What do you think?
Rate this book
Antinomianism: Reformed Theology's Unwelcome Guest?
an ti no mi an noun "One who holds that under the gospel dispensation of grace the moral law is of no use or obligation because faith alone is necessary to salvation." Merriam-Webster's dictionary
Hotly debated since the sixteenth century in the Reformed theological tradition, and still a burning issue today, antinomianism has a long and complicated story.
This book is the first to examine antinomianism from a historical, exegetical, and systematic perspective. More than that, in it Mark Jones offers a key a robust Reformed Christology with a strong emphasis on the Holy Spirit and chapter by chapter uses it to unlock nine questions raised by the debates.
Hotly debated since the sixteenth century in the Reformed theological tradition, and still a burning issue today, antinomianism has a long and complicated story.
This book is the first to examine antinomianism from a historical, exegetical, and systematic perspective. More than that, in it Mark Jones offers a key a robust Reformed Christology with a strong emphasis on the Holy Spirit and chapter by chapter uses it to unlock nine questions raised by the debates.
145 pages, Paperback
First published August 1, 2013
42 people are currently reading
357 people want to read
About the author
Mark Jones
29 books79 followersLibrarian Note: There is more than one author in the Goodreads database with this name.
Rev. Dr. Mark Jones (PhD, Leiden Universiteit) has been the Minister at Faith Vancouver Church (PCA) since 2007. He is also Research Associate in the Faculty of Theology at University of the Free State, Bloemfontein, South Africa. He lectures at various seminaries around the world and is currently writing a book titled, "Knowing Christ" (Banner of Truth, forthcoming).
He also blogs at Reformation21.org.
Rev. Dr. Mark Jones (PhD, Leiden Universiteit) has been the Minister at Faith Vancouver Church (PCA) since 2007. He is also Research Associate in the Faculty of Theology at University of the Free State, Bloemfontein, South Africa. He lectures at various seminaries around the world and is currently writing a book titled, "Knowing Christ" (Banner of Truth, forthcoming).
He also blogs at Reformation21.org.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 88 reviews
June 23, 2023
This book was an excellent introduction to a topic that is very difficult to address with any sort of clarity. The best thing about the book was his emphasis on Christology and specifically our union with Christ. That union does not just affect our justification, but also our sanctification. Christ tends to be a magic word for many antinomians in our age. So his use of Christ to defeat it was excellent.
The other impressive thing about the book was the precision with which he addresses the issue. He carefully defines his terms and uses a lot of definitions and clarifications to make sure his point his made.
He uses the historical debates of the 16 and 1700's to frame the discussion.
I wish he had given some more practical applications for how pastors can address this issue. And I wish he had mentioned more names. The only contemporary man he mentions is Tullian Tchividjian. [Upon second reading I am glad he did not mention more names. It keeps the book from becoming too anchored to one particular time.]
He made me very interested in reading more about the subject.
The other impressive thing about the book was the precision with which he addresses the issue. He carefully defines his terms and uses a lot of definitions and clarifications to make sure his point his made.
He uses the historical debates of the 16 and 1700's to frame the discussion.
I wish he had given some more practical applications for how pastors can address this issue. And I wish he had mentioned more names. The only contemporary man he mentions is Tullian Tchividjian. [Upon second reading I am glad he did not mention more names. It keeps the book from becoming too anchored to one particular time.]
He made me very interested in reading more about the subject.
December 3, 2013
Right off the bat, Mark Jones wins a great deal of sympathy for tackling a tricky topic such as "Antinomianism". It's hardly ever been addressed, especially in the form of a recently released historical study. And yet, this is an important topic, with many pastoral implications.
When it comes to theology, balance and careful attention to biblical nuances is vital, and Mr. Jones does a good job of delicately treating this sensitive area. He affirms and upholds the classic Protestant doctrine of justification by faith apart from works, but with careful precision affirms and insists upon the necessity of works in regard to sanctification, and in a sense, salvation broadly considered.
It should be noted, however, that this book is more of a historical rather than exegetical treatment. Much of it focuses on looking at the subject from a post-Reformation perspective, particularly within the circles of the English Puritans. He draws heavily from Anthony Burgess, John Owen, Herman Witsius, and the like.
Jones shows how being an antinomian is far more than being simply "against the law". It is very much wrapped up in how we view other theological concepts, and ultimately how we view Christ himself. One of the best aspects of this book is its emphasis on the work of Christ and the work of the Spirit. Jones emphasizes the importance of having a proper Christology, and ties the error of antinomianism to a deficient Christology.
Antinomianism mocks the very idea of the "imitation of Christ". It attempts to drive a strict wedge between promise and duty. There is a incipient discomfort with the thought that the gospel makes demands. . It focuses on justification to the extreme of neglecting the doctrine of sanctification. It recoils away from the Biblical truth that the law, accompanied by the Spirit, has a role to play in sanctification. It is not satisfied to maintain a law/gospel distinction in regard to justification, it must bring it into sanctification as well. It avoids or downplays the idea that in Christ, the law is a friend. Though it refuses to admit it is "against the law", it ultimately has a negative and diminished view of the role of the law in the believer's life. It is also highly uncomfortable with emphasizing the importance and necessity of good works.
This book suggests that this incipient "antinomianism" is currently quite popular in some circles. He succeeds in showing, *almost* without naming any names, that some strains of thought at large in the broadly Reformed community have much more in common with the English Antinomians than it does with the Westminster Assembly.
In avoiding error in this regard, we need to be careful to preserve the biblical "both-and", rather than falling into either-or thinking. Jones, going against the grain of many current teachers such as Tullian Tchividjian, that "sanctification is not 'simply' the art of getting used to our justification" (a catchy but unhelpful and inaccurate platitude).
Jones offers a lot of good insights. He also gives a good analysis of the rhetoric of Antinomianism. Frequently, Antinomians are in more serious error in what they fail to say than in what they do say. And Antinomian preaching is actually fundamentally "boring"--it often repeats mantras and "cute" phrases without getting to the heart of Christ and His person and work.
Ultimately, Jones powerfully demonstrates that the error of Antinomianism will not be fixed by swinging over to the other extreme of Neonomianism, since "Swinging the pendulum too far in the other direction has never effectively combated error".
The solution, ultimately, lies in a careful balance and, ultimately, a good Christology! To Jones, the solution to antinomianism is "to understand and love the person and work of Christ". Jones concludes the book in a fitting way. He concludes that the way to fight against “the Golden white devil” (Samuel Rutherford's way of describing Antinomianism) is by means of Jesus Christ, the one who is “chief among ten thousand”.
I would say that Mr. Jones is, intentionally I think, a bit provocative at a few points. No doubt, some people will "cry foul". After all, this book is rather bold, but I believe it provides a much needed corrective. I look forward to seeing the fruits of the discussions this book will undoubtedly provoke.
Much of the controversy that will no doubt arise over this book will be unjustified. That is not to say that there wasn't a point or two that made me raise my eyebrows (which would be consistent with Mr. Jones' attempt to be a bit provocative). And there might be a few areas that might require a bit further discussion and hashing out. That said, it's a solid work and quite on the mark.
I highly recommend this book if you are looking for a relatively comprehensive and searching treatment of the subject, especially if you are most interested at approaching it from a historical perspective.
When it comes to theology, balance and careful attention to biblical nuances is vital, and Mr. Jones does a good job of delicately treating this sensitive area. He affirms and upholds the classic Protestant doctrine of justification by faith apart from works, but with careful precision affirms and insists upon the necessity of works in regard to sanctification, and in a sense, salvation broadly considered.
It should be noted, however, that this book is more of a historical rather than exegetical treatment. Much of it focuses on looking at the subject from a post-Reformation perspective, particularly within the circles of the English Puritans. He draws heavily from Anthony Burgess, John Owen, Herman Witsius, and the like.
Jones shows how being an antinomian is far more than being simply "against the law". It is very much wrapped up in how we view other theological concepts, and ultimately how we view Christ himself. One of the best aspects of this book is its emphasis on the work of Christ and the work of the Spirit. Jones emphasizes the importance of having a proper Christology, and ties the error of antinomianism to a deficient Christology.
Antinomianism mocks the very idea of the "imitation of Christ". It attempts to drive a strict wedge between promise and duty. There is a incipient discomfort with the thought that the gospel makes demands. . It focuses on justification to the extreme of neglecting the doctrine of sanctification. It recoils away from the Biblical truth that the law, accompanied by the Spirit, has a role to play in sanctification. It is not satisfied to maintain a law/gospel distinction in regard to justification, it must bring it into sanctification as well. It avoids or downplays the idea that in Christ, the law is a friend. Though it refuses to admit it is "against the law", it ultimately has a negative and diminished view of the role of the law in the believer's life. It is also highly uncomfortable with emphasizing the importance and necessity of good works.
This book suggests that this incipient "antinomianism" is currently quite popular in some circles. He succeeds in showing, *almost* without naming any names, that some strains of thought at large in the broadly Reformed community have much more in common with the English Antinomians than it does with the Westminster Assembly.
In avoiding error in this regard, we need to be careful to preserve the biblical "both-and", rather than falling into either-or thinking. Jones, going against the grain of many current teachers such as Tullian Tchividjian, that "sanctification is not 'simply' the art of getting used to our justification" (a catchy but unhelpful and inaccurate platitude).
