Sermon Tone Analysis

Overall tone of the sermon

This automated analysis scores the text on the likely presence of emotional, language, and social tones. There are no right or wrong scores; this is just an indication of tones readers or listeners may pick up from the text.
A score of 0.5 or higher indicates the tone is likely present.
Emotion Tone
Anger
0.49UNLIKELY
Disgust
0.14UNLIKELY
Fear
0.12UNLIKELY
Joy
0.2UNLIKELY
Sadness
0.24UNLIKELY
Language Tone
Analytical
0.73LIKELY
Confident
0UNLIKELY
Tentative
0.23UNLIKELY
Social Tone
Openness
0.97LIKELY
Conscientiousness
0.61LIKELY
Extraversion
0.52LIKELY
Agreeableness
0.3UNLIKELY
Emotional Range
0.62LIKELY

Tone of specific sentences

Tones
Emotion
Anger
Disgust
Fear
Joy
Sadness
Language
Analytical
Confident
Tentative
Social Tendencies
Openness
Conscientiousness
Extraversion
Agreeableness
Emotional Range
Anger
< .5
.5 - .6
.6 - .7
.7 - .8
.8 - .9
> .9
*Antinomianism* (from the Greek /αντι/, "against" + /νομος/, "law"), or lawlessness (in the Greek Bible: ανομια,[1] which is "unlawful"), in theology, is the idea that members of a particular religious group are under no obligation to obey the laws of ethics or morality as presented by religious authorities.[2] Antinomianism is the polar opposite of legalism, the notion that obedience to a code of religious law is necessary for salvation.
The term has become a point of contention among opposed religious authorities.
Few groups or sects explicitly call themselves "antinomian", but the charge is often leveled by some sects against competing sects.
| !! Contents
[hide]* 1 Antinomianism in the Old Testament
* 2 Antinomianism in the New Testament
* 3 Antinomianism among Christians
* 3.1 Multiple issues
* 3.2 Charges of antinomianism against early Christians
* 3.3 Charges by Catholics against Protestants
* 3.4 Charges by Luther against Agricola
* 3.5 Charges against Calvinists
* 3.6 Charges against other groups
* 3.7 Charges against Quakers
* 4 Antinomianism in Islam
* 5 The use of the antinomian idea in a secular context
* 6 Notes
* 7 References
* 8 See also
* 9 External links
|
!! [edit] Antinomianism in the Old Testament
Throughout the Hebrew Bible, different covenants are described; two of them are the Davidic and the Mosaic.
The Davidic adds an emphasis of God's unconditional commitment to the Mosaic's apparent emphasis on God's demands; however, both Moses and David describe the same covenant, a covenant that was further expounded by Elijah, Isaiah, and the other prophets, who have to remind followers repeatedly of God's demands.
It is stated in the Bible that certain powers will try to change (not expound) the Mosaic Law.
For example, in speaking of the end times:
"He shall speak words against the Most High, shall wear out the holy ones of the Most High, and shall attempt to change the sacred seasons and the law; and they shall be given into his power for a time, two times, and half a time."
– Daniel 7:25 NRSV
!! [edit] Antinomianism in the New Testament
/See also: Christianity and Judaism/
Paul of Tarsus, in his Letters, claims several times that believers are saved by the unearned grace of God, not by good works, "lest anyone should boast", and placed a priority on orthodoxy (right belief) before orthopraxy (right practice).
The soteriology of Paul's statements in this matter has always been a matter of dispute (for example, see 2 Peter 3:16); the ancient gnostics interpreted Paul to be referring to the manner in which embarking on a path to enlightenment ultimately leads to enlightenment, which was their idea of what constituted /salvation/.
In what has become the modern Protestant orthodoxy, however, this is interpreted as a reference to salvation simply by trusting Christ.
See also New Perspective on Paul.
Paul used the term /freedom in Christ/, for example, Galatians 2:4, and it is clear that some understood this to mean lawlessness (i.e not obeying Mosaic Law).
For example, in Acts 18:12-16 Paul is accused of "persuading .. people to worship God in ways contrary to the law."
