# Marrow Men



## DanielC (Aug 2, 2004)

Just finished reading Fisher's Marrow of Modern Divinity (and, coincidently, Ames Marrow of Theology).

Allow me to attach my recommendation to both, but particularly to the Marrow of Modern Divinity. That book is awesome. It will hone your understanding of the gospel and the place of the law to a razor's edge (or at least, more than any other merely human book I know of, with all due respect to Luther's Commentary on Galatians - also a must read).

There's a lot of stuff to read out there, but let's face it - when it all comes down to it, if there's anything to learn well its this: the gospel of grace and how God wants us to glorify Him. That's what the Marrow is all about - hence the title. :thumbup: 

Puritansailor - thanks for the recommendation.

Also, just picked up Pilgrims Progress III, The True Christian's Love to the Unseen Christ, and Precious Remedies for Satan's Devices. Anyone care to share their thoughts on those before I begin to form my own?

Daniel


----------



## Ianterrell (Aug 2, 2004)

Daniel are you aware of the Marrow Controversy?


----------



## DanielC (Aug 2, 2004)

yeah. it's actually pretty hard not to be aware of it after reading the book, seeing as the appendix includes the answers the marrow men gave to the GA Commission's Twelve Queries in regards to the Marrow. Good answers, by the way.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Aug 2, 2004)

Daniel, I'm glad you enjoyed it. It's one of my favorites both theologically and practically. It's about time for me to read through it again too. 

You've also picked another masterpiece: The True Christian's Love to the Unseen Christ. This is Vincents best book in my opinion. And it changed my life. It was one of my first Puritan reads and sealed my fate as a Puritan lover. Be prepared to rejoice and mourn at the same time.


----------



## Ianterrell (Aug 4, 2004)

The General Assembly wasn't convinced! I personally am against the Marrow Men-tality. I don't like it one bit. Gotta run though...


----------



## fredtgreco (Aug 4, 2004)

Yikes!


----------



## Ianterrell (Aug 4, 2004)

My issue with the Marrow Men in a nutshell: 

The gospel [b:1c627ff32b]is[/b:1c627ff32b] a presentation of God's gracious command to all to repent and believe.

The gospel [b:1c627ff32b]is not[/b:1c627ff32b] despite the Marrow Men's delusions a statement in which "Christ died for all". This is double-mindedness for any true Calvinist. Christ died for the elect. We do not need to go around psychologizing with sinners. Jesus like a good shepherd laid his life down for his sheep. For one to confess that doctrinal point and then turn to the unregenerate and tell him that Jesus died for him, is misguided.

This is essentially about having distinctly Calvinistic preaching as opposed to Amyraldian rhetoric. Marrow Men are thankfully Calvinist in doctrine, [i:1c627ff32b]until[/i:1c627ff32b] you start talking about the free offer. Suddenly Jesus died for the sins of everyone. Humbug I say. Bawlderdash.


----------



## DanielC (Aug 4, 2004)

Ian, I think I understand your concerns, and was expecting you to say that after reading another post of yours discussing hyper-calvinism. But honestly, I think you are a marrow man in disguise, but perhaps you just don't know it yet. Then again, I may be mistaken.

You're right, the general assembly didn't agree with the Marrow Men. And then again, Catholics didn't agree with Luther. Sometimes church councils are wrong. Anyway, it should make us proceed with caution.

In this case, the GA was wrong.

I'm guessing you haven't actually read the Marrow, judging from a couple things you said before. Actually, I'm guessing you've gotten most of your info from the PRCA or people repeating their stuff - those guys don't like the Marrow for sure.

First of all, the Marrow Controversy really ISN'T about Limited Atonement, like you said earlier. Its about whether or not repentance is a work that must be done before you can partake of Christ. The GA (the neonomians) said yes. Reformed folks say no, faith and repentance come afterwards graciously. The Marrow Men were accused of being Antinomian (though a third of the book is devoted to crushing antinomianism). They were simply anti-neonomian, declaring that repentance was not the new law that must be fulfilled before Christ can save you.

That was the issue. But the hyper-calvinist issue (i.e., the PRCA issue - they ARE hyper-calvinist, even though they don't say so) with the Marrow regards limited atonement and the general call. I see you agree with the fact that many are called but few are chosen. That's hard to argue with.

AND I agree with you that Christ only died for the elect. Obviously, if Jesus died for everyone, than everyone would be saved. The thing is, the Marrow Men would agree with you to. It's not that your doctrine is wrong or theirs is wrong (you both believe that Jesus only died for the elect). Its that your understanding of their beliefs is wrong. In Boston's notes on the Marrow, he specifically denies that "Christ died for all." Seeing as I don't have a copy on me at this moment, I might quote him later.

You should read it! It really is a great book. :bs2:


----------



## DanielC (Aug 4, 2004)

[quote:a6e0896759="Ianterrell"]Marrow Men-tality[/quote:a6e0896759]

Clever.


----------



## Learner (Aug 4, 2004)

Daniel,

Though you hid it in a parenthetical statement...please don't repeat the tired old phrase that the PRC is hyper-calvinistic.This has been gone over before.Read past quotes from Hoeksema.Phillip Johnson is not trustworthy on this issue.the same applies to John Gill.


----------



## DanielC (Aug 4, 2004)

[quote:ecea86e6c2="Learner"]Daniel,

Though you hid it in a parenthetical statement...please don't repeat the tired old phrase that the PRC is hyper-calvinistic.[/quote:ecea86e6c2]

Interesting. I wouldn't say that I "hid it."

I did read the articles, I just didn't find your arguments convincing, unless I'm going with a more narrow definition of hypercalvinism. And then in that case I would agree with you.

I also read some of what Hanko said about what the Marrow Men taught. Having just read the Marrow, I'm guessing Hanko hasn't, cause he was way off. I am interested, though, in what you find so "hollow" about their theology?


----------



## Learner (Aug 5, 2004)

Hi Daniel,

I am sorry.I didn't mean to say that you hid your hyper-calvinistic charge against the PRC.
A narrow definition is best,otherwise you will lump in many godly,biblical folks.If your definition is too wide it paints with too wide a brush.Too many people use the term 'hyper-calvinistic"as a theological swearword.Would you include A.W.Pink in your wide swath?
How about saying that hyper-calvinism does not believe in evangelizing.?Also,that it denies that we should exhort people to believe and repent.That it does not believe in missions.Some extras could be added but that is essentially it.The PRC does not fall under such charges.
Now I may be given the same treatment when I say that Marrowism is bad theology.It is certainly not Calvinistic.Marrowism is more than Edward Fisher and Thomas Boston.It includes Ralph and Ebenezer Erskine and James Hog.AND...a good many professing Calvinists today.
Did you ever read Thomas Chalmers'sermon:"Fury Not in God"?It is rife with Arminianism.
When the Scottish General Assembly made their decision many years ago,it condemned such theology as unorthodox.So should we.In like fashion the Synod of Dort should be upheld today.
For the sake of clarity,I do not mean to say that many with such wrong theology are not saved.But they are still biblically wrong.Arminianism and Amyraldianism is scripturally weak.(Maybe the former statement is "weak")


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Aug 5, 2004)

I do think the Marrow men aren't getting a fair shake here. They certainly were not Arminian. But the GA in that time period certainly was heading down that road. I would repeat the exhortation already given, to actually read the Marrow, and in particular Boston's notes. Also read the sermons of the Erskines. I think you will find it very hard to assert they are Arminian from their own material. Boston and the Erskines preached very similar to Rutherford and the earlier Scottish Presbyterians. And when you read through the Marrow, you will see that Boston often references them to support his claims. It was the GA who was drifting away. The Marrow men just refused to drift with them.


----------



## crhoades (Aug 5, 2004)

This is no substitute for reading the book...

But Sinclair Ferguson has a great 3 part lecture on the Marrow Controversy that I found to be excellent. It can be found free of charge at SermonAudio.com at the following link. Give it a whirl!