Jones offers a lot of good insights. He also gives a good analysis of the rhetoric of Antinomianism. Frequently, Antinomians are in more serious error in what they fail to say than in what they do say. And Antinomian preaching is actually fundamentally "boring"--it often repeats mantras and "cute" phrases without getting to the heart of Christ and His person and work.
Ultimately, Jones powerfully demonstrates that the error of Antinomianism will not be fixed by swinging over to the other extreme of Neonomianism, since "Swinging the pendulum too far in the other direction has never effectively combated error".
The solution, ultimately, lies in a careful balance and, ultimately, a good Christology! To Jones, the solution to antinomianism is "to understand and love the person and work of Christ". Jones concludes the book in a fitting way. He concludes that the way to fight against “the Golden white devil” (Samuel Rutherford's way of describing Antinomianism) is by means of Jesus Christ, the one who is “chief among ten thousand”.
I would say that Mr. Jones is, intentionally I think, a bit provocative at a few points. No doubt, some people will "cry foul". After all, this book is rather bold, but I believe it provides a much needed corrective. I look forward to seeing the fruits of the discussions this book will undoubtedly provoke.
Much of the controversy that will no doubt arise over this book will be unjustified. That is not to say that there wasn't a point or two that made me raise my eyebrows (which would be consistent with Mr. Jones' attempt to be a bit provocative). And there might be a few areas that might require a bit further discussion and hashing out. That said, it's a solid work and quite on the mark.
I highly recommend this book if you are looking for a relatively comprehensive and searching treatment of the subject, especially if you are most interested at approaching it from a historical perspective.
December 21, 2013
This is a great short book on the law in the life of the believer. The book focuses on the antinomian controversies in the 17th and early 18th centuries in England and New England.
The book is ostensibly written to oppose the antinomian rhetoric that has appeared in the church of late, but the book itself deals almost exclusively with the Puritan controversy and the resulting literature.
There are some great quotes in the book, many are too long to quote fully here, but one of the best things in the book is the way Jones frames law-keeping in the New Covenant. He writes:
"Because of the greater indicatives of the new covenant, the imperatives are not relaxed, but in fact are strengthened. There are a number of examples in the New Testament that confirm this truth, but John 13:34 seems to be the best and clearest example. Jesus speaks of the ‘new commandment’ to love one another in the same way as he has loved them. Readers who are familiar with the Old testament might find Jesus’ words a little perplexing, because the so-called ‘new’ commandment seems to be identical to several Old Testament laws, not to mention the fact that the second table of the law is summed up as ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself (Mark 12:31). Indeed, Leviticus 19:33-34 and Deuteronomy 15:12-18 seem to be commanding the Israelites to love one another as God has loved them. However, the command in the Old Testament to love ‘as I have loved you’ has specific reference to the exodus of God’s people out of Egypt. God’s gracious dealings with his ‘treasured possession’ (the indicative’ provides the reason why they in turn should show the same type of graciousness (the imperative). Christ’s words, ‘as I have loved you’ (John 13:34), are directly connected to his own act of humiliation in John 13:9 foot washing) and his sacrificial death on the cross (Phil. 2:5-11). Christ’s humiliation and sacrifice point to a new way in which believers are to love one another. And this model of love is a greater model of love than what is found in the Old Testament, since it was ontologically impossible for God to act in sacrificial love toward his people. In other words, it was the incarnation that made a suffering love possible, and therefore it was only after the incarnation that this heightened form of love could be required on the basis of Christ’s own example. Therefore, contrary to antinomianism, the New Testament heightens, not lessens the place of the moral law in the life of the believer, for the indicative has been heightened through Christ’s mediatorial work.” p. 37-38
That is great stuff, and it is the kind of thing you'll find throughout the book. Antinomian preachers focus almost exclusively on justification and say little, if anything of sanctification. This is something I've seen firsthand myself, and it took me a while to recognize what was happening, but Jones puts it on full display--it is antinomian rhetoric that truncates the gospel--or as Jones calls it--the half-gospel. It loses the "transformative power."
Antinomians speak of the good works of believers as 'filthy rags' but Jones points out that "This verse is not speaking about good works, but about outward displays of religiosity..." p. 69-70
He brings the Puritans in for his defense, quoting many--especially Anthony Burgess, John Owen, Francis Turretin and others. In this particular example--he argues that the "good works" of the believer are good because they are spirit-wrought. He quotes Turretin here:
"The works of believers are good because they are performed ‘by a special motion and impulse of the Holy Spirit, who dwells in the hearts of believers and excites them to good works. It is actually an affront to God to suggest that Spirit-wrought works in believers are ‘filthy rags,’ for these are works that God has prepared in advance for us to do in order to magnify his grace and glorify the name of Christ (1 Cor. 15:10; John 15:5). The truth is, God is pleased by the works of his people. As Turretin notes, ‘The first cause of their acceptance is Christ, in whom we are pleasing to God (Eph. 1:6) because the person is rather pleasing to God and is reconciled to him by the Mediator.’" p. 70-71
This is highly, highly recommended reading. The church needs to hear this today, as antinomianism is "Reformed Theology's Unwelcome Guest."
The book is ostensibly written to oppose the antinomian rhetoric that has appeared in the church of late, but the book itself deals almost exclusively with the Puritan controversy and the resulting literature.
There are some great quotes in the book, many are too long to quote fully here, but one of the best things in the book is the way Jones frames law-keeping in the New Covenant. He writes:
"Because of the greater indicatives of the new covenant, the imperatives are not relaxed, but in fact are strengthened. There are a number of examples in the New Testament that confirm this truth, but John 13:34 seems to be the best and clearest example. Jesus speaks of the ‘new commandment’ to love one another in the same way as he has loved them. Readers who are familiar with the Old testament might find Jesus’ words a little perplexing, because the so-called ‘new’ commandment seems to be identical to several Old Testament laws, not to mention the fact that the second table of the law is summed up as ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself (Mark 12:31). Indeed, Leviticus 19:33-34 and Deuteronomy 15:12-18 seem to be commanding the Israelites to love one another as God has loved them. However, the command in the Old Testament to love ‘as I have loved you’ has specific reference to the exodus of God’s people out of Egypt. God’s gracious dealings with his ‘treasured possession’ (the indicative’ provides the reason why they in turn should show the same type of graciousness (the imperative). Christ’s words, ‘as I have loved you’ (John 13:34), are directly connected to his own act of humiliation in John 13:9 foot washing) and his sacrificial death on the cross (Phil. 2:5-11). Christ’s humiliation and sacrifice point to a new way in which believers are to love one another. And this model of love is a greater model of love than what is found in the Old Testament, since it was ontologically impossible for God to act in sacrificial love toward his people. In other words, it was the incarnation that made a suffering love possible, and therefore it was only after the incarnation that this heightened form of love could be required on the basis of Christ’s own example. Therefore, contrary to antinomianism, the New Testament heightens, not lessens the place of the moral law in the life of the believer, for the indicative has been heightened through Christ’s mediatorial work.” p. 37-38
That is great stuff, and it is the kind of thing you'll find throughout the book. Antinomian preachers focus almost exclusively on justification and say little, if anything of sanctification. This is something I've seen firsthand myself, and it took me a while to recognize what was happening, but Jones puts it on full display--it is antinomian rhetoric that truncates the gospel--or as Jones calls it--the half-gospel. It loses the "transformative power."
Antinomians speak of the good works of believers as 'filthy rags' but Jones points out that "This verse is not speaking about good works, but about outward displays of religiosity..." p. 69-70
He brings the Puritans in for his defense, quoting many--especially Anthony Burgess, John Owen, Francis Turretin and others. In this particular example--he argues that the "good works" of the believer are good because they are spirit-wrought. He quotes Turretin here:
"The works of believers are good because they are performed ‘by a special motion and impulse of the Holy Spirit, who dwells in the hearts of believers and excites them to good works. It is actually an affront to God to suggest that Spirit-wrought works in believers are ‘filthy rags,’ for these are works that God has prepared in advance for us to do in order to magnify his grace and glorify the name of Christ (1 Cor. 15:10; John 15:5). The truth is, God is pleased by the works of his people. As Turretin notes, ‘The first cause of their acceptance is Christ, in whom we are pleasing to God (Eph. 1:6) because the person is rather pleasing to God and is reconciled to him by the Mediator.’" p. 70-71
This is highly, highly recommended reading. The church needs to hear this today, as antinomianism is "Reformed Theology's Unwelcome Guest."
February 2, 2026
Mark Jones’s Antinomianism: Reformed Theology’s Unwelcome Guest? is one of the finest and most helpful books on Reformed soteriology that I have read. Denying that antinomianism can simply be defined as a denial of the third use of the law, Jones approaches the position with historical awareness and pastoral sensitivity. Uniquely, and very insightfully, Jones also points out how the subtle differences between antinomianism and Reformed orthodoxy are rooted in christology, not simply a different understanding of the law. Everything the believer has in Christ (i.e., Christ’s benefits), was given to and possessed already by Christ (e.g., Christ, trusting in the Father by faith, was justified in his resurrection; Christ, by looking to the promises of God and the inward working and fruits of the Holy Spirit, experience assurance of the Father’s faithfulness in his life and ministry; by virtue of our union with Christ, we now have justification and can have assurance of salvation, for the benefits of knowing Christ cannot be separated from his Person).
