# Marrow controversy in a nutshell



## Pergamum

How would you explain the Marow Controversy simply and concisely...in a nutshell?


----------



## JOwen

That you would agree or disagree with the following: "I believe that it is not sound and orthodox to teach that we must forsake sin in order to our coming to Christ" (The Auchterarder Creed). I happen to agree.


----------



## Marrow Man

Here is a paper that, while not being "in a nutshell," does give some detail about the controversy. Here is a section from the paper, though, that might be helpful:



> There are two reasons for the actual onset of the so-called Marrow controversy. The first reason was the
> ecclesiastical procedure against professor Simson of Glasgow. In 1717 he was accused of Arminianism,
> and would later be accused of Arianism. Boston writes about this procedure: "Simson admitted using
> questionable modes of expressions but declared that he had never intended to deviate from the teaching of
> the Church's Confession. He was acquitted with a warning `not to attribute too much to natural reason and
> the power of corrupt nature to the disparagement of revelation and efficacious free grace'." Boston was of
> the opinion that the General Assembly had expressed itself "with great softness to the professor; who, from
> the attempts he had then made against the doctrine of the grace of Christ, hath since advanced to attack
> the doctrine of the person of Christ, and to overthrow the foundation of Christianity."
> 
> The second reason was that at the same meeting of the General Assembly of 1717 the appeal made by
> William Craig, a candidate for the ministry, was dealt with. He had been examined by the classis
> Auchterarder and had been denied permission to be installed as minister. This classis objected to the views
> of Simson and of legalism. Their own opinion was formulated in a "proposition" which every candidate for
> the ministry in their classis had to sign. William Craig had refused to comply and was therefore denied
> ordination to the ministry. The case was brought before the General Assembly of 1717.
> Boston writes about this: "This proposition, called in derision "the Auchterarder Creed," was all at once at
> that diet judged and condemned; though some small struggle was made in defence thereof. And poor I was
> not able to open a mouth before them in that cause; although I believed the proposition to be truth, howbeit
> not well worded. It was as follows: -"It is not sound and orthodox to teach, that we must forsake sin, in order
> to our coming to Christ, and instating us in covenant with God." For this when I came to my chamber, my
> conscience smote me grievously; for that I could speak in my own cause, as said is, but could not speak in
> the public cause of truth." Boston concluded that this condemnation initiated a struggle against the
> doctrines of free grace which the assembly considered to be antinomianism.


----------



## larryjf

The Church of Scotland denounced the teachings of the book as antinomian.


----------



## Marrow Man

larryjf said:


> The Church of Scotland denounced the teachings of the book as antinomian.


 
And, according to a lecture I heard from Sinclair Ferguson, instructed pastors to forbid their congregants from reading _The Marrow of Modern Divinity_. At the time of the lecture, Ferguson was still a minister in the CoS and stated that as far as he knew, the CoS had never reversed itself on this decision, and he therefore could not recommend anyone read _The Marrow_. Then he pointed out that folks could instead read Thomas Boston's notes on _The Marrow_. 

The controversy lead to the formation the disciplining of the Marrowmen ministers (Ebenezer Erskine et al), who then formed an Associate Presbytery at Gairney Bridge in 1733, which marked the beginning of the Succession church. Ian Hamilton, incidentally, refers to the Succession church as the highwater mark of confessional orthodoxy in Scotland.


----------



## larryjf

And following a little on what Tim said, i would only recommend reading the Marrow with the notes of Thomas Boston...don't bother reading it without those valuable notes.


----------



## Marrow Man

I originally read The Marrow online (it's written in a dialogue format), but Boston's notes show, in great detail, the confessional/Reformed nature of what Fisher was saying in _The Marrow_, e.g., by quoting Reformed confessions and authors.

The Christian Heritage edition is highly recommended.


----------



## AThornquist

JOwen said:


> That you would agree or disagree with the following: "I believe that it is not sound and orthodox to teach that we must forsake sin in order to our coming to Christ" (The Auchterarder Creed). I happen to agree.