The Marrow Controversy - Historical Details (67 minutes)
The Marrow Controversy - Danger of Legalism (78 minutes)
The Marrow Controversy - Danger of Antinomianism (84 minutes)

[links edited for direct connect - by a friendly neighborhood admin]


----------



## fredtgreco (Aug 5, 2004)

I second that recommendation.


----------



## Ianterrell (Aug 5, 2004)

These accusations of my not having read the Marrow or Boston's notes are unfounded. Admittedly I haven't read all of the Marrow, or all of Boston's notes. But I did read them in their own context. And I have listened to part of Ferguson's defense of the book, BEFORE this conversation. I was appaled by his statement "we ought to preach to sinners,'Christ died for you'". The GA, from my limited knowledge, as well as the Synod of Dordt, Owen's treatment of Limited Atonement etc are better guides in understanding the Gospel then any of the aforementioned writers.


----------



## DanielC (Aug 5, 2004)

[quote:da3cf322c0="Ianterrell"]These accusations of my not having read the Marrow or Boston's notes are unfounded. Admittedly I haven't read all of the Marrow, or all of Boston's notes. But I did read them in their own context. And I have listened to part of Ferguson's defense of the book, BEFORE this conversation. I was appaled by his statement "we ought to preach to sinners,'Christ died for you'". The GA, from my limited knowledge, as well as the Synod of Dordt, Owen's treatment of Limited Atonement etc are better guides in understanding the Gospel then any of the aforementioned writers.[/quote:da3cf322c0]

Relax, Ian! No one accused you of not reading the book. I said I'm GUESSING you haven't actually read it, judging by some of the things you said before. If it makes you feel better, allow me to qualify it:

I don't think you've read enough of the Marrow, because you say that they teach things that just aren't in there.

I thought we were talking about the Marrow Controversy, not Dr. Ferguson. I shouldn't have to point out that he wasn't alive when the controversy happened. If we're talking about the Marrow Controversy, bringing in some Red Herring secondary source won't help your side. You have accusations, so show me where they said it. I HAVE read the whole book, and I just can't find what you're talking about. In other words, it seems to me that your accustations are unfounded. Prove me wrong with some foundation, please. Here's a primary source for you: 

Query X: Whether the revelation of the divine will in the word, affording a warrant to offer Christ unto all, and a warrent to all to receive him, can be said to be the Father's making a deed of gift and grant of Christ unto all mankind? Is this grant to all mankind by sovereign grace? And whether is it absolute or conditional!

Ans.- ...although we believe the purchase and application of redemption to be peculiar to the elect, who were given by the Father to Christ in the counsel of peace, yet the warrent to receive him is common to all. Ministers, by virtue of the commission they have received from their great Lord and Master, are authorized and instructed to go preach the gospel to every creature... - Messrs. Hog, Boston, Williamson, Kid, Wilson, Erskine, Erskine, Wardlaw, Davidson, Bathgate, Hunter (i.e., the "Marrow Men" - not just Fisher and Boston, BTW)

What's wrong with that? How bout this (from Boston's notes):

Therefore he says not (talking about Fisher - DanielC), 'Tell every man that Christ died for him;' but Tell every man 'Christ is dead for him;' that is, for him to come to and believe on; a Saviour is provided for him, the ordinance of heaven for salvation for lost man, in the use-making of which he may be save; even as one has said of old, Tell every man that hath slain any person unawares, that the city of refuge is prepared for him, namely, to flee to, that he may be safe; and every one bitten by a serpent, that the brazen serpent is set up on a pole for him, namely, to look unto, that he may be healed. Both of these were eminent types of Christ... Jn. iii. 14-16, 'And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the son of man be lifeted up, that WHOSOEVER believeth on him should not persih, but have eternal life... Matt xxii. 4, "Tell them which are bidden, Behold, I have prepared my dinner: my oxen and my fatlings are killed, and all things are ready, come unto the marriage." There is a crucified Savious, with all saving benefits, for them to come to, feed upon, and partake of freeely.

I could go on, but I do have things to do. Honestly, I cringed a bit when I saw the phrase, 'Christ is dead for you, ' while I was reading, but the notes explain the odd phrase, and the rest of the book clearly teaches solid Calvinism. Besides, the book ISN'T EVEN ABOUT LIMITED ATONEMENT. Its about the true gospel as opposed to both antinomianism and legalism. It also explains the place of the law quite well, and is informative in regards to the Covenant. Limited Atonement is right around point #47 in terms of what the book is about, I'd say, and even then they support it!

No doubt if you set your mind to digging to find some error, I'm sure you could somewhere - its not the Bible. That doesn't mean that humans can't write useful things just because we aren't infallible, or that the Marrow isn't useful. Some people spend their lives trying to find the bad in everything - or that they aren't good at it. But there is such a thing as being aware and condemning the bad without being consumed by it to the neglect of beauty and good things. Not that anyone here does that, but Ian, you don't like the Marrow Men-tality "one bit," when its grand subject is the gospel of Jesus Christ!

I know you're reformed, and I can't see where the Marrow Men disagree with you. Can you please show me where they are in error? Learner: again, can you show me where they stray from Calvinism? We're talking about the Marrow of Modern Divinity here primarily (we're in the library) and secondly, the Marrow Controversy itself, so lets try to stick with that in this thread.

Daniel :bs2:


----------



## DanielC (Aug 5, 2004)

Learner - you're probably right. Maybe I should narrow my definition of hyper-calvinism.

Daniel :bs2:


----------



## Ianterrell (Aug 5, 2004)

[quote:ba74701725="DanielC"][quote:ba74701725="Ianterrell"]These accusations of my not having read the Marrow or Boston's notes are unfounded. Admittedly I haven't read all of the Marrow, or all of Boston's notes. But I did read them in their own context. And I have listened to part of Ferguson's defense of the book, BEFORE this conversation. I was appaled by his statement "we ought to preach to sinners,'Christ died for you'". The GA, from my limited knowledge, as well as the Synod of Dordt, Owen's treatment of Limited Atonement etc are better guides in understanding the Gospel then any of the aforementioned writers.[/quote:ba74701725]

Relax, Ian! No one accused you of not reading the book. I said I'm GUESSING you haven't actually read it, judging by some of the things you said before. If it makes you feel better, allow me to qualify it:[/quote:ba74701725]

I'm not offended Daniel. But I don't know why you are taking this patronizing tone with me. I don't need to be pacified. Stick to dealing with content, not dealing with whatever perception you have of my attitude. We aren't talking either face to face, or on the phone. You have no idea how "offended" I am. Which as I said before, I'm not. Again stay on task.


[quote:ba74701725] I don't think you've read enough of the Marrow, because you say that they teach things that just aren't in there.[/quote:ba74701725]

Do I have to read everything Fischer says to understand his point of view?

[quote:ba74701725]I thought we were talking about the Marrow Controversy, not Dr. Ferguson. I shouldn't have to point out that he wasn't alive when the controversy happened. If we're talking about the Marrow Controversy, bringing in some Red Herring secondary source won't help your side.[/quote:ba74701725]

Why do you assume I don't know who Ferguson is or what era the Marrow Controvesy took place in, or who was involved in it? Are these kinds of comments really necessary? Someone commented about Ferguson's series. That's the only reason why I mentioned him.

[quote:ba74701725]You have accusations, so show me where they said it. I HAVE read the whole book, and I just can't find what you're talking about. In other words, it seems to me that your accustations are unfounded. Prove me wrong with some foundation, please. Here's a primary source for you: 

Query X: Whether the revelation of the divine will in the word, affording a warrant to offer Christ unto all, and a warrent to all to receive him, can be said to be the Father's making a deed of gift and grant of Christ unto all mankind? Is this grant to all mankind by sovereign grace? And whether is it absolute or conditional!

Ans.- ...although we believe the purchase and application of redemption to be peculiar to the elect, who were given by the Father to Christ in the counsel of peace, yet the warrent to receive him is common to all. Ministers, by virtue of the commission they have received from their great Lord and Master, are authorized and instructed to go preach the gospel to every creature... - Messrs. Hog, Boston, Williamson, Kid, Wilson, Erskine, Erskine, Wardlaw, Davidson, Bathgate, Hunter (i.e., the "Marrow Men" - not just Fisher and Boston, BTW)[/quote:ba74701725]

I already knew who the Marrow Men were. Again is this kind of approach necessary? Do I deserve to be talked to like an imbecile? I still take exception to their actual doctrines which I have looked at personally. I don't take exception to this statement...