In Acts 21:21 James the Just explained his situation to Paul:
"They have been told about you that you teach all the Jews living among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, and that you tell them not to circumcise their children or observe the customs."
(NRSV)
Colossians 2:13-14 is sometimes presented as proof of Paul's antinomistic views.
For example, the NIV translates these verses: "…he forgave us all our sins, having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross."
However, the NRSV translates this same verse as: "…he forgave us all our trespasses, erasing the record that stood against us with its legal demands.
He set this aside, nailing it to the cross."
This latter translation makes it sound as though it is a /record of trespasses/, rather than /the Law itself/, that was "nailed to the cross."
The interpretation partly hinges on the original Greek word χειρόγραφον which according to Strong's G5498[3] literally means "something written by hand" which is variously translated as "written code" or "record".
However, within the context of the following verses, especially verse Colossians 2:16 where Paul states that current behaviour is also free from "judgement", it appears more likely that Paul, or whoever wrote Colossians, is claiming the Law itself has been abolished.
(Notice that even the NRSV speaks of "the record…with its legal demands", which may indicate a law code rather than a charge sheet.)
Romans 10:4 is also sometimes translated: "Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes."
(NIV) The key word here is /telos/ (see also Strong's G5056).[4]
Robert Badenas[5] argues that /telos/ is correctly translated as goal, not end, so that Christ is the /goal/ of the Law.
Andy Gaus' version of the New Testament[6] translates this verse as: "Christ is what the law aims at: for every believer to be on the right side of [God's] justice."
Also cited is Ephesians 2:15: "…abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations…" (NIV).
On the other hand, Paul also wrote or spoke in support of the law, for example: Romans 2:12–16, 3:31, 7:12, 8:7–8, Galatians 5:3, Acts 24:14, 25:8 and preached about Ten Commandment topics such as idolatry: 1 Corinthians 5:11, 6:9–10, 10:7, 10:14, Galatians 5:19–21, Ephesians 5:5, Colossians 3:5, Acts 17:16–21, 19:23–41.
The Catholic Encyclopedia article on /Judaizers/[7] notes: "Paul, on the other hand, not only did not object to the observance of the Mosaic Law, as long as it did not interfere with the liberty of the Gentiles, but he conformed to its prescriptions when occasion required (1 Corinthians 9:20).
Thus he shortly after the Council of Jerusalem circumcised Timothy (Acts 16:1-3), and he was in the very act of observing the Mosaic ritual when he was arrested at Jerusalem (21:26 sqq.)."
The Jewish Encyclopedia article on /Gentile: Gentiles May Not Be Taught the Torah/[8] notes the following reconciliation: "R.
Emden, in a remarkable apology for Christianity contained in his appendix to "Seder 'Olam,"[9] gives it as his opinion that the original intention of Jesus, and especially of Paul, was to convert only the Gentiles to the seven moral laws of Noah and to let the Jews follow the Mosaic law — which explains the apparent contradictions in the New Testament regarding the laws of Moses and the Sabbath."
The Tübingen school of historians founded by F. C. Baur holds that in Early Christianity, there was conflict between Pauline Christianity and the Jerusalem Church led by James the Just, Simon Peter, and John the Apostle, the so-called "Jewish Christians" or Pillars of the Church although in many places Paul writes that he was an observant Jew, and that Christians should "uphold the Law" (Romans 3:31).
In Galatians 2:14, part of the "Incident at Antioch."[10] Paul publicly accused Peter of judaizing.
Even so, he does go on to say that sins remain sins, and upholds by several examples the kind of behaviour that the church should not tolerate (e.g., Galatians 5:19-21, 1 Cor 6:9-10).
In 1 Corinthians 7:10-16 he cites Jesus' teaching on divorce ("not I but the Lord") and does not reject it, but goes on to proclaim his own teaching ("I, not the Lord"), an extended counsel regarding a specific situation which some interpret as not in conflict with what the Lord said.
However, this may mean he received direct knowledge of what the Lord wanted him to teach through the Holy Ghost (Galatians 2:6-10).
The Epistle of James, in contrast, states that our good works justify before men our faith after salvation and we are to obey the Law of God, that *a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone*, that *faith without works is dead* (James 2:14–26).
