a set of principles that God has, with options to do otherwise, chosen for humanity. Thus generally what is right depends on one’s view of God or religion and not any absolute moral value system. Third is nominalism, which affirms that only particular things exist. That is everything is to be viewed as individualist and independent of all other things. Therefore there can be no universal moral code, because there is no universal form or essence. Every person and each act must be considered on an individual basis.

Antinomianism in the modern world was intrinsic in such philosophies as utilitarianism, existentialism, and evolutionism. Utilitarianism taught that right is what ultimately produces the greater good for the greatest number. However this differs from society to society as the electing individuals are different, thus there can be no universal absolutes. Good in this ideal is ultimately defined as pleasure. Existentialism espouses that the highest duty is beyond moral law. While moral law is normative, one’s existential purpose may call for a defiance of moral law. Again the reduction here is that no moral law binds the individual; rather, he is duty bound to pursue the passion of his existential search. Evolutionism defines right as whatever aids in the evolutionary process. Understanding that the evolutionary process is the survival of the fittest, the reduction comes down to anything goes – ethical anarchy. Every individual is without any universal moral code.

The contemporary forms of antinomianism are emotivism, nihilism, and situationism. Emotivism says that all ethical statements originate as an expression of the passions of men. Thus all ethics are individualistic at best. There is no absolute moral code. Nihilism proposes that every man must will his own good. Good is relative to what empowers the individual. Thus again anything goes and no universal code binds the individual. Situationism means no ethic is for all people at all times. Circumstances determine what is right and wrong.

The unifying principles of antinomianism are 1) there are no God-given moral laws, 2) There are no objective moral laws, 3) there are no timeless moral laws, and 4) there is no universal prohibition against laws, leaving laws subject to the individual or society.

Antinomianism gives a superficial ethic in that it boast an emphasis on individual responsibility, heart-felt or emotive ethics, personal relationships, and a finite ethic in keeping with the finitude of human nature.

All forms of antinomianism are self-defeating. The denial of absolute moral law is self-destructive. To declare that there are no universal laws is itself a universal law. There is no such thing as a pure antinomian. It establishes rules for others like “never say ‘never’” or “always is always wrong,” yet in doing so it contradicts its own principle.

Antinomianism is overly subjective, too individualistic, totally irrational, and plainly ineffective. It offers no objectivity whereby subjectivity can truly exist; subjectivity requires objectivity. It is at the end of the day nothing. Its individualism offers no real foundation whereby a society can be built, much less be sustained. It is irrational in that its logic folds in on itself in contradiction by establishing what it denies. Finally, it is ineffective in that pure antinomian cannot even establish itself, much less any other relationship; it is anti-establishment.

All forms of antinomianism are non-Christian. It is codified in the biblical period of the Judges. This was a time in biblical history where the Jews had no human king. The phrase that characterizes that time is “Every man did what was right in his own eyes.” This was certainly one of the most aimless periods in the bible. The only thing that answers this troublesome time was the establishment of a sovereign. As weak and inadequate as the king of their choosing was, it testifies that some universal rule is better than none.