Is Acceptance Antinomianism?

Antinomianism: big word, short meaning. It means simply anti-law. It's a heretical Christian movement that has popped up many times in 2,000 years in various forms. It basically holds that there is no effect of sin because Jesus died for me; the logical result being something like 'thus, I can do whatever because my sins are already forgiven.' In short, it's a cheap-grace movement. The reason I'm bringing this up is because of a series of conversations I've been having at Bible studies and with my internship supervisor about seemingly different topics, but which are converging within the expanse that is my mind.

First, my supervisor and I have had conversations about the difference between acceptance theology and redemption theology. There is a concern among some pastors in the ELCA and other denominations that blind acceptance of everyone without being critical or at least remindful of their sins negates the answer to the question 'why did Jesus have to die?' (The answer, of course, is because of the state of sin in which we live and our own individual sins). If we don't do a decent job of acknowledging sins when welcoming people, the argument goes, than we're rendering Jesus' death meaningless. In other words, if our sins aren't something to be fully aware of and reminded of daily with an urge toward repentance, than there's no reason for Jesus to have been alive, let alone crucified.

Second, I was reading through the Epistle of Jude with a Bible study group last night and we learned that much of it was written in response to early Christian leaders teaching antinomianism. These leaders would openly swap wives, participate in orgies, get drunk on a regular basis and engage in other forms of "licentiousness" as Jude describes it in sum.

So, I got to thinking about it and began to wonder if blind acceptance of everyone without being critical of their sins is akin to antinomianism or cheap grace. I tend to think that it is, but what do you think?