What is Neonomianism?
Neo nomos is Greek for ‘new law’. It consists of two errors.
Neonomianism teaches that there is now only one new law. The single new law in this covenant is the requirement of faith. Neonomians teach that this new law is found in the ‘covenant of grace’.
Neonomians also teach that the Old Testament was supposedly the ‘covenant of works’. Perfect adherence to the law of Sinai in this covenant was too hard. So God sent Jesus to change that. And God supposedly replaced that ‘works covenant’ with a ‘covenant of grace’ where salvation is based on grace as they understand it.
“Neonomianism acknowledges that the moral law is impossible for anyone to keep, … So, for the New Testament era God instituted a different law with a different set of obligations: the law of grace.” ~Got Questions.
Roots from Johannes Agricola
This ‘new law’ idea finds roots in the teachings of Johannes Agricola. He taught that non-Christians still owed obedience to the Mosaic Law, but New Testament Christians were entirely free from it. Regenerated believers were now under the gospel alone. Believers are called only to believe. Wikipedia.
This New Law supposes that God is no longer judging people based on whether a person violates some moral precept or not. Instead, God judges us on whether we are expressing faith.
However, neonomianism does not account for our sin in Adam. It does not account for the guilt of our sinful nature.
The new law explained
Neonomianism suggests that now mankind can meet the legal standards of God, not with actual moral obedience, but simply with good faith. Expressing your faith is an easy law to keep, any believer can do that by simply believing.
Logically, this means that effort in keeping the old moral law is what we should stop trying to do. Why? Because in that old ‘covenant of works’, people supposedly had to add obedience to their faith for salvation. Now, effort in law-keeping is considered a spiritual step backward.
Two covenants explained
The Neonomian view of the covenant falls more in line with the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith (see chap 7). They both hold to the idea that the old and new covenants are completely separate in their substance.
One covenant requires moral obedience, and one requires only faith. According to them, only the latter can save you. Even repentance of sin is part of the old system of the covenant of works. Clark Whitten also taught that demanding repentance contaminated grace.
When one assumes that the substance of the old covenant was works – a salvation by obedience; it forces one to design the new covenant the same way. The Neonomians claim the new covenant is ‘of grace’ but they cannot get away from the pattern of ‘conditions’. That is why even their ‘covenant of grace’ has the one new law. The grace comes from the fact that Jesus finished obeying the old laws so that now there is one easy law: faith.
No covenant of works
Yet, their starting point is wrong. In spite of the Westminster Confession, many reformers taught that there was no covenant of works. Not in the Old Testament, and for some (including HH), not even in Paradise.
Calvin taught that the law was no condition but a way of life. He claims in his commentary on Ezekiel, “… as Moses testifies, “This is the way, walk ye in it:” again, “Whosoever has done those things shall live in them:” and, again, “This is your life …”.
The Heidelberg Catechism does not teach a covenant of works.
Ferguson reminds us that the law is the gracious way in which salvation leads us. It is the moral shape that salvation takes. The law at Sinai was not a means to salvation. It was not a means into the covenant.
Hoeksema wrote, “…it is quite impossible that man should merit a special reward with God. Obedience to God is an obligation. It certainly has its reward, for God is just and rewards the good with good. But obedience has its reward in itself: to obey the Lord our God is life and joy. Sin is misery and death. … To keep the commandments of God and to serve Him is a privilege. But the covenant of works teaches that Adam could merit something more, something special, by obeying the command of the Lord“. Reformed Dogmatics, pp. 217-218. Bold mine.
The Neonomian shift
Thus, because some Baptists and the Neonomians teach that the new replaces the old covenant, they speak of a shift into the new.
Hebrews supposedly teaches this shift to the new covenant. The last two verses of chapter 3, and chapter 4 teaches about entering the rest of the New Testament. This rest is entered through faith. The understanding of this rest means not worrying about observing laws.
Also, the ‘last days’ of Acts 2:16-17 are not the last days of cosmic collapse at the end of time; but rather, the last days of the old covenant.
According to Neonomians, 2 Corinthians 3:7 calls the old covenant the government of death and condemnation. But, the new covenant has a government of affirmation.
Subjective experience replaces objective obedience. By this, faith’s evidence is lost. And, sanctification becomes the sense or awareness of one’s justification.
John the Baptist
The Neonomians claim that John was teaching about this new replacement covenant when he declared, ‘the kingdom of heaven is at hand’. It would faze out the moral laws and replace them with faith alone. Supposedly, when John the Baptist cried out, ‘repent and believe’, it was so that people would understand this shift into a different covenant.
John was supposedly telling the people to repent of their Old Covenant ‘law’ ideas and their slavish pursuit of obedience. He wanted them to repent from that, to change their minds about all of that, and embrace the New Law of grace: believing.
Being perfect and lowered standards
In the covenant of works, obedience had to be perfect. But happily, this new covenant does not demand perfect obedience on our part, but only a sincere attempt. You only need to be able to say, ‘my heart is right’ and mean it. This is expressing your faith; your behavior has no bearing.
The cause for this is Jesus, who through His death, now lowered the bar of God’s law. Now believing is easier for us to do and obey, and thus to merit God’s favour.
This is a form of legalism – salvation partly through our obedience to the new law of faith.
Replacing the wrong things
The core of this error is not about imperfect obedience. It is not about easier obedience. The error is that the obedience of believing replaces the imputed righteousness of Christ [to us].
According to neonomianism, our justification rests on two things. The imputation of our sins to Christ. And our own work of sincerely but weakly believing: having faith. So, yes, it has Arminianism too.
RPs and Neonomianism
Remember, the RPs repeatedly teach that what you do does not matter. They also say that believing is the only good work. And believing is expressing faith; or expressing love for God. They also say that repentance is not necessary.
Even Nate’s sermons teach that perfection is impossible. But now faith, believing with sincerity, is enough; it is all that God expects. The RPs consider any purposeful outward adherence to the old covenant law as ‘trying to earn salvation’. They say it is proof of a works-righteous mindset, a spiritual step backward, a spiritual whoredom.
RPs, and their off-shoot groups, lean into neonomianism. The PRC never taught Neonomianism. However, if anyone in the PRC, or the RP groups, thinks like a Neonomian, they need to check their theology.
Next time: some implications of Neonomianism, Richard Baxter, and a short rebuttal.
1 comment
Comments are closed.