How Good Is Ames’ Marrow, Really?

Status
Not open for further replies.
U

Username3000

Guest
I want to hear from any of you who have read Ames’ Marrow.

What is it’s strength? Weakness?

Is there another similar book that is worth reading instead?
 
The strengths are clarity and brevity. The weaknesses are compression and the method of bifurcation. It's an important book, and could be quite handy as an introduction to Reformed doctrine and Protestant Scholasticism. For a similar length but a different format and approach you might also consider James Ussher's Body of Divinity, John's Brown's Systematic Theology, and Louis Berkhof's Manual of Christian Doctrine.
 
The importance of Ames as a theologian is incalculable. He and Perkins were highly influential amongst the Nadere Reformatie movement. Ames was present at Dordt. Both of their theological treatises were also widely influential amongst the Puritans. If you are interested in Puritanism and the development of their theology, reading Ames is non-negotiable. Ames' theological works are a model of succinct statements of Reformed theology.
If you are less interested in Puritan theology, there are better works to read. If your goal is to get started with Systematics, I would begin with John Brown, Benedict Pictet, Berkhof, or Bavinck's Our Reasonable Faith. Calvin's 1541 Edition of the Institutes is an excellent introduction to Reformed theology. I would still suggest you read Ames at some point.
 
Last edited:
The weaknesses are compression and the method of bifurcation
How is the bifurcation a weakness?

Thanks for the other tips. I’m going to think about it a bit and then ask some more questions.
 
I love Ames. The format and brevity of his Marrow allow for quick reference and citation for addressing particular matters. The only weakness in my eyes is that, as far as I can remember, he doesn’t treat the Ten Commandments.
 
I love Ames. The format and brevity of his Marrow allow for quick reference and citation for addressing particular matters. The only weakness in my eyes is that, as far as I can remember, he doesn’t treat the Ten Commandments.
He actually does treat them in the second section on Observance.
 
He actually does treat them in the second section on Observance.

Oh, good! I honestly couldn’t remember, and I didn’t have my copy readily available. Thanks!

For those who may not know, it is available free here (as a .pdf)

This is an older translation. Does anyone here know if there is a particular advantage of the most recent translation by Eusden (sp?), other than more contemporary English? Or is the older translation perfectly fine?
 
Oh, good! I honestly couldn’t remember, and I didn’t have my copy readily available. Thanks!



This is an older translation. Does anyone here know if there is a particular advantage of the most recent translation by Eusden (sp?), other than more contemporary English? Or is the older translation perfectly fine?
The introduction in the Baker edition is worth the price.
 
How is the bifurcation a weakness?

Thanks for the other tips. I’m going to think about it a bit and then ask some more questions.

Because not everything splits neatly into two. The clearest example would be that in treating the Divine Persons, the natural division is triple, not double. I don't think it's a huge deal, since Ames clearly covers what he needs to, but you definitely notice the splitting as you are reading along.

A similar criticism can be made of other authors, of course. Frame and Poythress notwithstanding, "triads" are not inevitable
 
This is an older translation

If you consider 2014 old... ;)
That's when Bill Gross modernized the English text. He does note, "In 1968 John Dykstra Eusden did a fresh translation from the 1629 Latin edition, which may be more helpful to you than this modernization of the original English."
 
If you consider 2014 old... ;)
That's when Bill Gross modernized the English text. He does note, "In 1968 John Dykstra Eusden did a fresh translation from the 1629 Latin edition, which may be more helpful to you than this modernization of the original English."
As you know, translation and modernization are two different processes.
 
If you consider 2014 old... ;)
That's when Bill Gross modernized the English text. He does note, "In 1968 John Dykstra Eusden did a fresh translation from the 1629 Latin edition, which may be more helpful to you than this modernization of the original English."

Ah, I didn't see that the text had been modernized. That's neat! I'm glad to have found the website of the gentleman who modernized it, too. He has a lot of good stuff there.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top