Jones focuses mainly on the 16th-17th century antinomian controversies for the exposition of the common denominators that make up the broad antinomian position. It is important to note how what we label antinomianism is an abstract label meant to characterize a theological position on a specific issue. There were very few theologians who self-consciously and explicitly identified themselves as antinomian. Moreover, the theologians that were labeled antinomian in their day by no means constitute a monolithic movement or system. Jones therefore works through seven specific doctrinal/pastoral issues that characterize the antinomian position: 1) conflation of impetration and application (i.e., redemption accomplished and redemption applied). Antinomianism places such a high emphasis on the imputation and working of Christ’s righteousness to and in the believer that personal obedience was consumed under Christ’s obedience. “Antinomians take the truth that Christ achieved perfect obedience on behalf of the believer—what is commonly referred to as the active obedience of Christ—and wrongly deduce that when the believer performs any act, it is actually Christ doing so immediately by his Spirit” (27). The orthodox Reformed affirmed that the application of redemption involves true and genuine acts of the believer; “faith…is both the gift of God and the act of man” (28). 2) The denial of the third use of the law, namely that the moral law serves as a guide for the Christian’s obedience to God. Antinomians of course affirmed that Christians were to live righteously; it is just that the law is not meant to serve that function. “Rutherford sums up the issue well by claiming that the antinomians ‘make all duties a matter of courtesy’s (36). The Reformed orthodox, on the other hand, affirm that the moral law has always functioned as the guiding principle for the Christian life and sanctification. 3) Closely related to the antinomian denial of the third use of the law is the elevation of justification as the most important element of the gospel. “If the gospel is roughly synonymous with justification, then it has nothing to do with what happens ‘in’ believers, but only with what happens ‘for believers’” (46). The orthodox Reformed distinction between the gospel narrowly conceived (forensic, impetration, redemptive-historical, indicative) and the gospel broadly conceived (renovative, application, existential, imperative) is lost. Due to this, any prescriptive element in the gospel is lost; commands and threats cannot be understood as genuinely applying to the believer in any real sense. The orthodox Reformed are able to maintain the prescriptive element of the gospel by invoking the category of evangelical obedience, as opposed to legal obedience: “because of our union with Christ, and all that that means, Christians can actually pray… that God… gives what he demands and demands whatever he pleases (Heb. 13:21) in other words, Christian’s can answer to the legal demands of the law in their justification in and through Christ and also the gospel demands of the law in their sanctification by the Spirit” (53). Rather than one benefit causing the rest (justification causing the motivation to live righteously in the antinomian schema), all of the benefits of salvation come by means of union with Christ: “union with Christ is the ground of both justification and sanctification, but Christ is the meritorious cause of both” (58). 4) the denial of good works in the Christian life and corresponding rewards. Antinomians affirmed that good works were essential for believers to do; good works were evidence of a thankful heart to God. But they denied that good works were essential to salvation, something the orthodox Reformed affirmed. Wording is very important here: the Reformed denied that works were essential to justification, but affirmed that works were essential to salvation: “if faith is an antecedent condition required of sinners in order to receive pardon of sins… then,… good works, prepared in advance by God (Eph. 2:10) and done in the power of the Spirit (Rom. 8:9-14), are consequent conditions for salvation” (64). John Davenant also explains it well: “good works are necessary to the salvation of the justified by a necessity of order, not of causality; or more plainly, as the way appointed to eternal life, not as the meritorious cause of eternal life” (quoted on 65). Moreover, since works are a genuine part of the Christian life, the rewards for works can function as a true and good motivation for obedience, especially when such rewards are understood to be in and through Christ. 5) the denial that God is personally pleased in individual Christians and their obedience. Because antinomians emphasized justification and removed the role of personal obedience and good works, the notion that God could be pleased or displeased with a Christian’s personal conduct was anathematized. The orthodox Reformed, however, affirmed that God can and is pleased with his children who actively pursue holiness and practice godliness, and is displeased with his children who persist in sin. The Reformed were able to affirm this and the reality of justification by invoking the distinction between God’s love of benevolence and God’s love of complacency (i.e., friendship). The former is the love of God that remains constant for all the elect, while the latter is the personal love that is pleased or displeased with a Christian’s obedience or the lack thereof. Importantly, Jones balances how this is theologically possible with the simplicity of God and the humanity of Christ. God suffers no passions, yet since the resurrected and a glorified Christ remains fully human, he feels love and affections for his people in human ways that still does not dispute or negate his divine nature as the Son of God. 6) the denial of works and sanctification as a means of assurance of salvation. For antinomianism, the assurance of salvation only goes so far as the promises of God in Christ. To be assured in moments of doubt, the antinomians suggest that Christians believe in justification harder. The orthodox Reformed affirmed that the promises of God in Christ function as the objective grounds of our assurance, but allowed the implication that the application of those promises in the heart and life of the believer can and do further assure the believer of his salvation. Jones admits, however, that the Puritans did lean more legalistic in their sermons and works, but for the most part “the Puritans almost always grounded assurance principally in the promises of God. And they did not see such a discord between the works of believers and God’s promises” (99). 7) equivocal rhetoric. The final denominator that Jones describes for antinomianism is that there are often subtle contradictions in the sermons and works of antinomians, along with discrepancies between theory and practice. Nonetheless, “it was not the matter of [antinomian] thought which made it so controversial; rather, it was the arrangement of the matter, the subtle shifts in meaning, and most of all, the uses to which the [antinomians] put their newly constructed system that separated them from their Puritan opponents” (Como, quoted on 115).
Jones concludes in a christological note, wherein he offers a robust christology as the solution to the problems of antinomianism. Again, “in attempting to better understand God’s saving work in his Son, Jesus Christ, Christians should keep uppermost in their minds the Reformed maxim that whatever is true of Christ ultimately becomes true of his people because of our union with him” (76).
Overall, Jones demonstrates a strong expertise with the many figures and sources of classical Reformed and Puritan theology, and deftly unpacks the subtle differences between orthodox Reformed theology and antinomianism in a way that is historically sensitive and pastorally applicable. The reader should both learn and be encouraged when reading this volume.
Jones focuses mainly on the 16th-17th century antinomian controversies for the exposition of the common denominators that make up the broad antinomian position. It is important to note how what we label antinomianism is an abstract label meant to characterize a theological position on a specific issue. There were very few theologians who self-consciously and explicitly identified themselves as antinomian. Moreover, the theologians that were labeled antinomian in their day by no means constitute a monolithic movement or system. Jones therefore works through seven specific doctrinal/pastoral issues that characterize the antinomian position: 1) conflation of impetration and application (i.e., redemption accomplished and redemption applied). Antinomianism places such a high emphasis on the imputation and working of Christ’s righteousness to and in the believer that personal obedience was consumed under Christ’s obedience. “Antinomians take the truth that Christ achieved perfect obedience on behalf of the believer—what is commonly referred to as the active obedience of Christ—and wrongly deduce that when the believer performs any act, it is actually Christ doing so immediately by his Spirit” (27). The orthodox Reformed affirmed that the application of redemption involves true and genuine acts of the believer; “faith…is both the gift of God and the act of man” (28). 2) The denial of the third use of the law, namely that the moral law serves as a guide for the Christian’s obedience to God. Antinomians of course affirmed that Christians were to live righteously; it is just that the law is not meant to serve that function. “Rutherford sums up the issue well by claiming that the antinomians ‘make all duties a matter of courtesy’s (36). The Reformed orthodox, on the other hand, affirm that the moral law has always functioned as the guiding principle for the Christian life and sanctification. 3) Closely related to the antinomian denial of the third use of the law is the elevation of justification as the most important element of the gospel. “If the gospel is roughly synonymous with justification, then it has nothing to do with what happens ‘in’ believers, but only with what happens ‘for believers’” (46). The orthodox Reformed distinction between the gospel narrowly conceived (forensic, impetration, redemptive-historical, indicative) and the gospel broadly conceived (renovative, application, existential, imperative) is lost. Due to this, any prescriptive element in the gospel is lost; commands and threats cannot be understood as genuinely applying to the believer in any real sense. The orthodox Reformed are able to maintain the prescriptive element of the gospel by invoking the category of evangelical obedience, as opposed to legal obedience: “because of our union with Christ, and all that that means, Christians can actually pray… that God… gives what he demands and demands whatever he pleases (Heb. 13:21) in other words, Christian’s can answer to the legal demands of the law in their justification in and through Christ and also the gospel demands of the law in their sanctification by the Spirit” (53). Rather than one benefit causing the rest (justification causing the motivation to live righteously in the antinomian schema), all of the benefits of salvation come by means of union with Christ: “union with Christ is the ground of both justification and sanctification, but Christ is the meritorious cause of both” (58). 4) the denial of good works in the Christian life and corresponding rewards. Antinomians affirmed that good works were essential for believers to do; good works were evidence of a thankful heart to God. But they denied that good works were essential to salvation, something the orthodox Reformed affirmed. Wording is very important here: the Reformed denied that works were essential to justification, but affirmed that works were essential to salvation: “if faith is an antecedent condition required of sinners in order to receive pardon of sins… then,… good works, prepared in advance by God (Eph. 2:10) and done in the power of the Spirit (Rom. 8:9-14), are consequent conditions for salvation” (64). John Davenant also explains it well: “good works are necessary to the salvation of the justified by a necessity of order, not of causality; or more plainly, as the way appointed to eternal life, not as the meritorious cause of eternal life” (quoted on 65). Moreover, since works are a genuine part of the Christian life, the rewards for works can function as a true and good motivation for obedience, especially when such rewards are understood to be in and through Christ. 5) the denial that God is personally pleased in individual Christians and their obedience. Because antinomians emphasized justification and removed the role of personal obedience and good works, the notion that God could be pleased or displeased with a Christian’s personal conduct was anathematized. The orthodox Reformed, however, affirmed that God can and is pleased with his children who actively pursue holiness and practice godliness, and is displeased with his children who persist in sin. The Reformed were able to affirm this and the reality of justification by invoking the distinction between God’s love of benevolence and God’s love of complacency (i.e., friendship). The former is the love of God that remains constant for all the elect, while the latter is the personal love that is pleased or displeased with a Christian’s obedience or the lack thereof. Importantly, Jones balances how this is theologically possible with the simplicity of God and the humanity of Christ. God suffers no passions, yet since the resurrected and a glorified Christ remains fully human, he feels love and affections for his people in human ways that still does not dispute or negate his divine nature as the Son of God. 6) the denial of works and sanctification as a means of assurance of salvation. For antinomianism, the assurance of salvation only goes so far as the promises of God in Christ. To be assured in moments of doubt, the antinomians suggest that Christians believe in justification harder. The orthodox Reformed affirmed that the promises of God in Christ function as the objective grounds of our assurance, but allowed the implication that the application of those promises in the heart and life of the believer can and do further assure the believer of his salvation. Jones admits, however, that the Puritans did lean more legalistic in their sermons and works, but for the most part “the Puritans almost always grounded assurance principally in the promises of God. And they did not see such a discord between the works of believers and God’s promises” (99). 7) equivocal rhetoric. The final denominator that Jones describes for antinomianism is that there are often subtle contradictions in the sermons and works of antinomians, along with discrepancies between theory and practice. Nonetheless, “it was not the matter of [antinomian] thought which made it so controversial; rather, it was the arrangement of the matter, the subtle shifts in meaning, and most of all, the uses to which the [antinomians] put their newly constructed system that separated them from their Puritan opponents” (Como, quoted on 115).
