This Sunday I’m sort of preaching on the Ten Commandments since it is 10/10/10. What I’ll be doing is grappling with Law and Gospel. I want my people to understand the nature of their relationship to the law because of the gospel.
I’ve had a few of those conversations on the internet lately. It is a difficult issue to grasp and we tend to head toward the extremes of legalism and antinomianism. They are the 2 ditches on the side of the road. And both ditches are deadly. I don’t advise falling into either.
So, I started to listen to Sinclair Ferguson’s Pastoral Lessons from the Marrow Controversy. Here is a short history of the Marrow Controversy. I thought my notes might help a few people to understand what was going on, whetting the appetite about this pastorally important theological controversy.
The History of the Marrow Controversy
1717- the Presbytery of Auchterarder examined a candidate for ordination, William Craig was asked a question unique to that Presbytery.
“Do you subscribe to the following: I believe that it is not sound and orthodox to teach that we forsake sin in order to our coming to Christ.” Craig hesitated and they refused to grant him ordination. This brought the Auchterarder Creed before the General Assembly.
It was condemned by the Church of Scotland “as unsound and detestable doctrine.”
Thomas Boston was there, and he was quite disturbed by the proceeding. He saw this as an attack upon the gospel of grace, falsely accusing it of antinomianism. In 1700 Boston had discovered The Marrow of Modern Divinity which enabled him to grasp the relationship of law and gospel. He recommended it to James Drummond who gave it to James Hog who ended up reprinting it.
In 1721 Boston wrote his notes to The Marrow and it was reprinted with the notes. But by 1720, the book had been condemned. This ban has never been lifted by the Church of Scotland.
In the 1730’s many of the Marrow Men left the Church of Scotland over patronage and doctrinal dissolution in the Church.
The Marrow Men were accused of Antinomianism. The opponents were guilty of legalism. The issue was the nature of the gospel. This same Assembly looked over a serious case of Arminianism that developed into a form of Arianism. The Church was focused on the book more than the gospel.
“As matters now stand in this controversy, it is the gospel doctrine that has gotten a root stroke in the condemning of that book.” Thomas Boston
Pastoral Lessons
- The Marrow Controversy opens up to us the nature of the grace of God in the offer of the gospel.
- The Marrow Controversy opens up to us the relationship between saving faith and the assurance of salvation.
- The Marrow Controversy opens up to us the answer of grace of the gospel to legalism.
- The Marrow Controversy opens up to us the answer of grace to antinomianism.
It was all about the offer of the gospel. “Warrant to the gospel”- is the call to faith absolute or conditional?
- John 3:16 there is no exception of any kind to the offer of the gospel.
- Mark 16:15 Jesus’ Great Commission to preach the gospel to every creature.
- They falsely accused the Marrow Men of believing in a universal atonement.
- In Christ, there is fullness of grace to all who will come to Him.
- The freeness of the grace of Christ was also preserved. It is not bestowed upon the righteous, but the unrighteous.
- While believing in unconditional election, they had been preaching a conditional grace that cut the legs out from under the gospel.
The Faulty Logic
- The grace of God saves the elect.
- The elect forsake sin.
- The grace of God is given to those who forsake sin.
They confused the fruit of grace with qualifications for grace. They turned the gospel upon its head. This is a perennial danger in the Reformed Churches.
Four Errors to Which We Are Prone
Separate Christ from His benefits in the preaching of the gospel. They offered the benefits of the gospel to the elect and needed to devise signs to know who they are. They offered them only to those to whom they belonged. Christ comes to us with the benefits (Calvin, Owen, Brooks). He can’t be separated from the benefits He brings (Ephesians 1). The benefits come only to those who receive Christ. There is fullness of grace in Christ crucified.
Reformed Theology began to fall into the same logic as Arminianism. “I cannot say Christ has died for you if it is particularlized.” vs. “I cannot say Christ has died for you because it is particularlized.” Rather, Christ is able to save all who come to Him by faith.
Conditional Offer of the Gospel. If Christ’s benefits are held forth without Christ being held forth, you must put forth a condition. Legalism begins to creep in. Only the grace of God can lead a man to forsake sin, so we cannot require people to forsake sin prior to offering Christ to sinners. We make conviction a condition they must meet rather than a means which God may use.
Spurgeon 1858 “Christ Crucified” (Metropolitan Pulpit vol. 46. pp. 211-12) tells a story about an older fishwoman correcting Bunyon’s theology in Pilgrim’s Progress. “I went away better then the Pilgrim did.” … He sent the poor Pilgrim to the wicker gate instead of the cross. We only lose the burden at the cross, not before it. Calvin distinguished between the means God uses and the conditions God requires. We do not preach conviction of sin as the warrant of faith. God may or may not use that means.
Distorted the nature of God and grace. The sovereignty and freedom of God begin to be distorted when we put conditions upon grace. We are dead in sins and trespasses and can meet no conditions!
We begin to view God as unwilling to save, as though Jesus had to twist His arm. It undermines the unity of the Trinity. Boston rejected the Covenant of Redemption for making grace conditional upon what Christ would do. This is where Edwards disagreed with him, and didn’t understand him since he was not facing the same issues. Jesus did not die to persuade the Father but because the Father sent Him out of love for needy sinners. Both Jesus and Pharisees believed in predestination, but they believed in conditional grace. This is why Jesus condemned them. Jesus preached that he could save those who could meet no conditions. Unconditional grace from an unconditional God who unconditionally elects sinners. Unconditional election does not work through a conditional grace.
It distorts the nature of the pastoral ministry. They had mastered the pattern by which grace works, as if it was a formula. They had never really been mastered by the grace of God in their hearts. They know the truth, but not the power of the truth. They were Calvinists with the heart of a natural man. They will have a conditional ministry to other men, they will only give time and energy to people on condition. Their ministry will reflect their distortions of God. Their hearts were closed up to God’s people and the lost among the nations. Theologically correct, but hard. Are we like the Father, or the elder brother?
Cavman Considers 
Leave a Reply