[quote:ba74701725]Therefore he says not (talking about Fisher - DanielC), 'Tell every man that Christ died for him;' but Tell every man 'Christ is dead for him;' that is, for him to come to and believe on; a Saviour is provided for him, the ordinance of heaven for salvation for lost man, in the use-making of which he may be save; even as one has said of old, Tell every man that hath slain any person unawares, that the city of refuge is prepared for him, namely, to flee to, that he may be safe; and every one bitten by a serpent, that the brazen serpent is set up on a pole for him, namely, to look unto, that he may be healed. Both of these were eminent types of Christ... Jn. iii. 14-16, 'And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the son of man be lifeted up, that WHOSOEVER believeth on him should not persih, but have eternal life... Matt xxii. 4, "Tell them which are bidden, Behold, I have prepared my dinner: my oxen and my fatlings are killed, and all things are ready, come unto the marriage." There is a crucified Savious, with all saving benefits, for them to come to, feed upon, and partake of freeely.[/quote:ba74701725]

This is exactly what offends me about their ideas. Christ is not dead for them. A lamb prepared for all men. He is not a Savior provided for all men. He saves whoseover believes. I take exception to their language. You can accuse me of nitpicking, you can make fun of me, throw unwarranted comments at me. Fine. But my problem is that the Gospel is being watered down in their words. 

[quote:ba74701725]I could go on, but I do have things to do. Honestly, I cringed a bit when I saw the phrase, 'Christ is dead for you, ' while I was reading, but the notes explain the odd phrase, and the rest of the book clearly teaches solid Calvinism. Besides, the book ISN'T EVEN ABOUT LIMITED ATONEMENT.[/quote:ba74701725]

I did not say that it did. I said this issue is about upholding Limited Atonement.

[quote:ba74701725]No doubt if you set your mind to digging to find some error, I'm sure you could somewhere - its not the Bible. That doesn't mean that humans can't write useful things just because we aren't infallible, or that the Marrow isn't useful. Some people spend their lives trying to find the bad in everything - or that they aren't good at it. But there is such a thing as being aware and condemning the bad without being consumed by it to the neglect of beauty and good things. Not that anyone here does that, but Ian, you don't like the Marrow Men-tality "one bit," when its grand subject is the gospel of Jesus Christ![/quote:ba74701725]

Daniel, look, I stated I had problems with the book. If you're going to make this into a scenario with me being opposed to the gospel, well I don't know what to say. Whatever the books deficiencies or merits, you didn't have to talk to me the way that you did. I'm not trying to oppose the Gospel at all. I'm trying to excavate it. 

I already expressed the problems I had with the book. I didn't make general statements I dealt with their own words and ideas. I didn't attack you personally or expect this kind of response in return. If you would like to discuss this issue calmly I will proceed. If not...


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 5, 2004)

Everyone take a deep breath...............


----------



## DanielC (Aug 6, 2004)

Wow! This book does have a knack for stirring up controversy!

Sorry - I don't know how to do multiple quotes, so you may have to reference previous posts:

Ian, I'm glad you aren't offended. I never said you were. No need to put the word in quotes as if I did. I don't think you were attacking me personally, and again never said as much. I never meant to be degrading. Sorry that I came across that way. Please forgive me.  I don't think you're nitpicky - in fact, I like your zeal. I don't think you're an imbicil - your posts have been some of the most intellegent I've seen on the board. I know you aren't opposed to the gospel - I already said you're reformed. I know you know who Dr. Ferguson is - I never said you didn't, and you have no reason to imply I did.

Ian, I didn't write the names of the marrow men for you. It was in response to Learner's statement, "Marrowism is more than Edward Fisher and Thomas Boston.It includes Ralph and Ebenezer Erskine and James Hog.AND...a good many professing Calvinists today." I wanted to show I was getting my info from more than just Boston and Fisher. It was no means an attempt to make you look like an imbicil. Anyway, that's a really high standard if not knowing who the marrow men were makes one an imbicil. How many people in this world even have even heard of the marrow controversy? I DO think you are overreacting. Let's put that aside.

You did say "Yes my friend Eric Sigward made me aware of the Marrow Controversy. Basically its all about Limited Atonement at the end of the day." I don't think this is accurate. The controversy is about sola fide. Marrow men believe it, neonomians (the GA was neonomian) don't. I applaud their stand. The book itself is about the true gospel in opposition to both antinomianism and legalism. To say that you don't like the marrow mentality one bit over what seems to me to be a side issue is throwing out the baby with the bathwater, in my opinion. The Marrow's work on the place of the Law in the life of the believer is excellent, its distinctions between antinomianism, legalism, and the gospel is excellent. Its a good book. The Marrow men made a good stand.

You also did say, "The gospel is not despite the Marrow Men's delusions a statement in which "Christ died for all". Where did they say this? I can't find it. Like you, I wouldn't agree with such a statement. I share your zeal. But please show me where they say this. Or please retract it for the benefit of those who are considering the book.

Unless someone besides me wants to quote a primary source, it seems to me the argument here is about whether or not its acceptable to tell people that Jesus is dead for you, that is, there is a crucified sacrifice that is freely offered to you for the remission of your sins, even though we know that only the elect will be given the grace to believe. Honestly, I'm not comfortable with the statement "Christ is dead for you" (because Jesus is alive!) and wouldn't tell someone that in evangelism, but I do agree with the rest of the above statment, which is what Boston thinks Fisher meant by it. And I think so too, as the rest of the book testifies to his orthodoxy, including his belief in limited atonement. Anyway, for any onlookers, the book isn't even about this topic.

Once again, can anyone show me how the theology of the marrow men is hollow? or inconsistent? or where it strays from Calvinism? If you say they were, again, please show me.

Daniel


----------



## Learner (Aug 6, 2004)

I will be quoting from A.A.Hodge's book :"The Atonement".In it he acknowledges that it is "excellent and orthodox".But he goes on to say that the Marrowmen make use of a term they call the "double reference of the atonement--a peculiarity which consequently for a long time unhappily distinguished the theology of the Secession Churches from that of the great current of the Reformed Churches...The statement in the Marrow from which they took their departure is as follows:'i beseech you to consider that God the Father,as he is in his Son Jesus Christ,moved by nothing but his free love to mankind lost,hath made a deed of gift and grant unto all men,that whosoever shall believe in his Son shall not perish,but have eternal life.'[p.126 in M.of D.]
Hodge goes on to say that the beliefs of the M.men are:"That God,out of his general philanthropy,or love fpr human sinners as such,has made a Deed of gift of Christ and of the benefits of his redemption to all indifferently,to be claimed upon the condition of faith.This general love of God is styled his 'giving love,'and is distinguished from his 'electing love,'of which only the elect,and his 'complacent love,'of which only the sanctified are the objects.This Deed of Gift or Grant of Christ to all sinners as such,they held,is not to be merely resolved into the general offer of the gospel,but is to be regarded as the foundation upon which that general offer rests.It is a real grant;universal;an expression of love;conditioned on faith;the foundation upon which the ministerial offer of salvation rests;and it is the 'warrant' upon which the faith of every believer rests,and by which that faith is justified."
Hodge continues a page later by saying that "all their forms of expression were confused and their laborious distinctions utterly profitless.".
I will have to stop here,for now.To be continued later D.V.


