# Marrow sources



## proregno (Nov 23, 2011)

I have done a search on Puritan Board and read all the threads about the Marrow issue, for and against. 

What I miss in all threads is any sources of the 'other side' of the debate, i.e. who was the main theologians and writings of the Assembly of the CoS who were opposing the Marrow men ? Is the minutes of the particular assemblies involved in this issue available somewhere ? 

Thank you for the answers.

ps. I already have the Marrow book, Boston, Ferguson's lectures, etc, but would like to read also what the other side taught from their own words, the original sources if it were published somewhere ?


----------



## Marrow Man (Nov 23, 2011)

It was an action of the General Assembly of 1720 that claimed the teachings of _The Marrow_ were unsound. Perhaps the minutes of that GA would be a place to start. There were also decisions at the GAs of 1721 and 1722 which concerned the Controversy.

James Hadow, a professor at St. Andrews, was a leader in the opposition against the Marrow Men. He engaged in a pamphlet war with James Hog; there might be something available there. 

The neonomian theology of Richard Baxter was, in many ways, the seedbed for the state of Calvinism in the CoS at the time; thus, even reading Baxter might glean you some insight.


----------



## JM (Nov 23, 2011)

Try William VanDoodewaard's lectures/sermons here.

Other titles of interest:

The Record of God and Duty of Faith (1719)

The Antinomianism of the Marrow of Modern Divinity detected (1721)

An Inquiry into Mr. Simson's Sentiments about the Trinity from his Papers in Process (1730)

A Vindication of the Learned and Honourable Author of the History of the Apostles' Creed, from the false Sentiment which Mr. Simson has injuriously imputed to him (1731)


----------



## Marrow Man (Nov 23, 2011)

Bill V. also has a book on the controversy that is available now: _The Marrow Controversy and the Seceder Tradition_ (published by Reformation Heritage).


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Nov 23, 2011)

Hi:

Usually at the back of the Marrow you will find the questions given to the Marrow Men by the Assembly. The questions, and the answers that the Marrow Men give, will give you some insight into the thinking of the Assembly at the time.

Hope this helps.

-Rob


----------



## proregno (Nov 24, 2011)

I have listen to three lectures now as a introduction on this issue, in this order:

1. Ferguson
2. VanDoodewaard 
3. Moore

From a theological-historical viewpoint the latter were the most thorough treatment (as a lecture) to understand the background and sources of the Marrow controversy (and how it later divided in the 1780/90's the Seceder Church of the Marrow Men on the issue of the extent of the atonement). I was a bit surprised that there were not more comments/discussion on his lecture when it were mentioned here in a thread two years ago (I recommend listening to the last 10 minutes or so of his lecture given the James Begg Society to hear the conclusion of his thesis/book/lecture, and then listen to the lecture from the beginning to prove his thesis): 

http://www.puritanboard.com/f18/jonathan-moore-marrow-controversy-54648/

or: http://www.jbeggsoc.org.uk/ (go to Annual Meeting Addresses, 2008)

See also dr. Derek Thomas' book review of here:

English Hypothetical Universalism: John Preston and the Softening of Theology - Reformation21


----------



## JM (Nov 24, 2011)

Also try this:

The Trinity Foundation - A History of Hypo-Calvinism


----------



## Marrow Man (Nov 24, 2011)

JM said:


> Also try this:
> 
> The Trinity Foundation - A History of Hypo-Calvinism



Wow. So not only are the Marrow Men declared to be proponents of "rehashed Amyraldianism" and the same "gospel" as "God-hating Arminians," but so are the likes of the Bonars, Robert Murray M'Cheyne, John Brown, and Thomas Chalmers. Wow.

And nothing negative is said about the General Assembly which condemned the Marrow Men (GAs which, incidentally, treated the Socinian professor John Simson rather lightly in comparison). But I suppose Calvin would also be wrested into that group, when he comments on John 3:16:



> For he intended expressly to state that, though we appear to have been born to death, undoubted deliverance is offered to us by the faith of Christ; and, therefore, that we ought not to fear death, which otherwise hangs over us. And he has employed the universal term whosoever, both to invite all indiscriminately to partake of life, and to cut off every excuse from unbelievers. Such is also the import of the term World, which he formerly used; for though nothing will be found in the world that is worthy of the favor of God, yet he shows himself to be reconciled to the whole world, when he invites all men without exception to the faith of Christ, which is nothing else than an entrance into life.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Nov 24, 2011)

The Marrow Controversy 1718–1723. An Historical and Theological Analysis. By David C. Lachman. (Rutherford Studies in Historical Theology.) Edinburgh, Rutherford House, 1988. Dr. Lachman has said he would like to reprint one of these days; I've no info on a pub date. This was his Ph.D. thesis. My copy has gone missing.


