Grace versus the Law, the Antinomian Controversy.

I was reading a post on one of the forums when I came across the Antinomian Controversy . So I went over the history of it and it was very eye opening especially the place and people who were involved. I would think this also laid the background for the tension in the Adventist church which early on tended to the Puritan view of the Law which was challenged at the 1888 General Conference.

The Antinomian Controversy, also known as the Free Grace Controversy, was a religious and political conflict in the Massachusetts Bay Colony from 1636 to 1638. The controversy was a theological debate concerning the "covenant of grace" and "covenant of works". Antinomianism literally means being "against or opposed to the law", and was a term used by critics of those Massachusetts colonists who advocated the preaching of "free grace" as opposed to "legal" preaching of the majority of the colony's ministers. The controversy pitted most of the colony's ministers and magistrates against the adherents of the free grace theology of Puritan minister John Cotton.

Puritan minister John Cotton was mentor to Anne Hutchinson who became the center of the controversy although Cotton was really the cause. Hutchison criticized the colony's ministers for preaching a covenant of works as opposed to the covenant of grace espoused by the Reverend Cotton. Anne Hutchinson was brought to trial in 1637 and was charged with contempt and sedition and sentenced to banishment from the colony. Hutchinson was held in detention until March 1638 when she was excommunicated by a religious court. Her subsequent departure from the colony brought the controversy to a close. The events of 1636 to 1638 are regarded as crucial to an understanding of religion, society, and gender in the early colonial history of New England and had long-lasting effects.

Now lets look closer at was being taught by Cotton or what they held to that caused such a controversy. Hutchinson became a follower of John Cotton, who preached at St. Botolph's Church in Boston. It was likely Cotton who taught Hutchinson to question the legal preaching of most early 17th-century English clergymen. He may have also taught her that only "those elected by God" had the Holy Spirit dwelling within them. As preacher and layperson, Cotton and Hutchinson shared the message to others that salvation could not be earned by acting morally. On this topic Cotton wrote, "And many whose spiritual estates were not so safely layed, yet were hereby helped and awakened to discover their sandy foundations, and to seek for better establishment in Christ". Hutchinson began to give her own views on religion, espousing that "an intuition of the Spirit", and not outward behavior, provided the only justification that one had been elected by God. Taking further Cotton's doctrine of the Holy Ghost dwelling within a "justified person", Hutchinson saw herself as a participant in the "transcendent power of the Almighty".
While Hutchinson adopted Cotton's minority view of divine grace being the only means to salvation, as opposed to any assistance through works, she did share the mainstream view of most Puritans in emphasizing "the need for an inner experience of God's regenerating grace as a mark of election.

She also believed in mortalism, the belief that when the body dies, the soul dies also. Another example of her divergence from the mainstream experience is that she saw herself as a prophetess. Hutchinson claimed the "authority of inspiration," meaning the direct witness of the Holy Spirit, one of the few alternatives for an authoritative voice that were available to women. Though she was able to nimbly spar with her accusers during her civil trial, she ultimately rested her power in this inspiration to make her case. Historians suggests that such authority was rejected by the magistrates and ministers because it degraded their own authority.

Shades of the 1888 controversy come to mind and very interesting reading to say the least.

I appreciate this historical background Rick. Tx.

So regarding of the 1888 General Conference, could you give a brief list of the issues involve. As far as I heard and the little I've read that it was about :

a)righteousness by faith which I presume would be considered as the "convenant of grace", and

b)the re-organization of the Church structure.

I do believe the Antinomian Controversy still exist in our church, our doctrines, and all over EGW's writtings. As long as we are not able to reconcile Law and Grace together according to the Lord's mind and way, we will speak with a split tongue.

It all boils down to which is cause and which is effect.

I'm not understanding your point. If you are refering to the Grace versus the law... what happen if the Lord is the cause? (Rom 9)

I'm just looking at grace vs. law. There are those who see the keeping of the law as leading to the reception of God's grace. And there are those who see the reception of God's grace as leading to the keeping of the law. I am of the latter persuasion.

What if God is the ultimate cause? Well, He does "cause" both grace and the law, as well as law-keeping. But in all these, man has an active role to play. One could view all of these - grace, law, obedience - as gifts from God that we must accept and "open" if we are to benefit from them.

