Considering the Marrow of Modern Divinity Part 1

I’ve finally begun to read The Marrow of Modern Divinity by Edward Fisher.  It is the newer edition with Thomas Boston‘s notes.  So, you get 2 Puritans for the price of 1.  Hard to hate.

I am finding it a tough go at times.  Perhaps I’ve been slack in my reading of the Puritans lately.  Perhaps it is the layout.  The longer notes by Boston are laid out together, but cover a few different pages.  Since I don’t want to continually flip back and forth I sometimes lose the context.

The books starts with a few historical questions.  It briefly recounts the Marrow Controversy in the Church of Scotland and Thomas Boston’s involvement in that Controversy.  It also examines the identity of E.F. and which Edward Fisher probably wrote this important book that discusses the Christian’s relationship with the law.

The book is like Cur Deus Homo? in that it is in the form of a dialogue.  But instead of 2 characters, there are 4 to represent 2 erroneous views (legalism and antinomianism), the proper view and the new Christian who is caught in the crossfire.

One of the interesting aspects for me is that occasionally Boston disagrees with Fisher on finer points.  There are quite a few finer points I disagree with one or both on due to how they are using Scripture in particular instances.  These are non-essential to the arguments, however.  Boston does not require that Fisher agree with him on everything to recommend him as beneficial.  Sinclair Ferguson (his Pastoral Lessons on the Controversy are excellent!)and Philip Ryken also recommend the book (as well as a few other prominent Puritans like Burroughs) which goes to the point that a recommendation does not entail approval of every jot and tittle.  They agree with the main point, not every rabbit trail.

Sometimes we think and endorsement means the person endorses every last word, and rake someone over the coals for endorsing a book with a minor error in it.  Well, if a minor error, we shouldn’t rake ANYONE over the coals.  Correct gently perhaps, but we needn’t be doctrinal Pharisees (I speak write as a repentant doctrinal Pharisee).

Sometimes we think we should agree with every single point by an author (see above in doctrinal Pharisees).  Save it for the big stuff.

Thomas Boston

The first question that brings Nomista, Antinomista and Neophyte to Evangelista is the relationship of the law to the Christian.  Nomista and Antinomista have been arguing over how Neophyte should view the law.  At first Nomista sounds like a good Calvinist- it is the rule of life for the Christian- but Evangelista asks a question to clarify things:  “what law do you mean?”

The moral law is discussed in the New Testament as both the Law of Works and the Law of Christ.  They are significantly different.  The Law of Works views the moral law from the vantage point of the Covenant of Works- do this and live.  The Covenant of Works is written on all our hearts, and as those born in Adam is the Covenant under which all people naturally live.

This Covenant, and the Law which is a part of it, shuts us up under sin and condemns us (Romans 1-3, 5).  But it is this Covenant that Jesus fulfilled in order that those he represents in the Covenant of Grace may be saved.  While we were covenant breakers, He was the representative covenant keeper for our salvation (Romans 5).

The Christian, because of union with the crucified Christ, has died to the law and it has died to him (Romans 6-7, Galatians 5).  The Christian is no longer under the Covenant of Works.  We do not maintain our salvation through obedience.  In this way, we are not under law.  In this way, the law is not a rule of life for the Christian.

“The truth is, Nomista, the law of the Ten Commandments, as it is the matter of the law of works, ought not to be a rule of life to a believer. … But the truth is, the law of the Ten Commandments, as it is a matter of the law of Christ, ought to be a rule of life to a believer.”

The Christian is under the Law of Christ, which is the same moral law as in the Law of Works.  But the Law of Christ is: you live, so do.  Obedience flows out of life, rather than life flowing out of obedience.  That is a huge difference!  The law does not cease to exist for the Christian as Antinomista claims.  There is a rule of life for us who are under grace.  But we obey for very different reasons (having been redeemed instead of to to gain or maintain salvation), and we obey in a very different power (the Spirit at work in us instead of the power of the flesh).  The Spirit works in us to keep the moral law (Romans 8 & 12, Galatians 5, Ephesians 4-5).

“Thus, in Christ, the way of free grace, and of the law, sweetly meet together; and through faith we establish the law.”  Thomas Boston

What the legalist does not grasp is that our righteous standing before God depends solely and completely upon the righteousness of Christ graciously imputed to us (with apologies to N.T. Wright).  The covenant of works says “do or die”, and only One has every done.  All others must die!  But Jesus died in our (the elect) place as our representative and substitute.  He not only fulfilled the penalty of the law for us, but positively fulfilled the law for us.  The obedience to the law necessary for us to be saved comes from Christ’s obedience to the law.  We neither add to, nor take away, from this.

What the antinomian does not grasp is that the law represents God’s character which we are to imitate as those who have been justified and adopted, and are being sanctified.  He has brought us into His household that we might reflect His glory.  The law reveals what love is (Romans 12).  We are free from the curse of the law, and the law as a covenant of works.  But we live under the Lordship of Christ as people saved by grace.  As regenerated, sanctified (initially), Spirit-indwelt people who trust Christ we are to walk after Him in progressive obedience to that same law.  We obey from faith and gratitude instead of slavish fear.

The Marrow of Modern Divinity covers some other material, so we’ll be back to cover that ground as well.