Marrow Controversy - Stephen G. Myers' Interpretation

Status
Not open for further replies.

mpb

Puritan Board Freshman
Stephen G. Myers (Professor of Systematic & Historical Theology at PRTS) has an interesting take on the Marrow Controversy written in his chapter in The History of Scottish Theology, Volume I (Oxford). Here are a few quotes to get an idea of his interpretation of the controversy:

"For centuries, interpreters have argued that this Marrow controversy resulted from the intrusion of a foreign doctrinal element into eighteenth-century Scottish theology. In older and more self-consciously evangelical scholarship, the controversy is blamed on a burgeoning legalism dissonant with the traditional evangelical warmth of Scottish thought (Macleod 1973: 139–66). In this analysis, the Marrow brethren maintained traditional Scottish theology against a party within the Assembly that espoused a novel Neonomianism in which human obedience to a new ‘Gospel Law’ merited salvation. In later and more self-consciously academic scholarship, the disruptive intrusion is identified differently. In this analysis, the Marrow brethren had been influenced by older theological language and commitments and were using that idiom in the midst of an Assembly that had been influenced by, and that was espousing, a later, post-Reformation set of more legalizing doctrinal formulations (Lachman 1988)..... While there are obvious differences between the older and newer analyses, both share the same core assumption—the Marrow controversy was an evangelical/legalist dispute which resulted from the interruption of Scottish theology’s continuous development in the early eighteenth century, whether that interruption came from a novel legalism or an antiquated evangelicalism.

All of these theories of disjuncture, however, leave unanswered several nagging questions....

...These questions and their lack of resolution point to an intriguing possibility. Perhaps the Marrow controversy did not result from an intrusion into Scottish theology that pitted either evangelicals against legalists or Reformation theology against post-Reformation theology. Perhaps the Marrow controversy resulted from divergent developments within Scottish theology itself; developments that split men of overwhelmingly shared theological exposure into camps which subsequent history would show eschewed stark evangelical/legalist division. In fact, precisely such a situation emerges when one examines the two theological systems whose collision resulted in the Marrow controversy. In the first instance, consideration must be given to the theology of James Hadow. Hadow produced two of the most influential anti-Marrow works of the controversy, first in 1719 and then in 1721; the Assembly followed the theological critiques of those works in their censures of Marrow doctrine in both 1720 and 1722; and contemporaries recognized Hadow as the chief architect of the Marrow’s condemnation (Boston 1853: 12.327). Secondly, consideration must be given to the doctrinal systems of Thomas Boston and Ebenezer Erskine, the two theological leaders of the Marrow brethren. While other Representers wrote individually in defence of the Marrow, Boston and Erskine were the two brethren who did so officially, with Boston drafting the initial Representation and Petition of 1721 and Erskine preparing the brethren’s answers to the Commission’s queries in 1722.

When Hadow’s theology is compared with that of Boston and Erskine, there appears no evidence of either a foreign legalism or a re-appropriated evangelicalism. Rather, both doctrinal systems appear as legitimate, continuous developments of a shared body of Scottish federal theology. The Marrow controversy did not occur because some outside emphasis differed from the status quo of contemporary Scottish theology. Rather, embedded within that theology itself were unresolved tensions that, when cobbled together in different systems, produced disparate readings of one provocatively written book." --pages 344-346

"After exploring these differences [between Hadow’s federal theology and that of Boston and Erskine], an examination of one issue central to the Marrow controversy will suggest that it was this federal variety which underlay the dispute." -- page 348


---Dr. Myers goes on to analyze the controversy in-depth and explain his view, but essentially this is what he comes away with:


"As federal theology continues to be a distinctive of the Reformed tradition, the implications of different components of that theology must be appreciated by those who would forward federal doctrine. A bi-covenantal view does not guarantee a sound evangelicalism and a tri-covenantal view does not ensure a lurking legalism, but the doctrine behind the Marrow controversy does expose the potential implications of both views. An overall federal theology is more than just the amassing of composite doctrinal parts; there are dynamics within larger systems that can have profound effects on one’s overall understanding of the Gospel and one’s posture in the Gospel offer....

...In the Marrow controversy, over six decades of unresolved tensions within Scottish federalism ignited. The result was not a clash between evangelicalism and legalism, but rather a collision between two differing federal systems and those systems’ understanding and expression of the Gospel offer. In this, the Marrow controversy confirms that between federal theology and the evangelistic mission of the Church, there is the tightest of connections." --pages 356-357

I'm curious on other's take on this. I remember hearing Dr. Lachman's work being spoken of as the standard, or at least the best, take on the interpreting the Marrow. Dr. Myers obviously has some disagreements with that approach.
With the albeit limited view you get into Myers' approach from these quotes, does his stance hold up better?
 
Last edited:
Stephen G. Myers (Professor of Systematic & Historical Theology at PRTS) has an interesting take on the Marrow Controversy written in his chapter in The History of Scottish Theology, Volume I (Oxford). Here are a few quotes to get an idea of his interpretation of the controversy:






---Dr. Myers goes on to analyze the controversy in-depth and explain his view, but essentially this is what he comes away with:




I'm curious on other's take on this. I remember hearing Dr. Lachman's work being spoken of as the standard, or at least the best, take on the interpreting the Marrow. Dr. Myers obviously has some disagreements with that approach.
With the albeit limited view you get into Myers' approach from these quotes, does his stance hold up better?
While I am no expert on the issue, I am inclined to favor Myers' interpretation of the controversy. Thank you for sharing.
 