 
The wording has me a little confused. Does this mean that one could be saved in Christ without repentance?


----------



## au5t1n

AThornquist said:


> JOwen said:
> 
> 
> 
> That you would agree or disagree with the following: "I believe that it is not sound and orthodox to teach that we must forsake sin in order to our coming to Christ" (The Auchterarder Creed). I happen to agree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The wording has me a little confused. Does this mean that one could be saved in Christ without repentance?
Click to expand...

 
It's just the old justification/sanctification distinction, only (in my opinion) very poorly worded.


----------



## Marrow Man

The wording is confusing, because it is asking to affirm a negative. It was greatly confusing the first time I heard it as well.

From the article I linked above:



> The General Assembly confused two true statements: 1. The grace of God saves the elect. 2. The elect will
> neglect sin. They drew the logical conclusion that God gives grace to those who neglect sin. That means:
> when a sinner confesses and forsakes his sin, the Lord will be gracious to him.
> The marrow men emphasized that grace must be offered to all sinners and that Christ is "a deed of gift and
> grant to all mankind". That sounded like antinomianism to the General Assembly. The assembly was of the
> opinion, that the sinner first had to show fruits of grace before he could receive the grace of God. In this
> way they changed the fruit of grace into a condition for grace. The marrow men taught that grace granted to
> a person would lead him to forsake sin, but never is the sinner's forsaking of sin a prerequisite to receiving
> grace. Then grace would no longer be free. Then Christ would be separated from His benefits.
> The opponents of the Marrow essentially propagated conditional grace. But what they failed to realize was
> that this eventually would also lead to an unbiblical view of God. The sovereignty of God would be touched.
> God would be dependent on man's fulfilling certain conditions in order to grant grace to him. Conditional
> grace leads to the idea that God Himself is conditional. But this cannot be, for God is sovereign in all His
> dealings.
> The marrow men emphatically stressed the free offer of the promises of the Gospel to all who come under
> the preaching. The theologians opposing the Marrow reasoned along the following lines: To whom belong
> the benefits of Christ? The answer to this question is obvious: The benefits of Christ will be received by the
> elect. Therefore they concluded that the benefits of Christ must be offered to those who display signs of
> election. Over against this, Boston and the marrow men stated that Christ must be offered to all under the
> Gospel, even though only the elect will share in the benefits of Christ. If the marrow men could not offer the
> promises of the Gospel, then in their opinion there really can be no true preaching.



If I am not mistaken, what the GA was holding to is closely related to neonomianism (or is, in fact, neonomianism), such as that found in the theology of Baxter.


----------



## cih1355

The Auchterarder Creed sounds like it is saying,"It is not sound teaching to teach that a person must repent of his sin before coming to Christ." The creed sounds like it is denying that people need to do something before they come to Christ. Is this correct?


----------



## Marrow Man

cih1355 said:


> The Auchterarder Creed sounds like it is saying,"It is not sound teaching to teach that a person must repent of his sin before coming to Christ." The creed sounds like it is denying that people need to do something before they come to Christ. Is this correct?


 
In essence, yes. It appears that repentance was a "condition" that was deemed necessary before one could receive (or perhaps even hear) the promises of the gospel.


----------



## ClayPot

Marrow Man said:


> cih1355 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Auchterarder Creed sounds like it is saying,"It is not sound teaching to teach that a person must repent of his sin before coming to Christ." The creed sounds like it is denying that people need to do something before they come to Christ. Is this correct?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In essence, yes. It appears that repentance was a "condition" that was deemed necessary before one could receive (or perhaps even hear) the promises of the gospel.
Click to expand...

 
Is it contrary to the confessions to believe that faith/repentance occur simultaneously? Not that we must repent in order to believe, but that the heart that cries out to Christ in faith is a heart that has also acknowledged him as Lord and repented of sin. If one is familiar with the Lordship salvation controversy, it is the same idea. We must believe in Christ as Lord and Savior in order to be saved. Mark 1:14-15, " 14After John was put in prison, Jesus went into Galilee, proclaiming the good news of God. 15"The time has come," he said. "The kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe the good news!""