----------



## Learner (Aug 6, 2004)

*Continuing*

"In the language of the 'Marrow men' God's 'giving love'signifies a general benevolence towards all human sinners...All really consistent Calvinists ought to have learned by this time that the original positions of the great writers and confessions of the Reformed Churches have only been confused,and neither improved,strengthened nor illustrated by all the talk with which the Church has,in the mean time,been distracted [by]the 'double reference'of the Atonement.If men will be consistent in their adherence to these 'Novelties,'they must become Arminians.If they would hold consistently to the essential principles of Calvinism,they must discard the 'Novelties'.(quotes from pages 380-385 in this post and the former)


On page 379 Hodge comments on Amyraldus and Testardus who were brought before the Synod of Alencon in 1637.Their errors are like the Marrow men in that both"attempt[ed]to engraft the notion of a general redemption upon the Calvinistic system...(page 375).Continuing on p.379:"When used by men otherwise orthodox this 'Novelity'is,...an evidence of absurdly confused thought and disordered language...it necessarily involves the use of language which properly and by common usage is significant of Arminian error.Its use generally marks a state of transition from comparative orthodoxy to more serious error.It often covers a secret sympathy with heresies not distinctly avowed."


----------



## Learner (Aug 6, 2004)

This is from an excellent article called:"Universalism and the Reformed Churches".It's a publication of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church of Australia.The denomination bears a likeness to the PRC.The article has some important quotes from Edward Fisher's book.

1)"Christ hath taken upon Him the sins of all men."

2)Of Christ,"The Father hath made a deed of gift and grant unto all mankind."

3)"Whatsoever Christ did for the redemption of mankind,He did for you."

4)"Go and tell every man without exception,that here is good news for him,Christ is dead for him."


----------



## turmeric (Aug 6, 2004)

Okay,okay, but do we have to throw the whole book out? It seems like the Marrow Men were responding to a hyper-Calvinism that was so concerned that people show fruits of repentance that it was amounting to a kind of perfectionism. 

Marrow-Men vs. Narrow-Men?


----------



## Ianterrell (Aug 6, 2004)

Meg,

First: These things are serious enough to warrant godly men taking exception with them. Who says the Marrow Men were fighting Hyper-Calvinism? Really it was inconsistent Calvinism against consistent Calvinism. 

Second: Why do you assume that just because we are taking exception with a flawed Gospel that we are rejecting all the good that may be in the book? Christians do this kind of thing all time! Would you have asked Martin Luther why he was making a big deal out of a few small issues? He wasn't calling for a rejection of all the good in the Catholic Church he was calling for a rejection of the impurities. That's what's going on here. I'm interested in dealing with the impurities of the book, and the Marrow teachings, not the purities.


----------



## LauridsenL (Aug 6, 2004)

[quote:19b8a2cb41]Go and tell every man without exception,that here is good news for him,Christ is dead for him.[/quote:19b8a2cb41]

Ian,

Do you object merely to the part of the quoted sentence implying that Christ in fact died for all men, both the elect and non-elect? Or do you also object to the suggestion that the gospel should be freely offered to all?


----------



## Ianterrell (Aug 6, 2004)

Lauren. I'm not a hyper-calvinist. I believe we are called to preach the gospel to those of all cultures, social standing, and ethnic backgrounds. To "make disciples of the nations".


----------



## LauridsenL (Aug 6, 2004)

[quote:d4307ed00d]I'm not a hyper-calvinist. I believe we are called to preach the gospel to those of all cultures, social standing, and ethnic backgrounds. To "make disciples of the nations".[/quote:d4307ed00d]

Very glad to hear it -- and not surprised. Just wanted to make sure I understood where you're coming from.


----------



## Ianterrell (Aug 6, 2004)

Lauren,

No Prob.

Josh,

That's my issue with the Marrow Men as well. The Gospel is principally repent and believe, not "Jesus died for you. Won't you accept him?" It is simple.


----------



## turmeric (Aug 6, 2004)

Ian,

Limited atonement is a very important doctrine and I hope I'll never have to go to an Amyraldist church again - however, it's not quite up there with [i:a8255f8c43]sola fide[/i:a8255f8c43] (I'm referring to the Luther remark). I'm sorry if that's heretical. I agree that we should not be telling everyone "Christ is dead for you". I dislike that remark for a couple of reasons at least.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Aug 6, 2004)

Let's get back to some other aspects here. I would like to deal more specifically with the quote from Boston mentioned earlier.

[quote:a82d882cb5]
Therefore he says not (talking about Fisher - DanielC), 'Tell every man that Christ died for him;' but Tell every man 'Christ is dead for him;' that is, for him to come to and believe on; a Saviour is provided for him, the ordinance of heaven for salvation for lost man, in the use-making of which he may be save; even as one has said of old, Tell every man that hath slain any person unawares, that the city of refuge is prepared for him, namely, to flee to, that he may be safe; and every one bitten by a serpent, that the brazen serpent is set up on a pole for him, namely, to look unto, that he may be healed. Both of these were eminent types of Christ... Jn. iii. 14-16, 'And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the son of man be lifeted up, that WHOSOEVER believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal life... Matt xxii. 4, "Tell them which are bidden, Behold, I have prepared my dinner: my oxen and my fatlings are killed, and all things are ready, come unto the marriage." There is a crucified Saviour, with all saving benefits, for them to come to, feed upon, and partake of freely. 
[/quote:a82d882cb5]
Before we label this arminian or amyraldian, let's deal with the verses Boston's uses. I think it's important not to cringe or try to explain away these "universalistic" passages, especially when Boston bases his argument on them. 

What is Jesus saying in these verses? And what do glean about the Free Offer from them?


----------



## DanielC (Aug 7, 2004)

[quote:c865d556e2="joshua"]Lying is lying, no? To say to each man without exception, "Christ died for you." is potentially and actually lying. Maybe my thoughts are too simple. Sorry to distract.[/quote:c865d556e2]

You are right. Let's not say it. I'm happy to report, the Marrow Men agree with you, and say so, explicitly.


----------



## DanielC (Aug 7, 2004)

[quote:fd71d31c87="Ianterrell"]Lauren,

No Prob.

Josh,

That's my issue with the Marrow Men as well. The Gospel is principally repent and believe, not "Jesus died for you. Won't you accept him?" It is simple.[/quote:fd71d31c87]

Repent and believe. Fair enough. But believe what? Is it not "that Christ Jesus died for our sins according to the Scriptures?" I don't understand the distinction you are making here.


----------



## Ianterrell (Aug 7, 2004)

[quote:4f9228a603="turmeric"]Ian,

Limited atonement is a very important doctrine and I hope I'll never have to go to an Amyraldist church again - however, it's not quite up there with [i:4f9228a603]sola fide[/i:4f9228a603] (I'm referring to the Luther remark). I'm sorry if that's heretical. I agree that we should not be telling everyone "Christ is dead for you". I dislike that remark for a couple of reasons at least.[/quote:4f9228a603]

Meg,

Who said Limited Atonement was more important than Sola Fide?


----------



## Ianterrell (Aug 7, 2004)

[quote:acb82bf5e0="DanielC"][quote:acb82bf5e0="Ianterrell"]Lauren,

No Prob.

Josh,

That's my issue with the Marrow Men as well. The Gospel is principally repent and believe, not "Jesus died for you. Won't you accept him?" It is simple.[/quote:acb82bf5e0]

Repent and believe. Fair enough. But believe what? Is it not "that Christ Jesus died for our sins according to the Scriptures?" I don't understand the distinction you are making here.[/quote:acb82bf5e0]

Who is "our" in the passage your quoting. Same question goes for Patrick's response. There aren't any universalistic passages in the bible.


----------



## Ianterrell (Aug 7, 2004)

[quote:ebd20fd671="puritansailor"]Let's get back to some other aspects here. I would like to deal more specifically with the quote from Boston mentioned earlier.

[quote:ebd20fd671]
Therefore he says not (talking about Fisher - DanielC), 'Tell every man that Christ died for him;' but Tell every man 'Christ is dead for him;' that is, for him to come to and believe on; a Saviour is provided for him, the ordinance of heaven for salvation for lost man, in the use-making of which he may be save; even as one has said of old, Tell every man that hath slain any person unawares, that the city of refuge is prepared for him, namely, to flee to, that he may be safe; and every one bitten by a serpent, that the brazen serpent is set up on a pole for him, namely, to look unto, that he may be healed. Both of these were eminent types of Christ... Jn. iii. 14-16, 'And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the son of man be lifeted up, that WHOSOEVER believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal life... Matt xxii. 4, "Tell them which are bidden, Behold, I have prepared my dinner: my oxen and my fatlings are killed, and all things are ready, come unto the marriage." There is a crucified Saviour, with all saving benefits, for them to come to, feed upon, and partake of freely. 
[/quote:ebd20fd671]
Before we label this arminian or amyraldian, let's deal with the verses Boston's uses. I think it's important not to cringe or try to explain away these "universalistic" passages, especially when Boston bases his argument on them. 