----------



## JM (Nov 24, 2011)

What's the difference between the theology of the Marrow Men and Moise Amyraut's view of the atonement? 

One view of the atonement is actual and the other hypothetical? 

I don't understand the difference. 

I've read Dabney and Shedd as well and still don't see a difference between Marrowism and Amyrauldian theology.

I don't want to hijack this thread so if anyone knows just pm me. I've asked a couple of times over my years on PB and no one replied...perhaps its just so obvious I'm missing it?


----------



## MW (Nov 24, 2011)

Not intending any reflection on Dr. Moore's lecture -- I would be wary of an attempt to create a genetic connection between Preston, the Marrow, the Marrowmen, and the dual reference theory of the atonement which later emerged in United Presbyterian circles. On Preston, I'm not convinced that he was arguing a uniquely identifiable position. Polemics is not dogmatics. I think more work needs to be done on his method of argumentation. On the Marrow, even if Preston's position can be identified as unique, there is nothing in the Marrow itself which adheres to that particular position. "Christ is dead for you" pertains to the gospel offer, not to Christ offering Himself to the Father in the place of sinners. The Marrow therefore adopts no peculiar position on the extent of the atonement itself. As for the Marrowmen, there is a deliberate and positive repudiation of anything which even looks like an universal extent of the atonement in the wording of the Marrow; so even if there were a "genesis" of hypothetical universalism in Preston which has been propagated through the Marrow (highly doubtful in itself), it has been well and truly aborted by the Marrowmen. Lastly, the UP men did not advocate hypothetical universalism in its subtleties but maintained a double reference theory of the atonement in which Christ "actually," not hypothetically, died for all men in some sense. This is a different species of teaching and should be classified according to its own distinctive variations.


----------



## JM (Nov 24, 2011)

armourbearer said:


> "Christ is dead for you" pertains to the gospel offer, not to Christ offering Himself to the Father in the place of sinners.



Why is that distinction made? Why is "Christ is dead for you" an offer to all but made removed from Christ offering Himself to the Father? Why is the work of Christ dying on the cross for His people different then what is being offered in Marrowism?


----------



## Marrow Man (Nov 25, 2011)

This article might help.


----------



## proregno (Nov 25, 2011)

QUOTE=Marrow Man;912042]This article might help.[/QUOTE]

Thanks Tim, will have a good look at it. I did read some parts already and would like to make a few comments, but let me explain where I come from: 

In the 1940's there were a schism in the GKN (Gereformeerde Kerke in Nederland = Reformed Churches of the Netherlands) about covenant and baptism, between those who followed Kuyper and those who followed Schilder (it is a over simplification). When I first heard and studied this issue back in the 1990's, I read and studied it through the lenses of the Schilderian view, because I was a member of a 'Schilderian church' (GKN - vrijgemaakt) in South Africa. It turned out that I believed the Schilderiaans were the 'gooddies' and the Kuyperians were the 'baddies', and many or most saw it that way, even today.
But, after I left these churches (I am now in the GKSA), I started to read the 'other side' and it's sources more and came to the conclusion that both sides had their 'good and bad'. Yes, I am more Kuyperian-Bavinck-Hoeksema in my (unconditional) covenant view than Schilder's (conditional) view, but this history made me realise that we must be very careful studying controversies of the past, it is so easy to see only one side of an issue, or read our current debates back into the past without acknowledging great differences in terms, definitions, backgrounds, etc.

That is why I am concerned that in most lectures I have listened thus far, the speakers tend to glorify the MM side of the issue as the gooddies and the other side as the baddies, while it seems that the issue were much more complex and nuanced (as Moore's lecture points out). 

Let me use one example to explain, quoting from the article you recommended (Hall, 254,255): 

"The Marrow men recognized that legalism produces as a corollary the denial of the free offer of the gospel. They met this denial with great fervor, indeed with the same urgency as they defended each reformation sola. They argued biblically and confessionally in defense of the free offer. Their opponents claimed that the gospel is offered to the elect alone. These “Moderates” took a position that Ferguson has summarized in the form of a syllogism:

Major premise: The grace of God saves the elect only.
Minor premise: The elect are known by their forsaking sin.
Conclusion: The grace of God (the gospel of Christ) is given to those who forsake sin.

This scheme raises a plethora of questions. The principal concern is that it attaches a pre-conditional obedience to the message of the gospel. In view of total depravity, this “obedience” is not possible for the sinner to perform. The effect of this scheme is to separate the grace of Christ from the gospel of Christ. The Marrow men remind us that Christ came not to save the righteous but sinners. Moreover, implicit in this syllogism is a denial of the free offer of the gospel to all."

Now, if Ferguson is correct, understanding it from a pro-MM view, it is clear that the MM wanted to protect the Gospel from any kind of work righteousness, any 'Christ plus' gospel, which would be a rejection of sola Christo. 

