# The marrow controversy and Edwards.



## Conner (Nov 18, 2014)

I have lately been taken with an ardent desire to study the marrow controversy with all of its intricacies and have found myself thinking much of the theology of one who lived during this time whose theology I am much more familiar with than that of men like the erskines and Thomas Boston. I have in mind Jonathan Edwards. I am wondering what his relationship to the controversy would be. Obviously he would not side with the antinomians. Nor would he be a strict neo-nomian. Doesn't it seem however that he sometimes stresses the secondary means of assurance over and above the promises, as well as making repentance and condition fulfilling obedience of the very essence of saving faith? (e.g. Religious Affections, Theological discourse on Faith, God the greatest portion of the Christian, the manner in which the salvation of the soul is to be sought..etc...). Other times he seems to side with the marrow men (pardon for the returning sinner, the excellency of Christ etc...). Anybody have any thoughts or info on where Edwards would stand on this and the reason for the seeming internal contradictions in Edwards theology? If you would like me to provide quotes I would be happy to at a later point because my kindle won't work right now to open his works for some reason.


----------



## whirlingmerc (Nov 18, 2014)

I wonder if it might be related to Edwards not always being the best pastor dealing with interpersonal issues ( How Jonathan Edwards Got Fired, and Why It's Important for Us Today | Desiring God )


----------



## Toasty (Nov 18, 2014)

Conner said:


> I have lately been taken with an ardent desire to study the marrow controversy with all of its intricacies and have found myself thinking much of the theology of one who lived during this time whose theology I am much more familiar with than that of men like the erskines and Thomas Boston. I have in mind Jonathan Edwards. I am wondering what his relationship to the controversy would be. Obviously he would not side with the antinomians. Nor would he be a strict neo-nomian. Doesn't it seem however that he sometimes stresses the secondary means of assurance over and above the promises, as well as making repentance and condition fulfilling obedience of the very essence of saving faith? (e.g. Religious Affections, Theological discourse on Faith, God the greatest portion of the Christian, the manner in which the salvation of the soul is to be sought..etc...). Other times he seems to side with the marrow men (pardon for the returning sinner, the excellency of Christ etc...). Anybody have any thoughts or info on where Edwards would stand on this and the reason for the seeming internal contradictions in Edwards theology? If you would like me to provide quotes I would be happy to at a later point because my kindle won't work right now to open his works for some reason.



Here is his work on justification: Justification By Faith AloneÂ  --Â  Jonathan Edwards


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 18, 2014)

whirlingmerc said:


> I wonder if it might be related to Edwards not always being the best pastor dealing with interpersonal issues ( How Jonathan Edwards Got Fired, and Why It's Important for Us Today | Desiring God )



Did you even understand the question before you posted that reply?


----------



## Toasty (Nov 18, 2014)

Here is a quote from Edwards. This is from the link that I provided in an earlier post.



> Object. 5. It is objected against the doctrine of justification by faith alone, that repentance is evidently spoken of in Scripture as that which is in a special manner the condition of remission of sins: but remission of sins is by all allowed to be that wherein justification does (at least) in great part consist.
> 
> But it must certainly arise from a misunderstanding of what the Scripture says about repentance, to suppose that faith and repentance are two distinct things, that in like manner are the conditions of justification. For it is most plain from the Scripture, that the condition of justification, or that in us by which we are justified, is but one, and that is faith. Faith and repentance are not two distinct conditions of justification, nor are they two distinct things that together make one condition of justification. But faith comprehends the whole of that by which we are justified, or by which we come to have an interest in Christ, and there is nothing else that has a parallel concern with it in the
> affair of our salvation. And this the divines on the other side themselves are sensible of, and therefore they suppose that the faith the apostle Paul speaks of, which he says we are justified by alone, comprehends in it repentance.
> ...


----------



## whirlingmerc (Nov 18, 2014)

Rich, what I meant was that how a person deals with people may affect their perception of necessary fruit or the language one uses in describing it. Over the course of a historical figure's life they face a range of issues and in the case of Edwards the half covenenter issue became more and more of an issue I have also heard pastors use language as if something is a condition of salvation when I know they mean it is a necessary fruit. For example I heard a PCA pastor describing forgiveness as a condition of salvation where I know he meant a necessary fruit of salvation. It could have been misunderstood as a precondition

You might enjoy Sinclaire Fergusen's series Pastoral lessons on the Marrow controversy
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=1120071123108
I always feel Sinclaire Fergusen puts allot fo work in to his sermons and they are worthwile


----------



## Conner (Nov 18, 2014)

"Good works are in some sort implied in the very nature of faith, as is implied in 1 Tim. v.8. where the apostle, speaking of them that do not provide for their parents, says, "If any provide not for his own, and especially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith."


----------



## Conner (Nov 18, 2014)

Here is another one where he seems to depart from Thomas Goodwin (who probably wrote more on faith than anybody in the history of the church.) "that love belongs to the essence of saving faith, is manifest by comparing "men have not heard nor perceived by the ear,&c. what he hath prepared for him that waiteth for him," as cited by the apostle, "it is for them that love him." Now it is evident that waiting for God, in the Old Testament, signifies the same with faith in God, or trusting in God. Dr. Goodwin, in vol.1. Of his works, p.286. Says, "the papists say, wickedly and wretchedly, that love is the form and soul of faith." But how does the truth of this charge of wickedness appear?" Etc...


----------



## MW (Nov 18, 2014)

Conner said:


> Doesn't it seem however that he sometimes stresses the secondary means of assurance over and above the promises, as well as making repentance and condition fulfilling obedience of the very essence of saving faith?



"Secondary means" is an unhappy term. Marks of grace are necessary in co-ordination with the promises because they "mark out" the one to whom the promises apply. The Marrowmen emphasised them as much as Edwards.

"Saving faith" and "justifying faith" are not identical. By faith alone a person is justified, but this faith is never alone in the person justified.


----------



## whirlingmerc (Nov 18, 2014)

Conner said:


> "Good works are in some sort implied in the very nature of faith, as is implied in 1 Tim. v.8. where the apostle, speaking of them that do not provide for their parents, says, "If any provide not for his own, and especially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith."



and is worse than an unbeliever... in what sense.... worse (more inconsistent) than an unbeliever or worse off (is not genuinely a believer and condemned to a worse judgment)
I'm not sure which Paul meant

as far as love, Col 1:5 suggests the fruit of the Colossian's faith and love began the day they understood the grace of God in truth


----------