What is Jesus saying in these verses? And what do glean about the Free Offer from them?[/quote:ebd20fd671]

I glean that the gospel should go out to all kinds of men without exception! I also glean that the benefits of the gospel are stated, yet not claimed to have been made available to all without exception (whoseover BELIEVE).


----------



## Ianterrell (Aug 7, 2004)

Lee I realized late last night I had been referring to you as Lauren! So Sorry!


----------



## DanielC (Aug 7, 2004)

[quote:58f803a085="Learner"]This is from an excellent article called:"Universalism and the Reformed Churches".It's a publication of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church of Australia.The denomination bears a likeness to the PRC.The article has some important quotes from Edward Fisher's book.

1)"Christ hath taken upon Him the sins of all men."

2)Of Christ,"The Father hath made a deed of gift and grant unto all mankind."

3)"Whatsoever Christ did for the redemption of mankind,He did for you."

4)"Go and tell every man without exception,that here is good news for him,Christ is dead for him."[/quote:58f803a085]

Great! Finally some primary sources to work with (though taken from a 
secondary source - and that's where the confusion lies I think). Let 
me interact with it:

1) This quote may or may not have something wrong with it. But how about this one?:"For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men" Its from Titus 2:11, so of course not. We know that this doesn't 
stray from Limited Atonement, though phrases sometimes sound universal. It must be seen in greater context. Here's some greater context for your first Marrow quote, which is taken from the section in the Marrow curiously entitled "Christ's fulfilling the law in the room of the [b:58f803a085]elect[/b:58f803a085]." (speaking of Christ) he put himself in the room and place of the faithful, Isa.liii.6, "And the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all." Then came the law as it is the covenant of works, and said; "I find him a sinner, yea, such an one as [b:58f803a085]hath taken upon him the sins of all men[/b:58f803a085], therefore let him die upon the cross." And Boston's notes on this section: "[b:58f803a085]Our Lord Jesus Christ died not for, nor took upon him the sins of all and every individual man, but he died for, and took upon him the 
sins of all the elect...and no other doctrine is here taught by our author touching the extent of the death of Christ[/b:58f803a085]." Must I really keep proving this? It is abundantly clear that they taught limited atonement. How much more explicitly can they say it? Sheesh!

2 and 4) These came from the chapter entitled "the warrant to believe in Christ." The book, BTW, is written in the form of a dialogue between a pastor (Evangelista), an antinomian (Antinomista), a legalist (Nomista), and a young christian (Neophytus):
Neo: But, sir, hath such a one as I any warrant to believe in Christ?
Evan: I beseech you consider, that God the Father, as he is in his Son Jesus Christ, moved with nothing but with his free love to mankind lost, hath made a deed of gift and grant unto them all, that whosoever shall believe in this his Son, shall not perish, but have everlasting life. (And what is this gift and grant? Thomas Boston says "This deed of gift and grant, or authentic gospel offer is expressed in so many words, For God so loved the world (and the Jn 3:16 quote continues - DanielC).") And hence it was, that Jesus Christ himself said unto his disciples, Mark xvi. 15, "Go and preach the gospel to every creature under heaven:" that is, Christ is dead for him; and if he will take him, and accept his righteousness, he will have him." (If you want to see Boston's notes explaining this, see a previous post of mine in this thread). All we have here is a command to preach the gospel to all creatures, knowing that only the elect will believe. Many are called few are chosen. Any problems 
with that? Once again, I don't like saying that Jesus is dead for you, because He is alive, but from the context and the Boston notes the orthodoxy is clear.

3) OK I give up! I couldn't find where this quote was. But that's ok, there is a section of quotes quite like it, where in the dialogue the young christian has a weak faith, and is asking his pastor to help strengthen it (such as the dialogue directly above). I think this will suffice to explain quote #4:
Evan: ...wherefore I beseech you make no doubt of it, but "draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith," Heb.x.22.
Neo: ...does not Christ himself say, that "many are called, but few are chosen?" Matt xxii.14. And, therefore, it may be, I am one of them that are ordained to condemnation; and therefore, though I be called, I shall never be chosen, and so shall not be saved.
Evan: ...although some men be ordained to condemnation yet ... [the Lord] offers the pardon generally to all ... it should rather move every man to give diligence "to make his calling and election sure..."
Neo: But may such a vile and sinful wretch as I am be persuaded that God commands me to believe, and hath made a promise to me?
Evan: Why do you make a question, where there is none to be made? "Go," says Christ, "and preach the gospel to every creature under heaven," that is, Go tell every man without exception, whatsoever his sins be, whatsoever his rebellions be, go and tell him these glad tidings, that if he will come in, I will accept of him, his sins shall be forgiven him, and he shall be saved...
Neo: But do you say, sir, that if I believe I shall be espoused unto Christ?
Evan: Yea, indeed you shall...
Anything wrong with telling a young believer that the things Jesus did for the redemption of mankind was done for him? No. These quotes prove nothing but that the book is Calvinist.

Ok, I believe that is more than sufficient to prove that the Marrow and the Marrow Men believed and taught limited atonement and a general call, and that faith comes to the elect to believe the promises personally. This should be enough to put this entire controversy to rest, seeing as I believe we are once again where we started - left with unsupported accusations, the burden remaining entirely on the ones with no proof. We're talking about the book and the Marrow Controversy, not Hodge, not Ferguson. The only quotes from the book itself we've seen support Calvinism when seen in the correct context rather than one-liners taken from an essay.

So, again, can anyone show me inconsistent Calvinism or hollow theology in the Marrow? I can't find it.

Daniel - I just edited this for bad spelling (worked the graveyard shift last night!)


----------



## Learner (Aug 7, 2004)

Daniel said:"Anything wrong with telling a young believer that the things Jesus did for the redemption of mankind was done for him?No."

What Daniel?!That's not particularism.That's not Calvinism.That's not biblical.Maybe you were a little careless with your choice of words there.I found it strange when you were defending Marrowism from charges that you would say that.


----------



## DanielC (Aug 7, 2004)

[quote:76bc3daaa0="Learner"]Daniel said:"Anything wrong with telling a young believer that the things Jesus did for the redemption of mankind was done for him?No."

What Daniel?!That's not particularism.That's not Calvinism.That's not biblical.Maybe you were a little careless with your choice of words there.I found it strange when you were defending Marrowism from charges that you would say that.[/quote:76bc3daaa0]

Paul: "I live by the faith of the Son of God who loved me, and gave himself for me" (Gal 2:20).
Luther, on the same text: "He saw in me nothing but wickedness, going astray, and fleeing from him. Yet this good Lord had mercy on me, and of his mere mercy he loved me, yea, so loved me, that he gave himself for me. Who is this [i:76bc3daaa0]me[/i:76bc3daaa0]? Even I, wretched and damnable sinner, was so dearly beloved of the Son of God that he gave himself for me."
Fisher, on same text: Oh! print this word "me" in your hear, and apply it to your own self, not doubting but that you are one of those to whom this "me" belongs. (speaking to a christian, BTW)
WLC Q. 74: What is Adoption?
A.: Adoption is an act of the free grace of God, in and for His only Son Jesus Christ, whereby all those that are justified are received into the number of His children, have His name put upon them, the Spirit of His Son vgiven to them, are under His Fatherly care and dispensations, admitted to all the liberties and privileges of the sons of God, made heir of all the promises, and fellow heirs with Christ in glory.