Jones concludes in a christological note, wherein he offers a robust christology as the solution to the problems of antinomianism. Again, “in attempting to better understand God’s saving work in his Son, Jesus Christ, Christians should keep uppermost in their minds the Reformed maxim that whatever is true of Christ ultimately becomes true of his people because of our union with him” (76).
Overall, Jones demonstrates a strong expertise with the many figures and sources of classical Reformed and Puritan theology, and deftly unpacks the subtle differences between orthodox Reformed theology and antinomianism in a way that is historically sensitive and pastorally applicable. The reader should both learn and be encouraged when reading this volume.
January 2, 2014
As a Puritan scholar and Presbyterian pastor Mark Jones is doubtless glad to see greater interest in Reformed theology. However, he is also concerned that many who identify themselves as grace-based and gospel-centered are actually more antinomian than historically Reformed. Jones provides a helpful history of antinomianism. He argues that the imitation of Christ and obedience to the moral law of God are appropriate guides to sanctification. He further argues that God rewards good works, and that good works are necessary for salvation, though not meritorious of it. Assurance of salvation involves not only reliance on the promises of the gospel but also a recognition of spiritual growth in obedience. In addition, Jones rejects the antinomian sentiment that our disobedience does not affect God's love toward us because God only sees us in Christ and thus does not see our sin. Rather, the Puritans distinguished between an unchanging love of God for us based on our status in Christ and another aspect of his love that is pleased with or obedience and grieved and angered by our disobedience. This summary of positions, however, does not do justice to the exposition of the positions within the book. Well worth reading.
November 21, 2022
One of the most important books written in the last few decades. Jones shows how widespread antinomian thinking is among Christians, even among those who should know better such as theologians, professors, and pastors. He teaches the proper way Christians should view the relationship of the Law and the believer's sanctification, the place of good works in salvation, and eternal rewards. This book is a must-have for any Christian.
March 14, 2014
Very good, especially the chapter on God's love
December 30, 2016
One of the hardest things for Christians, and Christian theologians, to balance is our justification by God’s free grace alone, and our duty to obey God’s Word. If we are more eager to defend faith alone, we might skip too lightly over our duty to God’s law. If we get excited about applying the law to every aspect of our lives, we might lead others to think wrongly that the law justifies us.
Mark Jones aims to guard against the first danger. Interacting mainly with Tullian Tchividjian’s recent writings, and also with the Sonship movement, our author takes up the old debate over the law between the Lutheran and Reformed, ably defending the Reformed view.
The Lutheran view opposes law and gospel, even into the Christian life, while the Reformed see them as friends, in Christ. “The antithesis between the law and the gospel ends the moment someone becomes a Christian” (Ch. 4, “Sweetly Comply” section, para. 2). “With the gospel and in Christ, united to him by faith, the law is no longer my enemy but my friend” (same). Notice that outside of Christ all agree that law and gospel are at odds: law condemns; gospel holds out rescue. But “As Richard Muller notes, ‘The law, for Lutheranism, can never become the ultimate norm for Christian living but, instead, must always lead to Christ who alone is righteous” (Ch. 4, “Sweetly Comply” section, para. 3).
This works out in our “street level” piety in this way: to avoid giving any glory to ourselves, average-Joe Reformed-guy will say that everything he does, even the most obedient, is as filthy rags (Isaiah 64:4). We cannot keep the law and never will, so we turn away from it, to the Gospel and accept grace, never to look back to the law. But this is misguided.
“It is actually an affront to God to suggest that Spirit-wrought works in believers are ‘filthy rags,’ for these are works that God has prepared in advance for us to do in order to magnify his grace and glorify the name of Christ (1 Cor. 15:10; John 15:5)” (Ch. 5, “Good or Filthy” section, para. 3).
See the problem? Do we have to turn away from the law to accept grace? Yes, in the sense that we have to give up trying to keep it for ourselves. No, in the sense that we should still strive to obey God. But it is so easy to turn back to the law, once we have become believers, and fall back into legalism, trying to earn or keep our status with God. So easy, that many believers resist it at all. Any talk of duty or obedience must lead to legalism. No! No! Jones shines at this point, showing all the Scriptures that take us back to obedience, with nary a hint of legalism.
When we say God is pleased with us in Christ, is there no sense in which His pleasure changes based on our obedience? The antinomian, eager to defend God’s electing and unchanging love, will quickly say no, there is no aspect of God’s love toward us that changes, whether we sin or not, if we are in Christ. But the Bible speaks of our pleasing God or not, as Christians (2 Sam. 11:27; Col 1:10). This does not mean our obedience determines our salvation, but our obedience (or lack thereof) does affect our relationship with God. The antinomian, on the other hand, will oppose preachers who “warn their people that they can displease God and Christ or that God can be angry with his people, as he often has been (Ezra 9; 2 Kings 17:18)” (Ch. 6, “Displeasing God and Christ” section, para. 4).
Much of this debate revolves around our view of sanctification. The antinomian is prone to say that sanctification is little more than getting used to and living out our justification. The better view is to exhort us as Peter did to work out our salvation. “The sanctification of the church is an important part of Christ’s glory. It would be incorrect to affirm that we can add to or diminish God’s essential glory. But, again, we may or may not bring glory to the God-man, depending on our obedience or sin” (Ch. 6, “Pleasing God and Christ” section, para. 3).
May we look to our sanctification at all for assurance that we are in Christ? The antinomian would say no, that will lead to works-righteousness. But the classic Reformer said yes, our obedience is a secondary source of assurance (Ch. 7). The antinomian sees himself as a Christian as still totally depraved, ignoring the work of the Spirit moving him to obedience which pleases God. He assumes he isn’t much different from unbelievers as far as his heart goes. Looking within will only result in despair. The authors of the Westminster Confession of Faith saw it differently when they wrote that assurance is founded in part upon “the inward evidence of those graces unto which these promises [of salvation] are made” (WCF 18:2). In other words, God is working something new in you, that will be evident in some ways. This doesn’t mean we are justified in thinking ourselves better morally than unbelievers, generally. But God is doing a work of sanctification in us that He is not doing in unbelievers.
Jones has a difficult PR battle with his thesis. No one who wants to be known as a defender of Reformed doctrines of grace and the five solas wants to imply what sound like caveats to our justification by faith alone. Who wants to appear to demote the importance of justification, the hallmark of the Reformation? And yet, if we are to do justice to all of Scripture, we must be careful not to wave our pet doctrine so loudly that it drowns out other important truths in the Bible. “The antinomians gave a priority to justification that went far beyond what Scripture teaches” (Ch 7. “Antinomian Assurance” section, para. 6). This is an audacious statement when writing to a Reformed audience! But I believe it to be an important caution. We have not exhaustively described the Gospel when we have explained justification. While justification is the capstone of Reformed theology, it is not all of it. It is the hinge on which our salvation turns, but it is not the whole door.
