“Anything goes” antinomianism could be also expressed as libertine antinomianism if one is speaking of the variety that says the Christian cannot really sin regardless of what they do. This was common among some of the Gnostics.
The kind of Antinomianism we see more of in our day (beginning with the “Free Grace” movement of Zane Hodges et al. and morphing just a bit in the newer form as seen in teachers such as Joseph Prince) is essentially Sandemanian Antinomianism (a heresy associated with an eighteenth century movement) rather than libertine Antinomianism.
Sandemanianism did not directly say that anything goes in the sense that anything was approved of but just said that everyone was OK who gave mental assent to the gospel. Thus, those who made a profession could live as they pleased even though the leaders did not necessarily endorse this behavior. It is still “anything goes” as regards salvation even if the teachers and leaders profess not to endorse sin.
Joseph Prince has embraced this by espousing unconditional security without the need for the perseverance of the saints. This semi-Calvinist view is an unorthodox one that gives comfort to those who have never evidenced a changed life (Prince even asserts that repentance does not involve a turning from sin). I have spoken to a homosexual follower of Prince who acknowledged what the Bible said about his lifestyle. He was not concerned, however, because he was sure God saw it as no big deal in spite of what the Bible said.
One of the chief characteristics of the new Antinomianism as it has developed in the 21st century is that it insists that we must never speak of do’s and don’ts and can never use words such as “should” or “ought.” All of life must be subjective spontaneity and those who offer any word of exhortation (such as those found in the NT) are presenting a “legalistic ministration of death.”
Relativism and Antinomianism: It's Mostly About Sex | Apologetics Index
I do often wonder where some people get their information, so thanks for posting this link.
I can't abide Joseph Prince, or other Word Faith teachers, so does that make me ok in the eyes of whoever wrote this? I got my information on soteriology first from the Bible. Then, in seminary, in theology, we learned about all the different kinds of soteriology.
Yes, that is right- all the kinds. Because there are more than just Armininans and Calvinists. In fact, there are those who believe in eternal security, who definitely preach sin, and believe that Jesus died for their sin. Just like the Bible says!
And for me personally, I am always aware of the New Testament sin lists. I have sinned since I was saved, but God also showed me my sin, which meant I was required to repent. As many times as it took. And I am sure I will keep on sinning, till Jesus appears, or I die.
So that is the big difference between me and an Arminian. I believe that the only way to overcome sin, is to walk with Jesus. And the Holy Spirit leads and guides us into repentance. Otherwise, what would be the point of the Holy Spirit being in our hearts, and writing the law on our hearts? If we could become sinless of our own accord, the Holy Spirit could just touch us briefly and then be gone.
Instead, the promise of the Holy Spirit is for our entire lives. And for me, that is a very good thing. Just like I couldn't save myself, I cannot sancitify myself.
I have said this over and over - please do not confuse justification with sanctification. Justification starts our journey with Christ, sanctification continues our journey with Christ and glorification is reserved for when we return.
It seems like people here in this thread do not understand that our entire walk with Christ is our sanctification. We are justified by God. (See Romans 5:1 and the word "justify" in the Aorist passive.) Then the same God sanctifies us!
But then, I have written about this over and over, and some people still don't get what I have written. But then, some people have me on ignore, so they are not able to read what I have written.
It's a strange thing to me. I was contemplating how so many have others on ignore for what they believe. They continue to argue in thread after thread, but they are not reading, discussing, refuting what those on ignore have said. I guess that is a mystery to me!
Feel free to explain how you can properly discuss when you have half the forum on ignore. (I'm hoping someone is reading this and can give the message to their friends.)
