Friends, I’ve got five posts that I need to complete and publish, but I simply don’t have the emotional energy. I found out this week that I have to go on complete vocal rest for the next week, and am scheduled to have surgery to remove some nodules from my vocal cords on the 28th of February.
Your prayers would be appreciated.
I read two articles today that I would commend to you for your perusal. The first is from The Daily Beast, and the second can be found at The Gospel Coalition.
I’ll be posting a response to the first article tomorrow.
Originally, today’s post was going to cover the early history of antinomianism, but after going through my notes, I’ve decided to cover that next week, and to come at the problem of antinomianism from another angle for today’s post.
For the past four years, I’ve been researching both legalism and antinomianism, only to come to something of an odd realization: I’m pretty sure they’re actually two sides of the same coin, and you can actually fall into legalism and antinomianism simultaneously.
For those of you who are unaware, we have a comments policy here at Southern Reformation. Please give it a thorough perusal, as it has recently been updated.
Those of you who have read my review posts on The Truth About New Calvinism, by Mr. Paul Dohse, Sr. know that I am sympathetic with his concerns about antinomianism, particularly in the Presbyterian and Reformed world.
But that sympathy actually raises a far more crucial question: What is antinomianism?
In other words, how exactly should we define antinomian or antinomianism? After all, if we want to offer a critique of a particular theological position, we ought to be able to at least define what the position is.
We’ll start our posts covering On the Incarnation beginning on Tuesday. If your reading along with me, read sections 1-4 and we’ll discuss them starting on the 18th.