Where you stand in this debate as a pastor will dramatically shape your preaching. Jones critiques the antinomian: “The same repetitive mantras are preached week after week, to the point that if you have heard one sermon, you have heard them all. These are not overstatements. It is very difficult for some preachers to deliver messages each week when they have a sort of ‘systematic theology’ that they need to declare every Lord’s Day” (Ch. 8, “Different Types” section, para. 10).
Jones’ main point is that if we understand the person and work of Christ in His fullness, the apparent tension between law and gospel will resolve itself. Jesus justifies and sanctifies us for His glory.
This book may be especially useful for “cage stage” Calvinists who have just discovered the doctrines of grace, and for elders and pastors considering how to preach (and evaluate preaching on) the whole counsel of God. It isn’t an “entry-level” theology book – you ought to know a little about the Reformed doctrinal landscape before diving in. And he quotes old-language Puritans frequently. But I highly commend this work to you.
Mark Jones aims to guard against the first danger. Interacting mainly with Tullian Tchividjian’s recent writings, and also with the Sonship movement, our author takes up the old debate over the law between the Lutheran and Reformed, ably defending the Reformed view.
The Lutheran view opposes law and gospel, even into the Christian life, while the Reformed see them as friends, in Christ. “The antithesis between the law and the gospel ends the moment someone becomes a Christian” (Ch. 4, “Sweetly Comply” section, para. 2). “With the gospel and in Christ, united to him by faith, the law is no longer my enemy but my friend” (same). Notice that outside of Christ all agree that law and gospel are at odds: law condemns; gospel holds out rescue. But “As Richard Muller notes, ‘The law, for Lutheranism, can never become the ultimate norm for Christian living but, instead, must always lead to Christ who alone is righteous” (Ch. 4, “Sweetly Comply” section, para. 3).
This works out in our “street level” piety in this way: to avoid giving any glory to ourselves, average-Joe Reformed-guy will say that everything he does, even the most obedient, is as filthy rags (Isaiah 64:4). We cannot keep the law and never will, so we turn away from it, to the Gospel and accept grace, never to look back to the law. But this is misguided.
“It is actually an affront to God to suggest that Spirit-wrought works in believers are ‘filthy rags,’ for these are works that God has prepared in advance for us to do in order to magnify his grace and glorify the name of Christ (1 Cor. 15:10; John 15:5)” (Ch. 5, “Good or Filthy” section, para. 3).
See the problem? Do we have to turn away from the law to accept grace? Yes, in the sense that we have to give up trying to keep it for ourselves. No, in the sense that we should still strive to obey God. But it is so easy to turn back to the law, once we have become believers, and fall back into legalism, trying to earn or keep our status with God. So easy, that many believers resist it at all. Any talk of duty or obedience must lead to legalism. No! No! Jones shines at this point, showing all the Scriptures that take us back to obedience, with nary a hint of legalism.
When we say God is pleased with us in Christ, is there no sense in which His pleasure changes based on our obedience? The antinomian, eager to defend God’s electing and unchanging love, will quickly say no, there is no aspect of God’s love toward us that changes, whether we sin or not, if we are in Christ. But the Bible speaks of our pleasing God or not, as Christians (2 Sam. 11:27; Col 1:10). This does not mean our obedience determines our salvation, but our obedience (or lack thereof) does affect our relationship with God. The antinomian, on the other hand, will oppose preachers who “warn their people that they can displease God and Christ or that God can be angry with his people, as he often has been (Ezra 9; 2 Kings 17:18)” (Ch. 6, “Displeasing God and Christ” section, para. 4).
Much of this debate revolves around our view of sanctification. The antinomian is prone to say that sanctification is little more than getting used to and living out our justification. The better view is to exhort us as Peter did to work out our salvation. “The sanctification of the church is an important part of Christ’s glory. It would be incorrect to affirm that we can add to or diminish God’s essential glory. But, again, we may or may not bring glory to the God-man, depending on our obedience or sin” (Ch. 6, “Pleasing God and Christ” section, para. 3).
May we look to our sanctification at all for assurance that we are in Christ? The antinomian would say no, that will lead to works-righteousness. But the classic Reformer said yes, our obedience is a secondary source of assurance (Ch. 7). The antinomian sees himself as a Christian as still totally depraved, ignoring the work of the Spirit moving him to obedience which pleases God. He assumes he isn’t much different from unbelievers as far as his heart goes. Looking within will only result in despair. The authors of the Westminster Confession of Faith saw it differently when they wrote that assurance is founded in part upon “the inward evidence of those graces unto which these promises [of salvation] are made” (WCF 18:2). In other words, God is working something new in you, that will be evident in some ways. This doesn’t mean we are justified in thinking ourselves better morally than unbelievers, generally. But God is doing a work of sanctification in us that He is not doing in unbelievers.
Jones has a difficult PR battle with his thesis. No one who wants to be known as a defender of Reformed doctrines of grace and the five solas wants to imply what sound like caveats to our justification by faith alone. Who wants to appear to demote the importance of justification, the hallmark of the Reformation? And yet, if we are to do justice to all of Scripture, we must be careful not to wave our pet doctrine so loudly that it drowns out other important truths in the Bible. “The antinomians gave a priority to justification that went far beyond what Scripture teaches” (Ch 7. “Antinomian Assurance” section, para. 6). This is an audacious statement when writing to a Reformed audience! But I believe it to be an important caution. We have not exhaustively described the Gospel when we have explained justification. While justification is the capstone of Reformed theology, it is not all of it. It is the hinge on which our salvation turns, but it is not the whole door.
Where you stand in this debate as a pastor will dramatically shape your preaching. Jones critiques the antinomian: “The same repetitive mantras are preached week after week, to the point that if you have heard one sermon, you have heard them all. These are not overstatements. It is very difficult for some preachers to deliver messages each week when they have a sort of ‘systematic theology’ that they need to declare every Lord’s Day” (Ch. 8, “Different Types” section, para. 10).
Jones’ main point is that if we understand the person and work of Christ in His fullness, the apparent tension between law and gospel will resolve itself. Jesus justifies and sanctifies us for His glory.
This book may be especially useful for “cage stage” Calvinists who have just discovered the doctrines of grace, and for elders and pastors considering how to preach (and evaluate preaching on) the whole counsel of God. It isn’t an “entry-level” theology book – you ought to know a little about the Reformed doctrinal landscape before diving in. And he quotes old-language Puritans frequently. But I highly commend this work to you.
July 18, 2023
Second time reading it, great book — very balanced and biblical!
February 14, 2026
wow this is craZy and really good. short and to the point. must-read. esp. if you are wrestling with sonship stuff.
September 30, 2015
In view of Tullian-gate, this book was a prophetic warning when it was published in 2013. If only more had taken heed to its message back then. Mark Jones convincingly demonstrates that antinomianism is more complex than simple antagonism to the moral law, and that it has pernicious effects on many areas of theology. The book is well-researched and offers convincing counter-arguments to many of the cheap soundbites coming from hipster Calvinists nowadays. This one is worth reading and re-reading.
November 9, 2023
Just may be the book of the year for me. Jones hits the nail on the head. As Trueman notes, this is the “mischievous movement afoot at the moment.”
I loved Ch. 6 on God’s love of benevolence and his love of complacency. If you don’t have a category for the following statements: “Good works are necessary for salvation” … “God loves some Christians more than others” and if you agree with the statement “our obedience, or lack thereof, does not affect our relationship with God,” then you ought to read this book.
Overall, difficult topic that needs the expertise and historical overview that Jones provides. I’d recommend reading this with a group of seminary students, churchmen, or pastors. Contents is best digested through discussion.
So much can be said. Jones says it best. Take up and read!
I loved Ch. 6 on God’s love of benevolence and his love of complacency. If you don’t have a category for the following statements: “Good works are necessary for salvation” … “God loves some Christians more than others” and if you agree with the statement “our obedience, or lack thereof, does not affect our relationship with God,” then you ought to read this book.
Overall, difficult topic that needs the expertise and historical overview that Jones provides. I’d recommend reading this with a group of seminary students, churchmen, or pastors. Contents is best digested through discussion.
So much can be said. Jones says it best. Take up and read!
September 2, 2019
This is a very helpful book on the subject of antinomianism. There is much to chew on and ponder in this work. I concur with Dr. Jones' thesis that antinomianism is, at its core, a Christological error. I appreciated the effort Dr. Jones took to draw out the nuances of antinomianism in that light. On the surface, I believe antinomianism can rightly be described as "anti-law", but this unorthodox system of theology is also much deeper than that. Dr. Jones did an excellent job in showing what those deeper and more nuanced issues are, and how they manifest themselves in practical theology. I believe the great danger of antinomianism lies in the fact that it is a theological iceberg. It masquerades itself as a herald and protector of free grace. Much of its error however, is found in what is beneath the surface in ommission, rather than what is seen above the surface in commission. Put more simply, many of the errors of antinomianism are implicit rather than explicit. This book is a helpful guide for understanding, recognizing, and combatting the many errors of antinomianism.
January 25, 2024
Revealing.... Evangelicalism in the US is broadly antinomian in practice and doctrine.
October 4, 2019
This was very good. He hits the nail on the head: obedience and good works are necessary for salvation, for being justified freely by his grace, we must bear fruit with the fruit he gives us to produce in Christ.