Learner, maybe I am wrong here. But it seems to me that when we partake of Christ through faith, we take hold of the One in whom are all the promises, and we become partakers of all the benefits of salvation.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you. How is this not biblical? Why can't I say I partake of Christ, in whom are all the promises He secured in our redemption?

uzzled: Daniel


----------



## DanielC (Aug 7, 2004)

[quote:9f21f472ea="Ianterrell"][quote:9f21f472ea="puritansailor"]Let's get back to some other aspects here. I would like to deal more specifically with the quote from Boston mentioned earlier.

[quote:9f21f472ea]
Therefore he says not (talking about Fisher - DanielC), 'Tell every man that Christ died for him;' but Tell every man 'Christ is dead for him;' that is, for him to come to and believe on; a Saviour is provided for him, the ordinance of heaven for salvation for lost man, in the use-making of which he may be save; even as one has said of old, Tell every man that hath slain any person unawares, that the city of refuge is prepared for him, namely, to flee to, that he may be safe; and every one bitten by a serpent, that the brazen serpent is set up on a pole for him, namely, to look unto, that he may be healed. Both of these were eminent types of Christ... Jn. iii. 14-16, 'And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the son of man be lifeted up, that WHOSOEVER believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal life... Matt xxii. 4, "Tell them which are bidden, Behold, I have prepared my dinner: my oxen and my fatlings are killed, and all things are ready, come unto the marriage." There is a crucified Saviour, with all saving benefits, for them to come to, feed upon, and partake of freely. 
[/quote:9f21f472ea]
Before we label this arminian or amyraldian, let's deal with the verses Boston's uses. I think it's important not to cringe or try to explain away these "universalistic" passages, especially when Boston bases his argument on them. 

What is Jesus saying in these verses? And what do glean about the Free Offer from them?[/quote:9f21f472ea]

I glean that the gospel should go out to all kinds of men without exception! I also glean that the benefits of the gospel are stated, yet not claimed to have been made available to all without exception (whoseover BELIEVE).[/quote:9f21f472ea]

Well hey! Me too! And it looks to me like so Boston thinks so too! We're a big happy family!


----------



## Learner (Aug 7, 2004)

I was focusing on your line "Redemption of mankind."


----------



## DanielC (Aug 7, 2004)

[quote:926e5021f4="Learner"]I was focusing on your line "Redemption of mankind."[/quote:926e5021f4]

Oh that! Whew! I was wondering what was going on there!

I meant "redemption of mankind" in no more general terms than John the Baptist meant "Behold, the Lamb of God! Who takes away the sins of the world!" In other words, I mean only the elect.


----------



## Ianterrell (Aug 7, 2004)

Daniel,

I really don't have time to defend a misrepresentation of my position. You are glossing over the problem areas of their language while defending the calvinistic doctrines the writers produced elsewhere. That is merely a diversion from my problem with their language which tends towards Arminianism and Amyraldianism which has already been proved from their own words.

:tomb:


----------



## DanielC (Aug 7, 2004)

[quote:fd31b1de53="Ianterrell"]Daniel,

I really don't have time to defend a misrepresentation of my position. You are glossing over the problem areas of their language while defending the calvinistic doctrines the writers produced elsewhere. That is merely a diversion from my problem with their language which tends towards Arminianism and Amyraldianism which has already been proved from their own words.

:tomb:[/quote:fd31b1de53]

Where do the Marrow Men say that "Christ died for all" like you say? Where? Show us, or withdraw your accusation. I wouldn't agree with it either, but I think your information about the book is flawed. If its not, prove it. Don't bother proving a misrepresentation (however that has been done... I'm not sure). Prove your own position.

The Calvinistic doctrines are from the SAME area as the only "problem areas" anyone has shown me (Learner's four lines that is - no one else has quoted them!) Did you not see each of Learner's quotes INSIDE of the fuller quotes I wrote which contain, in your words "calvinistic doctrines?" Its not elsewhere. Go back and look, and see how you just admited the disputed area to be calvinistic.


----------



## LauridsenL (Aug 7, 2004)

[quote:25935dca9f]Lee I realized late last night I had been referring to you as Lauren! So Sorry![/quote:25935dca9f]

You're forgiven! (I just find it amusing, if not refreshing -- usually people mess up my last name!)


----------



## DanielC (Aug 7, 2004)

Listen everyone, I can't understand what this is all about. We're debating a line or two in a 370 page book. Its a book about the true gospel as opposed to legalism and antinomianism. That's good. The Marrow Men argued against neonomians, who denied sola fide. That's good.

But what we are debating is a phrase or two that sounds universalistic (neither of the two historical debates) and then AT THE SAME PLACE is explained, explicitly saying they believe limited atonement (which we all believe here!) There are no universalistic passages in the Bible, but there are some that sound like it, and aren't, in reality. Same thing going on here, except for the fact that here everyone is having a cow about it. What is the problem? No one has shown us anything condemning.


----------



## DanielC (Aug 7, 2004)

This is taking up too much of my time.  I'll check back in a while, and might respond if someone actually presents an argument they can back up. If not, I think the accusations have been refuted.

Though I'm still NOT comfortable saying "Christ is dead for you," even though he only means that there is a crucified savior given for poor sinners to come to in faith and be healed (and yes only elect sinners!)

Hope no one is upset with me - particularly you Ian (not saying that you are). If you are, forgive me. I honestly, don't see an area where we stray in doctrine. God bless you brother.

Ciao ciao,
Daniel :bs2:


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Aug 7, 2004)

[quote:e3bddbfe0e="Ianterrell"][quote:e3bddbfe0e="puritansailor"]Let's get back to some other aspects here. I would like to deal more specifically with the quote from Boston mentioned earlier.

[quote:e3bddbfe0e]
Therefore he says not (talking about Fisher - DanielC), 'Tell every man that Christ died for him;' but Tell every man 'Christ is dead for him;' that is, for him to come to and believe on; a Saviour is provided for him, the ordinance of heaven for salvation for lost man, in the use-making of which he may be save; even as one has said of old, Tell every man that hath slain any person unawares, that the city of refuge is prepared for him, namely, to flee to, that he may be safe; and every one bitten by a serpent, that the brazen serpent is set up on a pole for him, namely, to look unto, that he may be healed. Both of these were eminent types of Christ... Jn. iii. 14-16, 'And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the son of man be lifeted up, that WHOSOEVER believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal life... Matt xxii. 4, "Tell them which are bidden, Behold, I have prepared my dinner: my oxen and my fatlings are killed, and all things are ready, come unto the marriage." There is a crucified Saviour, with all saving benefits, for them to come to, feed upon, and partake of freely. 
[/quote:e3bddbfe0e]
Before we label this arminian or amyraldian, let's deal with the verses Boston's uses. I think it's important not to cringe or try to explain away these "universalistic" passages, especially when Boston bases his argument on them. 

What is Jesus saying in these verses? And what do glean about the Free Offer from them?[/quote:e3bddbfe0e]

I glean that the gospel should go out to all kinds of men without exception! I also glean that the benefits of the gospel are stated, yet not claimed to have been made available to all without exception (whoseover BELIEVE).[/quote:e3bddbfe0e]

All right Ian. Let's work with this. Everyone else please sit tight for a bit. We all agree the gospel should go out to all without exception. I think we all agree that the benefits of the gospel should be stated. Now let's deal with your third proposition.

"yet not claimed to have been made available to all without exception (whoseover BELIEVE)"

First of all, this third proposition appears to contradict your first. How can the gospel go to all kinds of men without exception, yet not be made available to all without exception? What is the gospel message? What is the nature of preaching this message?

Let's look at this passage Boston quoted from John 3:14-17. 
"14And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 
15that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life. 16For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. 
17For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved."

First let us look at the example Jesus is refering to regarding Moses, from Numbers 21. In short, Israel was bitten by snakes for rebelling against God. But God was merciful and provided a bronze serpent to be lifted up before the people that whoever among them would look at it would be healed. It wasn't enough to know about the serpent, they had to actually look at the serpent, and God promised they would be healed. It was a statement of fact yet appealed to the individual person not just general knowledge. God has said if YOU will look at the serpent, YOU will be healed. And, everyone who looked was in fact healed. 

