Antinomial dispute

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A theological controversy that was carried out in several phases is referred to as an antinomistic dispute . It began in 1527 and revived in 1537. In the era after Luther's death there was renewed controversy over the question of the validity and meaning of the law (ancient Greek: nomos ) in the life of Christians.

First phase (1527-1540)

The background was the doctrine shared by Martin Luther and Philipp Melanchthon that the law primarily had the function of convicting people that they could not keep the commandments and were therefore dependent on the grace of God as sinners (" usus elenchticus ") . As early as 1527 and again in 1537, however , Luther's friend Johannes Agricola had denied the significance of the law for the Christian faith and had expressed the opinion that true repentance could only come from faith. Luther reacted with several disputations against the "Antinomer", whereupon the so-called Antinomerstreit (sometimes also the First Antinomist Controversy ) was conducted from 1537 to 1540 .

Second phase (1556–1571)

In 1556 the dispute flared up again (now properly known as the Antinomistic Dispute ) when, in connection with the Majorist Dispute, an Eisenach synod put forward the thesis that due to the usus elenchticus the law was positively related to salvation; and thus, although good works are not necessary (against Georg Major ) for justification, the fulfillment of the commandments is nevertheless necessary for salvation in an abstract sense. On the other hand, Nikolaus von Amsdorf and Andreas Poach , among others, turned in pamphlets, while other Gnesiolutherans such as Joachim Mörlin and Matthias Flacius defended the Eisenach theses. In 1565, the pastor of Nordhausen, Anton Otto , broadened the dispute by attacking Melanchthon's doctrine of the “third use of the law” ( Usus in renatis ) and demanding that the law be banished from the pulpit to the town hall. This now even led to attacks on the part of Melanchthon's opponent Flacius, who accused Otto of antinomicism , although he did not advocate it (at least not in the sense of Agricola's). In 1568/69 the dispute between Andreas Musculus and Abdias Prätorius was waged again. In Articles 4 and 6, the concord formula opted for a mediating position.

literature

  • Ernst Koch :  Antinomic disputes . In: Religion Past and Present (RGG). 4th edition. Volume 1, Mohr-Siebeck, Tübingen 1998, Sp. 550.
  • Irene Dingel (ed.): Der Antinomistische Streit (1556–1571) (= Controversia et Confessio, Vol. 4). Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen 2016, ISBN 978-3-525-56031-0 (source collection with detailed introduction).

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ Markus Friedrich: The dispute about arguing. Authoritative response models to theological dissent and their pluralization around 1600 . In: In: Wulf Oesterreicher , Gerhard Regn, Winfried Schulze (ed.): Authority of Form - Authorization - Institutional Authority. Lit, Münster 2003, pp. 293-308 ( online ).
  2. ↑ Cf. Heinz-Erich Eisenhuth: Luther and the Antinomism. (pdf, 168 kB) In: "In disciplina Domini" - In the Lord's School. (= Thuringian Church Studies; Vol. 1), Berlin, 1963, pp. 18–44 , accessed on March 1, 2019 . Rudolf Mau :  Law V. Reformation time . In: Theologische Realenzyklopädie (TRE). Volume 13, de Gruyter, Berlin / New York 1984, ISBN 3-11-008581-X , p. 86.