There is this good quote from Petrus van Maastricht, who explained justification as three periods of justification:
“1. The period of establishment, by which man is first justified: in this occasion not only is efficacy of works excluded for acquiring justification, but so is the very presence of these works, in so far as God justifies the Sinner (Romans 3: 23) and the wicked (Romans 5 : 5).
2. The period of continuation: in this occasion, although no efficacy of good works is granted for justification, the presence of these same works, nevertheless, is required (Gal 5: 6).
3. The period of consummation in which the right time to eternal life, granted under the first period and continued under the second, is advanced even to the possession of eternal life: in this location not only is the presence of good works required , but also, in a certain sense, their efficacy, in so far as God, whose law we attain just now through the merits alone of Christ, does not want to grow in possession of eternal life, unless it is beyond faith with good works previously performed. We received once before the right unto eternal life through the merits of Christ alone. But God does not want to grow in the possession of eternal life, unless there are, next to faith , also good works which precede this possession, Hebrews 12:14 , Matthew 7: 21, 25: 23:26 , Romans 2:7, 10. “
(p66)
There is this good quote from Petrus van Maastricht, who explained justification as three periods of justification:
“1. The period of establishment, by which man is first justified: in this occasion not only is efficacy of works excluded for acquiring justification, but so is the very presence of these works, in so far as God justifies the Sinner (Romans 3: 23) and the wicked (Romans 5 : 5).
2. The period of continuation: in this occasion, although no efficacy of good works is granted for justification, the presence of these same works, nevertheless, is required (Gal 5: 6).
3. The period of consummation in which the right time to eternal life, granted under the first period and continued under the second, is advanced even to the possession of eternal life: in this location not only is the presence of good works required , but also, in a certain sense, their efficacy, in so far as God, whose law we attain just now through the merits alone of Christ, does not want to grow in possession of eternal life, unless it is beyond faith with good works previously performed. We received once before the right unto eternal life through the merits of Christ alone. But God does not want to grow in the possession of eternal life, unless there are, next to faith , also good works which precede this possession, Hebrews 12:14 , Matthew 7: 21, 25: 23:26 , Romans 2:7, 10. “
(p66)
August 19, 2018
This is only the second book I have read by the author, but it has very much reminded me why I liked the first and why I think Jones is one of the best reformed writers around. His thought is clear and informed, his writing is concise and measured, and his heart is pastoral and sincere.
Jones leaves me wanting, desperately, to read a lot more Puritan theology.
I also think he is correct in his assessment of antinominaism, as well as in his praise of the general reformed consensus in opposition to that aberrant theology.
Loved it.
Jones leaves me wanting, desperately, to read a lot more Puritan theology.
I also think he is correct in his assessment of antinominaism, as well as in his praise of the general reformed consensus in opposition to that aberrant theology.
Loved it.
November 21, 2018
Helpful history and analysis of Antinomianism's presence in Reformed theology.
January 24, 2014
This is a short but great book dealing with the issue of antinomianism or the denial of the use of the Law of God in the Christian life especially for living and holiness.
Mark Jones is an excellent Puritan scholar so he comes at the topic from the perspective of historical theology but this book does not get lost in the forest of church history. In fact, Jones keeps his eye of practical Christian living today and peppers this book with relevant Scriptures.
Jones' treatment allows him to briefly point to warnings and dangers that can surface today both in the Christian's heart and Christian preaching.
Most helpfully he points a way forward: the person and work of Christ. We are not to separate Christ and his benefits. All of his benefits are important and we cannot minimize sanctification as a subsidiary of justification.
His chapter on assurance is one of the briefest but most helpful treatments I have ever read. He reminds the Christian that they are to go back to the promises of God. While part of assurance can come from looking at our justification, we can equally examine the growth in our life (our sanctification) and have assurance because we have seen God's work in us in the progress of holiness. Here again, Jones centers the chapter in Christ and his benefits for us.
This is an excellent little book that hits at a very important issue for today by coming at it through the lens of church history. Jones' writing is clear, succinct and well paced. His style hits home when addressing the believer. You can easily tell that Jones is both a scholar and a pastor.
This book has much to commend and I would recommend it to anyone interested in issues of Reformed theology, pastoral theology, historical theology or just practical Christian living on the topics of sanctification and the value God's commands to a Christian's holiness.
Mark Jones is an excellent Puritan scholar so he comes at the topic from the perspective of historical theology but this book does not get lost in the forest of church history. In fact, Jones keeps his eye of practical Christian living today and peppers this book with relevant Scriptures.
Jones' treatment allows him to briefly point to warnings and dangers that can surface today both in the Christian's heart and Christian preaching.
Most helpfully he points a way forward: the person and work of Christ. We are not to separate Christ and his benefits. All of his benefits are important and we cannot minimize sanctification as a subsidiary of justification.
His chapter on assurance is one of the briefest but most helpful treatments I have ever read. He reminds the Christian that they are to go back to the promises of God. While part of assurance can come from looking at our justification, we can equally examine the growth in our life (our sanctification) and have assurance because we have seen God's work in us in the progress of holiness. Here again, Jones centers the chapter in Christ and his benefits for us.
This is an excellent little book that hits at a very important issue for today by coming at it through the lens of church history. Jones' writing is clear, succinct and well paced. His style hits home when addressing the believer. You can easily tell that Jones is both a scholar and a pastor.
This book has much to commend and I would recommend it to anyone interested in issues of Reformed theology, pastoral theology, historical theology or just practical Christian living on the topics of sanctification and the value God's commands to a Christian's holiness.
April 23, 2014
Much to my surprise this turned out to be a gem of a book. Author Mark Jones tackles the long standing debate over the validity of God’s law in the Christian life. Jones begins the book by tracing a quick history of the 17th century debates between the neonomians, antinomians and what the author refers to as the traditional reformed understanding of the use of the law.
I found this book to be very helpful in addressing the distinction between good works in relation to salvation (justification) ,and the actions of the believer after salvation (sanctification.) Jones added a fresh take to this somewhat tiresome debate - that bridges the gap between salvation by works and salvation by faith alone in a thoroughly orthodox reformed manner.
The law the author maintains is a requirement we must keep in order to know how to please God. Christ kept the law perfectly in human form and therefor set the example for us as believers. To do good works makes our Lord happy, and therefore our life must show forth good works. We know what good works are by understanding and obeying the law.) It is important to mention that in our fallen state this is impossible to do perfectly, but God is pleased because of Christ’s perfect life even though our good works are soiled by sin.
There are only two criticisms I have of this book. First, I found the authors use of Latin phrases distracting making the prose choppy at times. Secondly, though he uses the term “moral law” he never quite clarifies what he truly means by the term law. That being said I may have missed this clarification in the early pages of the book.
I highly recommend this book to anyone looking for a basic introduction to the validity of the law and works vs grace debates.
I found this book to be very helpful in addressing the distinction between good works in relation to salvation (justification) ,and the actions of the believer after salvation (sanctification.) Jones added a fresh take to this somewhat tiresome debate - that bridges the gap between salvation by works and salvation by faith alone in a thoroughly orthodox reformed manner.
The law the author maintains is a requirement we must keep in order to know how to please God. Christ kept the law perfectly in human form and therefor set the example for us as believers. To do good works makes our Lord happy, and therefore our life must show forth good works. We know what good works are by understanding and obeying the law.) It is important to mention that in our fallen state this is impossible to do perfectly, but God is pleased because of Christ’s perfect life even though our good works are soiled by sin.
There are only two criticisms I have of this book. First, I found the authors use of Latin phrases distracting making the prose choppy at times. Secondly, though he uses the term “moral law” he never quite clarifies what he truly means by the term law. That being said I may have missed this clarification in the early pages of the book.
I highly recommend this book to anyone looking for a basic introduction to the validity of the law and works vs grace debates.
February 4, 2015
Don't let the shortness of this book conceal the depth of research and insight that Jones has poured into it. He cuts away a lot of the clutter in the current "How binding is the Law on Christians?" debate with clear answers. He upholds the beauty and goodness of the law. He promotes the third use of the law (its use for directing Christian life). He demonstrates the necessity of good works for salvation (as fruit, not the basis, of course). He shows how it's proper for Christians to be moved to good works by the promise of heavenly reward. He demonstrates that God's love for believers does indeed wax when they are obedient, and wane when not. He encourages good works as a subjective basis for assurance of salvation (not discounting the objective bases of the Word and Christ's work).
All in all, a superb work that anyone could read in a day or two. It will encourage you to pursue holiness without the specter of "legalism."
All in all, a superb work that anyone could read in a day or two. It will encourage you to pursue holiness without the specter of "legalism."
August 16, 2018
The Apostle Paul himself was accused of being an antinomian, and a clear presentation of the Gospel and salvation by faith alone in Christ alone will always take the work of God out of the hands of men and cause many to think it is a plea for getting rid of the law. The author gives a history of antinomianism and it's constant promulgation in the body of Christ. I enjoyed the book. It was clearly written and though provoking. I did take issue with several of Mr. Jones' observations including "our works gives us an assurance of our salvation", but for the most part I though he gave a reasonable defense of the purpose of the law and the reformed view of it's third use. Every believer has to wrestle with the Law/Gospel distinctive and find their rest in Christ alone.