If that is it, all reformed men of the past and today should shout a hearty Amen !

But, read from a pro-Assembly view (as presented by Ferguson), try read the 'minor premise' again and again in a positive light to see what their concern could have been, namely:

a Gospel that does not change sinners, lead to antinomianism, a gospel that does not have Christ _both_ as Saviour and Lord, justification _and _sanctification, and therefore does not teach what we confess in HC q/a 64:

"Q64: But does not this doctrine make men careless and profane?
A64: No, for it is impossible that those who are implanted into Christ by true faith, should not bring forth _fruits_ of thankfulness.[1]
1. Mat 7:18; Rom 6:1-2; John 15:5"

The moderates (in Ferguson's words) says "The elect are _known _by their forsaking sin", and not "The elect are saved by their forsaking sin", i.e. as a 'pre-conditional obedience' to be saved. They see it as fruit, not part of the root, great difference. It is the concern of James 2, verse 18,

"Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: _shew_ me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works."

And, if it is argued that the Gospel presentation does not include a call to 'forsake sin', then what does the words 'repent and believe' then means ? 

Thus, those who believe, repent, have faith, etc 'proof/show/reveal' they are elect/saved, not that all those benefits is the 'pre conditional obedience' for recieving Christ. This we confess in Dordt chapter 1:9, 

"This election was not founded upon foreseen faith and the obedience of faith, holiness, or any other good quality or disposition in man, as the prerequisite, cause, or condition on which it depended; but men are chosen to faith and to the obedience of faith, holiness, etc. Therefore election is the fountain of every saving good, from which proceed faith, holiness, and the other gifts of salvation, and finally eternal life itself, _as its fruits and effects_, according to the testimony of the apostle: He hath chosen us (not because we were, but) that we should be holy, and without blemish before him in love (Eph 1:4)."

BTW, if the problem really is the second premise, i.e. that it teaches a 'pre conditional' Gospel idea, what is then the difference between that sentence and proclaiming the Gospel in the following words: 

"Believe the Gospel/Christ and you shall be saved"

Is 'believe' or does 'believe' then not also become a "pre-conditional obedience to the message of the gospel. In view of total depravity, this “obedience” is not possible for the sinner to perform.", which mean all presbyterian and reformed people today teach a 'Christ plus' gospel ?

So, studying the issue, it seems that both groups, MM and moderates tried to read the worst into each other's statements and language, as we all tend to do in our own controversies ? 

So, from a historical viewpoint, studying sources from _both_ sides, we must try and read both sides in their context in a bona fide way, and, secondly, if Boston were needed to clarify and explain dubious (paradoxial?) and unclear language in the Marrow book (even until today), the same must be done with the Assembly's theologians and writings, not jump the gun quickly and say that they taught a conditional Gospel, were nomian, legalists, etc. 

I am still studying the issue, my final verdict is not out yet, because up to now it was mostly the MM side I have read and heard and I hope to get some 'faces' on the other side of the debate, i.e. read their side of the controversy.


----------



## MW (Nov 25, 2011)

JM said:


> Why is that distinction made? Why is "Christ is dead for you" an offer to all but made removed from Christ offering Himself to the Father? Why is the work of Christ dying on the cross for His people different then what is being offered in Marrowism?



The offer is universal -- to every creature. The offering is exclusive -- gave Himself for me. The offer is general -- whosoever will may come. The offering is particular -- He shall save His people. The offer is conditional -- believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved. The offering is absolute -- He is the propitiation for our sins.


----------



## MW (Nov 25, 2011)

Marrow Man said:


> This article might help.



There are a few historical inaccuracies. (1) England was not dominant in Church and State in Scotland. (2) The Free Church came out of the Established Church of Scotland, not out of the Secession Church. (3) Amyraldism was opposed by the General Assembly. (4) Hyper-Calvinism and the well-meant offer were not the issues under debate.


----------



## JM (Nov 25, 2011)

> The offer is universal -- to every creature. The offering is exclusive -- gave Himself for me. The offer is general -- whosoever will may come. The offering is particular -- He shall save His people. The offer is conditional -- believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved. The offering is absolute -- He is the propitiation for our sins.



Thank you Rev. Winzer for your responses but I still don't see the work of Christ being separated from the preaching of a universalistic Gospel, the work of Christ on the Cross and what it accomplishes _is_ the Gospel.


----------



## MW (Nov 25, 2011)

JM said:


> Thank you Rev. Winzer for your responses but I still don't see the work of Christ being separated from the preaching of a universalistic Gospel, the work of Christ on the Cross and what it accomplishes _is_ the Gospel.



Christ, His person, work, offices, and benefits are offered in the gospel as the object of faith. The gospel is more than the object of faith. It includes directions, promises, exhortations, threatenings, etc. These are preached to all men.


----------