Historically, the presence of this statement has been difficult for Protestants to reconcile with their belief in salvation by faith alone.
Martin Luther even suggested that the Epistle might be a forgery, and relegated it to an appendix in his Bible (although he later came to accept its canonicity, see also Antilegomena).
Though this may be interpreted through the word "justified."
It speaks that faith in Jesus Christ is the first step and that faith is justified through good works, he goes on to say that without spreading your love and faith, it is dead.
Works are the evidence of faith.
It's not faith and works; it's faith that works.
See also Law and Gospel, article on /James 2:20/ [11], Romans 2:6, Ephesians 2:8-10, Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification.
The Torah prescribes the death penalty for desecrating the sabbath by working (Exodus 31:14-17).
To avoid any possibility of breaking the Torah commands, the Pharisees formulated strict interpretations and numerous traditions which they treated as /laws/, see Halakha.
Jesus criticized the Pharisees for this (Mark 7:7-9).
The Jewish Encyclopedia article on /Jesus/[12] notes: "Jesus, however, does not appear to have taken into account the fact that the Halakah was at this period just becoming crystallized, and that much variation existed as to its definite form; the disputes of the Bet Hillel and Bet Shammai were occurring about the time of his maturity."
In the Gospel of Mark, Jesus's disciples were picking grain for food on a sabbath (Mark 2:23-28).
When the Pharisees challenged Jesus over this, he pointed to Biblical precedent and declared that "the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath".
Some claim Jesus rejected complete adherence to the Torah, see also The Fig Tree.
Most scholars hold that Jesus did not reject the law, but directed that it should be obeyed in context.
e.g., E. P. Sanders [13] notes: "…no substantial conflict between Jesus and the Pharisees with regard to Sabbath, food, and purity laws….
The church took some while to come to the position that the Sabbath need not be kept, and it is hard to think that Jesus explicitly said so."
There may be passages where the words of Jesus have been misinterpreted and were not really in contradiction with the Jewish law.[14]
In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus is sometimes portrayed as referring to people he sees as wicked with the term /ergazomenoi// tēn anomian/ (εργαζομενοι την ανομιαν) - e.g.
Matthew 7:21-23, Matthew 13:40-43.
Due to this negative context the term has almost always been translated as /evildoers/, though it literally means /workers of lawlessness./[15]
In other words, Matthew appears to present Jesus as equating wickedness with encouraging antinomianism.
Scholars view Matthew as having been written by or for a Jewish audience, the so-called Jewish Christians.
Several scholars argue that Matthew artificially lessened a claimed rejection of Jewish law so as not to alienate Matthew's intended audience.
However, Jesus called for full adherence to the commandments (Matthew 5:19-21) He declared: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them" (Matthew 5:17).
A parallel verse to Matthew 7:21 is James 1:22.
See also Expounding of the Law, Great Commission, Hyperdispensationalism
1 John 3:4 states: "Everyone who commits sin is guilty of lawlessness; sin is lawlessness."
!! [edit] Antinomianism among Christians
In the case of Christianity, the controversy arises out of the doctrine of grace, the forgiveness of sins and atonement by faith in Jesus Christ; Christians being released, in important particulars, from conformity to the Old Testament polity as a whole, a real difficulty attended the settlement of the limits and the immediate authority of the remainder, known vaguely as the moral law, see Cafeteria Christianity.
If God forgives sins, what exactly is the disadvantage in sinning, or the reward or purpose of obedience?
!!! [edit] Multiple issues
There are several issues that are addressed by the charge of antinomianism.
The charge may represent the fear that a given theological position does not lead to the edification of the believer or assists him in leading a regenerate life.
Doctrines that tend to erode the authority of the church and its right to prescribe religious practices for the faithful are often condemned as antinomian.
The charge is also brought against those whose teachings are perceived as hostile to government and established authority and the rule of law.
!!! [edit] Charges of antinomianism against early Christians
St Paul's doctrine of justification by faith has been accused of leading to immoral licence.
< .5
.5 - .6
.6 - .7
.7 - .8
.8 - .9
> .9