Now, Christ uses that same illustration to explain how someone is saved by believing him. The term "lifted up" that Jesus uses is used as a vague reference to his crucifixion, and how he would be lifted up before all men (John 12:32-34). And how do we lift Christ up? The call of the gospel is not just general information, "Christ died for the elect" or "Christ died for sinners." It's not just "repent and believe." "Believe" what? What are we suppose to believe about Christ? There is something personal that is both offered by God and suppose to recieved by the recipient. When Jesus uses the illustration of the serpent, we now know what he means. Just as Moses lifted up the serpent for any to look upon and be healed, so Christ is lifted up before men, that any who look to him may be healed from their sin, hence "whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."

Now you are the preacher sent to deliver this message. How does it go out? You must apply it to the person. The gospel call is a general invitation in scope. But the invitation when made to the individual (elect or reprobate) is personal. (i.e. Matt. 12:4) You don't have to say "Christ died for you." But you do have to say, "You must believe on Christ and trust that all he has done for sinners, he has done for you." An intectual knowledge about what Christ has done for the elect will not save you. You must believe that Christ has died for you, that Christ is yours. And that is how Christ presents himself. "You must believe on Me or else you will perish. Here I am, lifted up before you. The invitation has been made. You must look to Me to have eternal life. And if you do look to Me you will have eternal life. If you refuse, you will perish." It's an appeal to the individual conscience, and it is a true invitation with reliable promises. We should have no problem as Calvinists saying to someone "If you will believe, then you will be saved." Why? Because it's a simple statement of the facts and it's the promise of God. But the promise and command demands an individual response from whoever hears it. 

This is what Boston means. And this is what the Marrow Men were teaching at the time. You will see this in the sermons of the Erskines too (and really in most Puritan preaching before them). They applied the free offer to the individual. Which is really how you evangelize. "Christ has made an atonement for sin. A complete salvation is accomplished. He is lifted up before the world for all to look upon, which includes YOU. If YOU desire to be freed from your sin and have eternal life, this is the only way. YOU must look to Christ. Christ demands a response from YOU now. Believe his promise to save YOU and be saved, or reject it and perish." 

It's obvious that only the elect will respond in faith, because for the elect, this word goes out with the accompanying power of the Spirit upon his heart. But that doesn't mean the offer is nullified on the reprobate. Christ offers himself to them too. It's a clear statement of fact and promise. "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and YOU will be saved." 

Christ has been sent to redeem "mankind." And Boston explains this statement too. Christ was sent to save "men" not angels. Christ died for men, not angels. Are you a man? Are you a sinner? Then you need a Savior, and Christ is lifted up before you ready and willing to save you if you will go to Him. There is a complete atonement already for those who will come to Christ. It's again, a plain statement of the facts. That is what they mean when they say "Christ is dead for you" and "The Father hath made a deed of gift and grant unto all mankind." The feast is ready. There's plenty of room. You have an invitation and you must respond.

Now this is how I understand the Free Offer, and this is how the Marrow Men taught it. Boston's Notes in particular are expressly clear on this, especially when explaining the quesitonable quotes. And this is the way the gospel is preached in most Puritan preaching I've read. 

So, Ian, is there anything here that you would disagree with in this formulation? If so please expound so we can see where the real differences are.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Aug 7, 2004)

Sorry guys, we are getting too loud for the Library so I moved this thread to the theological forum. 

[color=green:85cbb4df5d]{edit- Double bump to Doctrines of Grace - a bit better fit
Your friendly neighborhood Admin, fredtgreco}[/color:85cbb4df5d]


----------



## LauridsenL (Aug 7, 2004)

I've never read about the Marrow controversy before and had only vaguely heard about it. But I find it hard to disagree with Patrick on this issue. Anyone disagree? And, if so, why?


----------



## Learner (Aug 7, 2004)

Patrick,how are you?You said:"But that doesn't mean the offer is nullified on the reprbate.Christ offers himself to them too."
My question isoes the Lord want the reprobate to be saved?Let me be clear,we are to preach and teach the gospel to all.Yet that proclamation will only harden the hearts of the reprobate.Do you agree?
Of couse we do not not know who the reprobate are.(In case anyone wrongly thinks I believe otherwise).
This word "offer"needs some clarity.I haven't the time to go into it now.Would some of you like to give some meaning to that nebulous term?


----------



## fredtgreco (Aug 7, 2004)

Tim,

Does not the Lord want the offer to be made to the reprobate in order that they might treasure up wrath, that He might "get honor" over Pharaoh ?


----------



## Learner (Aug 7, 2004)

Hi Fred,

When the reprobate hear the message of the Lord it will indeed result in them treasuring up wrath against themselves.And that will bring Glory to God's Name.
You said:"Does not the Lord want the OFFER[Learner's highlight] to be made to them...".What does the word offer mean?


----------



## Ianterrell (Aug 7, 2004)

Patrick,

I'll try to respond ASAP. Got to go to sleep for the sabbath though. Grace and Peace.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Aug 8, 2004)

[quote:8032ed9874="Learner"]Patrick,how are you?You said:"But that doesn't mean the offer is nullified on the reprbate.Christ offers himself to them too."
My question isoes the Lord want the reprobate to be saved?Let me be clear,we are to preach and teach the gospel to all.Yet that proclamation will only harden the hearts of the reprobate.Do you agree?
Of couse we do not not know who the reprobate are.(In case anyone wrongly thinks I believe otherwise).
This word "offer"needs some clarity.I haven't the time to go into it now.Would some of you like to give some meaning to that nebulous term?[/quote:8032ed9874]
No, the Lord does not want to save the reprobate. But that doesn't change his responsibility to obey the call of God, nor does it change the fact that God's promise is true. If he looked to Christ, he would be saved. If he would listen to the truth, that Christ is the only Savior for men, then he would be saved. Of course we know, that he would only respond positively if he were elect, because the gospel goes forth with the saving work of the Spirit. 

For the reprobate, the gospel hardens them, for they refuse to obey God or accept the Mediator he has provided. When you refuse God, you harden yourself to your own destruction.

The key is to remember Christ's own illustration of his offer. Moses lifted up the serpent for all to look upon. Whether they believed the testimony of Moses and looked at it, was their responsibility. They could look and be healed and live, or they could refuse and die. 

So it is with Christ. God has presented him to the world as the only way to be saved. It is the responibility of the individual to respond and look to Christ. Whether the individual will actually respond, is the secret work of the Spirit, but that doesn't change his responsibility nor does it change the promise that God has made, that those who will look will be saved.


----------



## Learner (Aug 8, 2004)

I do not know where the responsibility factor came into play here, I wasn't addressing that.Of course everyone is accountable.
My concern was defining the word "offer"as it is used with regard to evangelism.So Patrick,does it mean present or presentation?


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Aug 8, 2004)

[quote:4c835a2e99="Learner"]I do not know where the responsibility factor came into play here, I wasn't addressing that.Of course everyone is accountable.
My concern was defining the word "offer"as it is used with regard to evangelism.So Patrick,does it mean present or presentation?[/quote:4c835a2e99]

It's both. The offer is a presentation of who Christ is and what he has done, but also an invitation to believe for whomever hears it. God is telling that person how he may be saved. Whether he will heed or not is a secret work of the Spirit. Again, consider the illustration Jesus uses with Moses lifting up the serpent. God gave them that means of healing to save them from the judgment they deserved, but he also made it a means which required faith. But he gave that healing means to the whole people. Yet only those who recieved Moses word as true and obeyed were healed. 

It is the same with Christ presenting himself to the world. God has given to the world a Savior, in the sense that He is the only one who can save them, and in the sense that God has made him known to all through the preaching of the gospel. This is a gift is it not? God didn't have to tell the world about Christ. He could have just informed the elect secretly and left the reprobate in the dark. But he instead uses a general invitation (Matt 12:4) to draw out His elect from the world (and further harden the reprobate). This is what gives sinners the "warrant" to believe on Christ. It's not enough to know that Christ died for a certain group of men. If that is all you tell people then there is no way for them to know if they are part of that group. They have no warrant to believe that they are part of that group unless they look somehow to themselves to determine if they are elect before they will believe (i.e. Hyper-Calvinistic mysticism or Arminianism). They must have some assurance that they will be welcomed by God first, because there is no way to know you are elect unless you first believe. And that is where the offer as a "present" fits in. You must believe the testimony that Christ has made to you. 