February 3, 2023
A good book which was a tough read for me because it was more academic and scholarly that what I normally read with my Christian reading. Also, this was the first time I read a historical theology book. It was recommended to me and glad I went through it. Mark Jones does a great job explaining what antinomianism is and is not and how its understandings can be seen in practical ways in sermons.
April 10, 2014
An absolutely fantastic book about what antinomianism is, how to identify it and its proponents, and the Christian's proper response to it. Well worth every Christian's time to help them avoid the pitfalls of lies ingrained with a kernal of truth.
October 2, 2025
Eye opening. The subtitle is true: reformed theology today has an unwelcome guest, Antinomianism, that too many of let in the door not realizing its identity. The true solution is to know better the person and work of Christ - Christ for us, Christ in us. Recommended.
March 29, 2014
Helpful and important work.
July 26, 2016
This is more of a text book than a day to day Christian living book.
June 1, 2014
We are all Tullianites now. That's the problem. This book is the solution. Read it.
November 4, 2019
In this book Mark Jones shows that antinomianism should be understood to be much more than a rigid, straight-forward definition of the word: against the law. Since at least the time of the post-Reformation, and continuing into today, there has been an insidious form of antinomianism that claims high honour to the Biblical teachings of grace and justification by faith, but in reality is guilty of committing what John Calvin called, "to rend Christ asunder." One major takeaway that Jones wants us to get from this book is that "Antinomianism is fundamentally a Christological problem...as much as it is a problem of the heart and the mind" (p.18). This is a point that he very efficiently comes back to and defends throughout the book. Jones heavily supports his position as he draws from the Reformed confessions and Puritan heavyweights such as John Owen, John Flavel, Samuel Rutherford, and many others.
Some of the topics covered in this book are the role of the law in the Christian life (chapter 3), the contrast between law and Gospel (chapter 4), the role of good works (chapter 5), God's pleasure/displeasure at obedience/disobedience (chapter 6), and the Christian's assurance (chapter 7). After reading on these topics you might find that what passes as mainstream and orthodox Reformed teaching today likely would have in post-Reformation times raised a few eyebrows upon suspicion of antinomianism.
I liked how Jones easily does away with some modern cliches that are commonly repeated in Reformed circles. For example, with simple logic and a few proof texts Jones shows that we should not state that Christians do good works simply out of thankfulness. As he states, "to insist that believers perform good works only as their thankful response to the triune God for all that he has done for them may give the impression that they are not actually necessary for salvation. But as a consequent condition, following from receiving Christ, believers are required to do good works (Rom 8:13)" (p.64).
In his chapter on assurance Jones demonstrates how "the antinomian theologians rejected the idea that believers may be assured of their justification by the evidence of their sanctification" (p.98). This antinomian concept is often repeated in modern Reformed circles despite it being contrary to the Westminster Confession and Heidelberg Catechism. Jones quotes Theodore Beza as succinctly stating, "But how does a person know if he has faith or not? By good works" (p. 103).
I really appreciated the chapter titled "Rhetoric" where he looks at how the 17th century theologians defended their position against their opponents and how it can apply to us today, especially in preaching. "It is not enough simply to mention grace or even Christ often in a sermon. Some of the most boring sermons mention them frequently. And that is precisely one of the dangers of antinomian preaching: it becomes boring. The same repetitive mantras are preached week after week, to the point that if you have heard one sermon, you have heard them all...Indeed, good Christology should never be boring, but the richness of Reformed Christology has been lost in favour of cliches" (p. 118).
This book is a must read for anyone who has an interest in Reformed theology and practice. With this book, I believe Jones has exposed a subtle, yet dangerous form of antinomianism that continues to sow seeds in modern Protestant, evangelical, and even Reformed churches.
Some of the topics covered in this book are the role of the law in the Christian life (chapter 3), the contrast between law and Gospel (chapter 4), the role of good works (chapter 5), God's pleasure/displeasure at obedience/disobedience (chapter 6), and the Christian's assurance (chapter 7). After reading on these topics you might find that what passes as mainstream and orthodox Reformed teaching today likely would have in post-Reformation times raised a few eyebrows upon suspicion of antinomianism.
I liked how Jones easily does away with some modern cliches that are commonly repeated in Reformed circles. For example, with simple logic and a few proof texts Jones shows that we should not state that Christians do good works simply out of thankfulness. As he states, "to insist that believers perform good works only as their thankful response to the triune God for all that he has done for them may give the impression that they are not actually necessary for salvation. But as a consequent condition, following from receiving Christ, believers are required to do good works (Rom 8:13)" (p.64).
In his chapter on assurance Jones demonstrates how "the antinomian theologians rejected the idea that believers may be assured of their justification by the evidence of their sanctification" (p.98). This antinomian concept is often repeated in modern Reformed circles despite it being contrary to the Westminster Confession and Heidelberg Catechism. Jones quotes Theodore Beza as succinctly stating, "But how does a person know if he has faith or not? By good works" (p. 103).
I really appreciated the chapter titled "Rhetoric" where he looks at how the 17th century theologians defended their position against their opponents and how it can apply to us today, especially in preaching. "It is not enough simply to mention grace or even Christ often in a sermon. Some of the most boring sermons mention them frequently. And that is precisely one of the dangers of antinomian preaching: it becomes boring. The same repetitive mantras are preached week after week, to the point that if you have heard one sermon, you have heard them all...Indeed, good Christology should never be boring, but the richness of Reformed Christology has been lost in favour of cliches" (p. 118).
This book is a must read for anyone who has an interest in Reformed theology and practice. With this book, I believe Jones has exposed a subtle, yet dangerous form of antinomianism that continues to sow seeds in modern Protestant, evangelical, and even Reformed churches.
May 18, 2014
The debate over the relationship between law and gospel has waged since the time of the Christ with some affirming justification by the grace of God provides the believer freedom from the law and with others declaring a more legalistic approach suggesting that salvation includes a heavy dose of law keeping. Somewhere in the middle of those two extremes lies the biblical approach to justification and sanctification and Mark Jones, in his book Antinomianism: Reformed Theology’s Unwelcome Guest efforts to explore this topic using the 17th century debate that waged on this very topic as the backdrop for his discussion.
While the word antinomianism literally means “against God’s law”, one would be hard pressed to find a theologian or pastor, at least one worthy of such a calling, presenting the idea that the believer is no longer tied to any sense of obedience or structure by which obedience can be determined. Jones rightly notes that defining the term antinomianism and identifying those who follow the tenets of that construct is difficult unless this approach is examined as “a system of thought…carefully understood in its historical context, rather than simply according to its etymology.”
Thus, in the first chapter of this helpful book, Jones explains in great detail the historical background of antinomianism, its adherents, as well as those who spoke out and wrote against it. He rightly notes the first antinomians were Adam and Eve with their misunderstanding of God’s grace and His commands to not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. With that said, Jones spends most of his effort looking at this issue as it existed in the time of the Puritans, in particular in England and New England. While some may view this as an unnecessary historical interlude, understanding the viewpoints of those both for and against antinomianism to include how theological constructs such as justification and sanctification were viewed by the Puritan divines as well as those of the antinomian persuasion is vital to grasping how this issue developed over time.
Building on that historical foundation, Jones then makes the salient comment that “Discussions and writings on holiness often lack a strong Christological basis and center” further noting “Without a robust affirmation of the holiness of Christ, and all that means, calls to holiness, however stirring they may be will inevitably devolve into a form of man-centered pietism.” Understanding the proper balance between gospel and law, grace and obedience is rooted in a correct understanding of the person and work of Christ. Those without a properly developed Christology often center their own theology far too much on the grace extended at the cross while ignoring the life Christ lived on our behalf, a life that also provides the believer the standard for holiness. This necessarily includes some level of human responsibility for obedience to God’s commands which is something those of the antinomian persuasion vehemently argue against and as Jones notes the antinomian often believes there is “no longer a continuing role for God’s moral law in the life of the believer.”
Of particular note in recent conversations is the role of the law in the life of the believer. Jones aptly comments “The role of the law in the life of the Christian has historically been one of the most difficult and contentious points in divinity.” Addressing many of the concerns that have existed over the years on this issue, Jones ably works through the various positions on the role of the law demonstrating the tension that exists among theologians on this important issue. This concern was rampant during the 17th century and Jones spends a good deal of time looking at the opposing positions noting that when it comes to trying to define the position of the antinomian camp, “A close reading of antinomian writings from the seventeenth century shows that they were not always clear. Ambiguity was a hallmark of their utterances on the law, and they lacked the sophistication found in the writings of men like Sibbes, Goodwin, and Owen.” While the antinomians often looked for the means by which to diminish the importance of the law, the Westminster Confession of Faith and the sermons and writings of the Puritan divines viewed obedience to the law as a continued importance for the believer. Jones states “Because of the greater indicatives of the new covenant, the imperatives are not relaxed, but in fact are strengthened.” He is also careful to continually note that any level of obedience is through the work of the Holy Spirit and the process of progressive sanctification, thus avoiding any notation that somehow the believer is able to accomplish good works of their own accord.