(Note: Yes, even obedience is a gift from God. Many view obedience as our gift TO God. But our obedience is tainted. The only obedience that is truly holy is the kind that comes FROM God through Christ.)

I am in agreement with your persuasion more than the other, however, this still have some holes and does not reconcile all scriptures.

According to Is 26:10, mercy does not lead men in keeping the law.

KJV Is 26:9 With my soul have I desired thee in the night; yea, with my spirit within me will I seek thee early: for when thy judgments are in the earth, the inhabitants of the world will learn righteousness.

NIV 26:10 But when grace [chanan, mercy] is shown to the wicked, they do not learn righteousness; even in a land of uprightness they go on doing evil and do not regard the majesty of the LORD.

However, that doesn't negate the fact their is mercy by which is placed above the law. We just need to dig more scripture up to come to receoncile the two to come in harmony with the Lord's mind and purpose.

Also scripture does tells us that the Father has to "drag"(helko) us to Jesus(John 6:44) and yes!... against our will.

Someone can be "open" only if the Lord first "open" him.

I was referring to Rom 9 which state :
9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth; )

9:12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.

9:13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

9:14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.

9:15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.

9:16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

9:17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.

9:18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

9:19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?

9:20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?

9:21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

9:22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

9:23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

This text above and many others that I can quote shows clearly that the Lord is Sovereign over events and man and not vice versa. The Lord has a plan in place since the beginning of this world that calls for role players that He elects before birth -- some players for roles of destruction and others for His glory. These is despite our personal day to day little plans may be. Some of our little plan may come to executions, however, Elohim's plans is above ours and His will is always fulfilled before ours.

I tend to think or grace as God writing His law in our hearts. In other words, having the law written on our hearts is an indispensable aspect of receiving his grace. There is no dichotomy between law and grace since grace is an expression of the principle behind God's law -- love. Those who reject God's law have therefore rejected His grace.





The goodness (or kindness) of God that leads to repentance (Romans 2:4) is often most pronounced in contrast to the wretchedness that sin causes. To have an intelligent appreciation of God's grace, we need an appreciation of what it is that His grace has saved us from. That is why the grace (mercy) of God is mingled with chastisements, making the chastisements an expression of grace. The text in Isaiah 26:10 could also be referring to those who are obstinately wicked in the sense that when shown the goodness of God, they choose to harden their hearts and become even more sinful. It is in mercy to them, and at least to those who would otherwise be influenced by them, that God allows them to see the results of sin to some degree.

We don't have His laws written in our heart, it is a process that requires time and often it is by putting us under the law's judgment that we come to have it written in our heart. One of the grace element into this is that the Father has ordained that His judgments are corrective in nature and not punitive like the Christendom(including SDAs) view it.

We need to look at the Torah and the remaining of the Bible to get the Lord's definition of grace which no one has done yet in this discussion. Once we have the Biblical definition, then we can view it properly in perspective to the Law.

There you have the punitive definition of the Lord's judgment which is Babylonian origin and not Biblical.



Dave why do you add things and twist it to say what the plain text is not saying in Is 26. read it again.

I agree that the goodness of God leads man to repentance, but His goodness often comes in administrating corrective judgments. This is how we repent just like explained in Jeremiah 31:18 with the farmer(the Lord) who turns(repentance) His oxen(Ephraim) around by correcting him.

Isaiah 26 Verse 9 says that once the judgment is in the earth -- the world will learn righteousness(the law).

Verse 10 says giving grace to the wicked(which includes us also) they do not learn righetousness(the law) -- even if the whole land is practicing uprighteous, the wicked will go on to do evil and disrespecting the Lord.

?
What do you mean? That Hebrews 10:26-29 is of Babylonian origin?

Here is the definition of grace:
Titus 3:5-7 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; 6 Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior; 7 That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

Isaiah 53:11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.

I have to agree with Rosangela's question. I'm sure that's not what you meant by referring to my comment as in harmony with Babylonian (define that please) theology.

The punitive measures mentioned in the text just don't seem to be accompanied by any language that suggest that they serve a restorative function for the one who has finalized his rejection of God's grace.





All obedience is the fruit of having His law written on our hearts by His grace. I can see what you are saying and it is true in part. But what you are describing is the process of making what He has put in our hearts practical through experience. Sort of causing the seed which He implanted in our hearts to grow and bear fruit.