Note John 3 "33He who has received His testimony has certified that God is true. 34For He whom God has sent speaks the words of God, for God does not give the Spirit by measure. 35The Father loves the Son, and has given all things into His hand. 36He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him."

And also 1 John 5 "9If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater; for this is the witness of God which He has testified of His Son. 10He who believes in the Son of God has the witness in himself; he who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed the testimony that God has given of His Son. 11And this is the testimony: that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. 12He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life." 

Again, John is explaining the general call and it's imperitive on the individual. How can a reprobate make God a liar if in fact Christ is not offered to him at all? He makes God a liar because he has rejected God's testimony that Christ is the only Savior of men, the only way of salvation made available (or offered) to him. That is the manner in which God has given Christ by way of "grant" or "gift." 

And so the warrant to come to Christ is found in the nature of His presenting himself to the world as the only Savior for men. When we evangelize it should go something like this (paraphrasing obviously), "He died to save mankind (i.e. men, not angels). He died to save sinners. You are a sinful man, therefore only Christ can save you. Christ has told YOU that if you believe on him you will be saved. If YOU will go to him he will in no wise cast you out. He is willing to make you clean. You can believe God's word and go to Christ and be saved. To YOU, this word of salvation has been given now. But if you refuse then you will remain under his wrath and curse and recieve your just punishment, both for your sins and for refusing to accept the only Savior God has given for men."


----------



## Learner (Aug 9, 2004)

I agreed with parts of your post Patrick.But there were other segments in which I take issue or have questions about.
You said "The offer as a present fits in."Did you mean to say that offer is a presentation,proclamation or declaration?
I'm wondering about your statement:'How can a reprobate make God a liar if in fact Christ is not offered to him at all?"I am confused by that.Most reprobates have never heard the Gospel--never heard of Christ.
It is understood that you believe that it is God's good pleasure,not to save,but to harden the reprobates by the preaching of the gospel.You do believe that,right?
So,God seeks His own glory and justification in preparing the reprobate for their just damnation even through the preaching of His Word.The preacher, or any Christian, must not say that God sincerely seeks the salvation of the reprobate.God cannot seek the salvation of those He has foreordained not to save from eternity past.
In other words He doesn't want that sinner to live whom He does not choose to quicken.He does not want that one whom He does not give faith to accept the Gospel.God does not will that sinner to come to Christ which He has not drawn.Are you in agreement?
God is sovereign in His dispositions.We need not be cold about it.We should have a real burden for the lost.If we do not care for eternal souls,we have cause to doubt our own salvation.There is a balance here.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Aug 9, 2004)

[quote:3292616dd2="Learner"]I agreed with parts of your post Patrick.But there were other segments in which I take issue or have questions about.
You said "The offer as a present fits in."Did you mean to say that offer is a presentation,proclamation or declaration? [/quote:3292616dd2]
When you asked if the offer was a "present or presentation" I thought you meant "gift or presentation." So reread my post in that light. 

[quote:3292616dd2]
I'm wondering about your statement:'How can a reprobate make God a liar if in fact Christ is not offered to him at all?"I am confused by that.Most reprobates have never heard the Gospel--never heard of Christ. [/quote:3292616dd2]
But there are many reprobate who have heard or will hear. And John is speaking of those who refuse to believe in that verse. By not believing what God has said concerning his Son, by not coming to Christ for salvation, they call Him a liar. But if the message regarding Christ is not offered or binding in any way to the reprobate, then they are not calling God a liar for rejecting it, because the message was not for them. But the gospel is a message for all men, because Christ is the only true Savior available to all men. 

[quote:3292616dd2]
It is understood that you believe that it is God's good pleasure,not to save,but to harden the reprobates by the preaching of the gospel.You do believe that,right?
So,God seeks His own glory and justification in preparing the reprobate for their just damnation even through the preaching of His Word.The preacher, or any Christian, must not say that God sincerely seeks the salvation of the reprobate. God cannot seek the salvation of those He has foreordained not to save from eternity past. 
In other words He doesn't want that sinner to live whom He does not choose to quicken.He does not want that one whom He does not give faith to accept the Gospel.God does not will that sinner to come to Christ which He has not drawn.Are you in agreement?
God is sovereign in His dispositions.We need not be cold about it.We should have a real burden for the lost.If we do not care for eternal souls,we have cause to doubt our own salvation.There is a balance here.[/quote:3292616dd2]
I am not saying God "wants" or "desires" the reprobate to be saved. I don't think I have ever even hinted at that. What I am saying is that God's word is true regardless of who hears it. You must distinguish between the secret and revealed will of God. God has told everyone who hears the gospel that they must believe on Christ in order to have eternal life. This isn't just some abtract truth. This is personal. When the gospel comes to someone, God is personally telling them the way to be saved. God is setting up Christ before them (just like Moses lifting up the serpent) and telling them, "Here is my way of salvation, look to Him and live, look away and perish." Christ himself is saying to all sinners through the preaching of the Gospel, "Look to Me and be saved." This is just the plain facts, whether you are reprobate or elect. You notice, there is no qualifier. Jesus didn't say "If you are elect, believe on Me." We don't know who the elect are. Only God does. We must tell all people we meet that there is a Savior for mankind. That is the revealed will of God. Whether they will look to him or not is up to God's secret work not ours. 

We are told to invite men to come, to compel, to warn, rebuke, exhort, beseech, etc. And this method of delivering the message is made regardless of who is elect or reprobate because we can't know. This is a personal invitation from God to whomever hears. And we must treat it as such. It's just like Moses and his messengers telling the people about the serpent. The offer is real and available to all. The invitation to the feast is real and reliable to whomever it comes to. The promise is true regardless of who hears it. If they would come to Christ, they will be saved. I don't think I can get any more clearer than that but I will still try if need be.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Aug 10, 2004)

You guys forget about this thread or just losing interest?


----------



## DanielC (Aug 10, 2004)

I think you've articulated it well, Patrick. You are a true Marrow Man. I'd still like to ask, would you use the phrase "Christ is dead for you" in evangelism? We know what Fisher meant, and I agree with the point, but on the grounds that Christ is alive, does it not seem like an unwise choice of words? Maybe I'm splitting hairs. What do you think?

BTW, The True Christian's Love to the Unseen Christ is great so far, though it makes me realize how lukewarm I am, which is humbling and convicting.

Well, back to :book: 

Daniel


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Aug 11, 2004)

[quote:26ca249a57="DanielC"]I think you've articulated it well, Patrick. You are a true Marrow Man. I'd still like to ask, would you use the phrase "Christ is dead for you" in evangelism? We know what Fisher meant, and I agree with the point, but on the grounds that Christ is alive, does it not seem like an unwise choice of words? Maybe I'm splitting hairs. What do you think?
[/quote:26ca249a57]
I would not use that phrase today in evangelism exactly because of the reason this thread took off. Calvinists would call me Arminian or worse and Arminians would look at me cawk-eyed. Even though I know what Fisher/Boston/Preston (Fisher was quoting Preston) meant by it, people don't understand the proper use of it today (and apparently didn't back then either) and so it would cause problems. I would rather try to stave off the knee jerks of by Calvinists brothers who tend to split and argue too much already, especially over mostly semantic issues like this one.

I don't think it's wrong to focus on the death of Christ like that phrase does because that is what Pauls' summary of the gospel was, "we preach Christ and Him crucified." Paul certainly had plenty to say about the resurrection, but the Gospel is summarized well in His person and work, Christ and Him crucified. Just my two cents for what it's worth... 

[quote:26ca249a57] BTW, The True Christian's Love to the Unseen Christ is great so far, though it makes me realize how lukewarm I am, which is humbling and convicting.
[/quote:26ca249a57]
Keep reading brother. It gets better/worse.... Better in content, worse in conviction...


----------