Another valuable discussion in this timely book is that of the issue of rewards, a discussion sorely missing from the sermon series of most pastors today likely due to the association of rewards with the supposed naughty term of “law”. Jones engages some hefty theological terminology in this chapter such as the word impetration, a term related to Christ’s mediatorial work. Jones avers the issue with the antinomian approach is they “essentially blurred the distinction between impetration and application. They were so concerned to maintain the graciousness of salvation that they not only denied that there were no conditions for salvation..but also suggested that even in the application of salvation man does not “act”. While some may balk at the idea of any condition for salvation, Jones is careful to define that phrase even further noting “The Reformed held firmly to the view that the elect have no role in impetrating their salvation. That hone belongs exclusively to Christ. But in the application of salvation, man plays a role” meaning there is the need for the bride to be an obedient bride through the work of the Holy Spirit bringing them to a place of maturity in the faith.
With books of this subject matter, it is quite easy for the author to slip into an accusatory and polemic writing style, along the way lambasting those who take the opposing position. Jones thankfully avoids such an approach, instead choosing to work through the antinomian position and the Reformed position in great detail and with much grace, noting the complexity of the issue being discussed. While many individuals who affirm the antinomian position are indeed noted by name to include Tullian Tchividjian whose book Jesus + Nothing = Everything is noted by Jones as somewhat of the impetus for him writing this book on antinomianism, Jones leaves the polemics at the door instead approaching this subject matter with theological precision with a focus on demonstrating the clear pitfalls of the imbalance found in the antinomian position regarding obedience and the place of God’s law.
I highly recommend this book for the more seasoned believer and especially for pastors and Seminary students. Holiness is a vital part of the Christian walk and understanding the proper balance between the indicative and the imperative, two intimately related aspects of justification and sanctification. Jones saliently outlines for the reader the proper approach to the issue of law and gospel and this is a book that will serve as a needed corrective for the problematic extremes of too much grace and too much law.
While the word antinomianism literally means “against God’s law”, one would be hard pressed to find a theologian or pastor, at least one worthy of such a calling, presenting the idea that the believer is no longer tied to any sense of obedience or structure by which obedience can be determined. Jones rightly notes that defining the term antinomianism and identifying those who follow the tenets of that construct is difficult unless this approach is examined as “a system of thought…carefully understood in its historical context, rather than simply according to its etymology.”
Thus, in the first chapter of this helpful book, Jones explains in great detail the historical background of antinomianism, its adherents, as well as those who spoke out and wrote against it. He rightly notes the first antinomians were Adam and Eve with their misunderstanding of God’s grace and His commands to not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. With that said, Jones spends most of his effort looking at this issue as it existed in the time of the Puritans, in particular in England and New England. While some may view this as an unnecessary historical interlude, understanding the viewpoints of those both for and against antinomianism to include how theological constructs such as justification and sanctification were viewed by the Puritan divines as well as those of the antinomian persuasion is vital to grasping how this issue developed over time.
Building on that historical foundation, Jones then makes the salient comment that “Discussions and writings on holiness often lack a strong Christological basis and center” further noting “Without a robust affirmation of the holiness of Christ, and all that means, calls to holiness, however stirring they may be will inevitably devolve into a form of man-centered pietism.” Understanding the proper balance between gospel and law, grace and obedience is rooted in a correct understanding of the person and work of Christ. Those without a properly developed Christology often center their own theology far too much on the grace extended at the cross while ignoring the life Christ lived on our behalf, a life that also provides the believer the standard for holiness. This necessarily includes some level of human responsibility for obedience to God’s commands which is something those of the antinomian persuasion vehemently argue against and as Jones notes the antinomian often believes there is “no longer a continuing role for God’s moral law in the life of the believer.”
Of particular note in recent conversations is the role of the law in the life of the believer. Jones aptly comments “The role of the law in the life of the Christian has historically been one of the most difficult and contentious points in divinity.” Addressing many of the concerns that have existed over the years on this issue, Jones ably works through the various positions on the role of the law demonstrating the tension that exists among theologians on this important issue. This concern was rampant during the 17th century and Jones spends a good deal of time looking at the opposing positions noting that when it comes to trying to define the position of the antinomian camp, “A close reading of antinomian writings from the seventeenth century shows that they were not always clear. Ambiguity was a hallmark of their utterances on the law, and they lacked the sophistication found in the writings of men like Sibbes, Goodwin, and Owen.” While the antinomians often looked for the means by which to diminish the importance of the law, the Westminster Confession of Faith and the sermons and writings of the Puritan divines viewed obedience to the law as a continued importance for the believer. Jones states “Because of the greater indicatives of the new covenant, the imperatives are not relaxed, but in fact are strengthened.” He is also careful to continually note that any level of obedience is through the work of the Holy Spirit and the process of progressive sanctification, thus avoiding any notation that somehow the believer is able to accomplish good works of their own accord.
Another valuable discussion in this timely book is that of the issue of rewards, a discussion sorely missing from the sermon series of most pastors today likely due to the association of rewards with the supposed naughty term of “law”. Jones engages some hefty theological terminology in this chapter such as the word impetration, a term related to Christ’s mediatorial work. Jones avers the issue with the antinomian approach is they “essentially blurred the distinction between impetration and application. They were so concerned to maintain the graciousness of salvation that they not only denied that there were no conditions for salvation..but also suggested that even in the application of salvation man does not “act”. While some may balk at the idea of any condition for salvation, Jones is careful to define that phrase even further noting “The Reformed held firmly to the view that the elect have no role in impetrating their salvation. That hone belongs exclusively to Christ. But in the application of salvation, man plays a role” meaning there is the need for the bride to be an obedient bride through the work of the Holy Spirit bringing them to a place of maturity in the faith.
With books of this subject matter, it is quite easy for the author to slip into an accusatory and polemic writing style, along the way lambasting those who take the opposing position. Jones thankfully avoids such an approach, instead choosing to work through the antinomian position and the Reformed position in great detail and with much grace, noting the complexity of the issue being discussed. While many individuals who affirm the antinomian position are indeed noted by name to include Tullian Tchividjian whose book Jesus + Nothing = Everything is noted by Jones as somewhat of the impetus for him writing this book on antinomianism, Jones leaves the polemics at the door instead approaching this subject matter with theological precision with a focus on demonstrating the clear pitfalls of the imbalance found in the antinomian position regarding obedience and the place of God’s law.
I highly recommend this book for the more seasoned believer and especially for pastors and Seminary students. Holiness is a vital part of the Christian walk and understanding the proper balance between the indicative and the imperative, two intimately related aspects of justification and sanctification. Jones saliently outlines for the reader the proper approach to the issue of law and gospel and this is a book that will serve as a needed corrective for the problematic extremes of too much grace and too much law.
December 26, 2022
This was a really great summary of a topic that has been growing in popularity in Christian churches lately. Theological distortions do a lot of pendulum swinging in every generation, and this topic can be seen throughout church history. This book does an excellent job reminding the reader of core, uncompromising truth, and the dangers of addressing the effects of false doctrine rather than its source.
The book goes through the various angles of antinomianism and its progression and distortion of the gospel. Ultimately a problem with Christology, rather than more law or grace. The author looks at the historic roots of antinomianism and how it was handled by various Reformers, not sparing both sides of the debate in how both responded.
It's sobering to read the inevitable progression of antinomian thought, especially in pastors, and was quite accurate in its description and assessment. There is certainly a danger in legalistic preaching, but there is also danger in antinomian preaching. Both emphasize the law, one for and one against, to the neglect of preaching the whole Christ. Both have unbiblical hermeneutics and Christology. Both are dangerous and subtle in the life of any Christian, which is what makes this book so practical.
Topics covered:
🐙Imitating Christ 🐙The Law and the Gospel 🐙Good works and rewards 🐙Types of biblical love 🐙Assurance 🐙Rhetoric 🐙Definition of Antinomianism 🐙Biblical solution
CRITICISM: Some of the references to historic debates and eras in church history were confusing since I was unfamiliar with the context he was referring to and he didn't explain. Also, although I agree with a lot of Reformed theology, I found the emphasis unhelpful at times. I understand that antinomianism is an increasing issue in Reformed circles, but our goal should be more conformed to Jesus Christ not Reformed theology.
🐙Extensive bibliography and Scripture index
The book goes through the various angles of antinomianism and its progression and distortion of the gospel. Ultimately a problem with Christology, rather than more law or grace. The author looks at the historic roots of antinomianism and how it was handled by various Reformers, not sparing both sides of the debate in how both responded.
It's sobering to read the inevitable progression of antinomian thought, especially in pastors, and was quite accurate in its description and assessment. There is certainly a danger in legalistic preaching, but there is also danger in antinomian preaching. Both emphasize the law, one for and one against, to the neglect of preaching the whole Christ. Both have unbiblical hermeneutics and Christology. Both are dangerous and subtle in the life of any Christian, which is what makes this book so practical.
Topics covered:
🐙Imitating Christ 🐙The Law and the Gospel 🐙Good works and rewards 🐙Types of biblical love 🐙Assurance 🐙Rhetoric 🐙Definition of Antinomianism 🐙Biblical solution
CRITICISM: Some of the references to historic debates and eras in church history were confusing since I was unfamiliar with the context he was referring to and he didn't explain. Also, although I agree with a lot of Reformed theology, I found the emphasis unhelpful at times. I understand that antinomianism is an increasing issue in Reformed circles, but our goal should be more conformed to Jesus Christ not Reformed theology.
🐙Extensive bibliography and Scripture index
Displaying 1 - 30 of 88 reviews