----------



## Marrow Man

In some ways this can be thought of as comparable to the Lordship Salvation Controversy (in that both were reactions to antinomianism), but that is probably where I would say the comparison ends. The MC took place within the covenantal theology framework of the Church of Scotland (notice how the Auchterarder Creed is stated in covenantal language), whereas the LSC took place within dispensational circles. The MC centered around the presentation/preaching of the gospel, and the LSC dealt with the life of the Christian (or professed Christian) after conversion. Of course, it would be confessional to state that repentance indeed accompanies saving faith in Christ.

Here is what the WCF states about faith and repentance:



> The grace of faith, whereby the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls, is the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts; and is ordinarily wrought by the ministry of the Word: by which also, and by the administration of the sacraments, and prayer, it is increased and strengthened.
> 
> By this faith, a Christian believeth to be true whatsoever is revealed in the Word, for the authority of god himself speaking therein; and acteth differently, upon that which each particular passage thereof containeth; yielding obedience to the commands, trembling at the threatenings, and embracing the promises of God for this life, and that which is to come. But the principle acts of saving faith are, accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life, by virtue of the covenant of grace. ~ WCF 14:1, 2





> Repentance unto life is an evangelical grace, the doctrine whereof is to be preached by every minister of the gospel, as well as that of faith in Christ.
> 
> By it a sinner, out of the sight and sense, not only of the danger, but also of the filthiness and odiousness of his sins, as contrary to the holy nature and righteous law of God, and upon the apprehension of his mercy in Christ to such as are penitent, so grieves for, and hates his sins, as to turn from them all unto God, purposing and endeavoring to walk with him in all the ways of his commandments.
> 
> Although repentance be not to be rested in as any satisfaction for sin, or any cause of the pardon thereof, which is the act of God's free grace in Christ; yet is it of such necessity to all sinners, that none may expect pardon without it. ~ WCF 15:1-3


----------



## Iconoclast

SermonAudio.com - The Marrow Controversy #01: Historical Details
SermonAudio.com - The Marrow Controversy #02: Danger of Legalism
SermonAudio.com - The Marrow Controversy #03: Danger of Antinomianism


Here is three from Sinclair Ferguson


----------



## Pergamum

So, what side would all you guys fall out on nowadays? If there was a split between the factions, would it also split many here on the PB?


----------



## DMcFadden

Pergy,

The balance is "Although repentance be not to be rested in as any satisfaction for sin, or any cause of the pardon thereof, which is the act of God's free grace in Christ; yet is it of such necessity to all sinners, that none may expect pardon without it. ~ WCF 15:1-3"


----------



## Pergamum

The WCF once again gives a great concise answer.


----------



## MW

Pergamum said:


> So, what side would all you guys fall out on nowadays? If there was a split between the factions, would it also split many here on the PB?


 
Remarkably those eighteenth century Presbyterians were able to continue in communion in one church. It is apparent they could stand on the charity of their convictions as well as the strength of them.

I don't think the relationship of faith and repentance properly identifies the real point of concern. For a zealous evangelical minister like Thomas Boston the Marrow Controversy mainly concerned the free offer of the gospel. The relationship of faith to repentance was only one part of the theological equation. There were also issues such as the relationship of law and gospel, of the redeeming work of Christ to the offer of grace, and of the nature of saving faith in connection with assurance. The Controversy demonstrated that the Auchterarder Creed required careful qualification. While the Creed was useful in its opposition to Neonomianism's insistence on moral conditions, it could also be taken in an Antinomian direction which undercut the gospel's power to produce an holy life. The Marrow brought a number of theological issues into focus and balanced them in favour of evangelical Calvinism -- a Calvinism which insisted that the free offer of the gospel remain unfettered by moral conditions and also taught the power of the gospel to transform sinners into saints.


----------