It's been a while since I read it, but this is the thesis Myers presents in Scottish Federalism and Covenantalism in Transition (Pickwick, 2015). I found it compelling when presented there in detail. Perhaps it just took this distance in time and renewed appreciation of federal approaches to be able to analyse Principal Hadow's writings as forensically as Boston/Erskine's.
 
Stephen G. Myers (Professor of Systematic & Historical Theology at PRTS) has an interesting take on the Marrow Controversy written in his chapter in The History of Scottish Theology, Volume I (Oxford). Here are a few quotes to get an idea of his interpretation of the controversy:






---Dr. Myers goes on to analyze the controversy in-depth and explain his view, but essentially this is what he comes away with:




I'm curious on other's take on this. I remember hearing Dr. Lachman's work being spoken of as the standard, or at least the best, take on the interpreting the Marrow. Dr. Myers obviously has some disagreements with that approach.
With the albeit limited view you get into Myers' approach from these quotes, does his stance hold up better?
It's certainly true that the Marrow men had a distinctive theology within broader Scottish evangelicalism, and it can be contrasted with that of other evangelicals like John Willison, but Myers' view sounds quite novel. Does he get into the distinctives of the Moderates, the influence of the theology of Richard Baxter, etc?
 
It's certainly true that the Marrow men had a distinctive theology within broader Scottish evangelicalism, and it can be contrasted with that of other evangelicals like John Willison, but Myers' view sounds quite novel. Does he get into the distinctives of the Moderates, the influence of the theology of Richard Baxter, etc?
Other than the little I have read, I am a total amateur totally agreeing with the Marrow Manly Men but, was Hadow et al influenced by Baxter hence their emphasis on turning before turning to Christ? I have little doubt many see crazy people and then think legislating the crazy away in the government and church is the way to go.
 
Other than the little I have read, I am a total amateur totally agreeing with the Marrow Manly Men but, was Hadow et al influenced by Baxter hence their emphasis on turning before turning to Christ? I have little doubt many see crazy people and then think legislating the crazy away in the government and church is the way to go.
Hadow was influenced by Samuel Rutherford. His criticisms of the Marrow in his sermon The Record of Faith reflect Rutherford's polemics against the English Antinomians.
Rutherford states his doctrine on preparation on p. 239-245 of Christ Dying and Drawing Sinners to Himself.
His words are as follows:
"Quest. But are there no preparations either of nature or at least of grace going before saving grace,*and the soules being drawn to Christ?

Ans. That we may come to consider preparations or previous qualifications to conversion. Let us consider whether Christ com∣ing to the soule hath need of an Usher.

Asser. 1. Dispositions going before conversion, come under a four-fold consideration. 1. As efficient causes,* so some imagine them to be. 2. As materially and subjectively they dispose the soule to receive grace. 3. Formally or morally, either as parts of conversion, or morall preparations having a promise of conversion annexed to them. 4. As meanes in reference to the finall cause, or to the Lords end in sending these before; and what is said of these, may have some truth proportionably in a Churches low condition or humiliation, before they be delivered. We may also speak here of dispositions going before the Lords renewed drawing of sinners al-ready converted, after a fall, or under de∣sertion, Cant. 1. Draw me, we will run.

Asser. 2. No man but Pelagians, Arminians, and such do teach,* if any shall improve their naturall habilities to the uttermost, and stirre up themselves in good earnest to seeke the grace of con∣version, and Christ the wisdome of God, they shall certainly, and without miscarrying, find what they seeke. 1. Because no man, not the finest and sweetest nature can ingage the grace of Christ, or with his penny or sweating, earne either the king∣dome of grace, or glory; whether by way of merit of condig∣nitie, or congruity. Rom. 9.16. So then, it is not in him that willeth, nor in him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mer∣cie. 1 Tim. 1.9•Who hath saved us, and called us, with an holy calling, not according to our workes, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus, be∣fore the world began. So Ephes. 2.1, 2, •, 4, 5. Tit. 3.3, 4, 5. Ezech. 16.4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. (2.) Because there is no shad∣dow of any ingagement of promise on Gods part, or any word for it. Doe this by the strength of nature, and grace shall bee given to you. 3. Nor are wee ashamed to say with the Scripture, its as unpossible to storme heaven, or make purchase of Christ, by the strength of nature, as for the dead man to take his grave in his two armes, and rise and lay death by him, and walke: Nor does this impossibility free the sinner from guiltinesse and rebukes. 1. Because it is a sinfully con∣tracted inability, except we would deny originall sinne. 2. Its voluntary in us, and the bondage that we love. 3. The Scripture both calles it impossibility, and also rebukes it as sinfull. Joh. 6 44. Rom. 8.•, 7, 8. Ephes. 2.1, 2, 3, 11, 12, 13. chap. 4.17, 18, 19. chap. 5.8.

Asser. 3. All preparations even wrought in us, by the com∣mon and generall restraining grace of God,* can have no effe∣ctive influence to produce our conversion, from the Scriptures alledged; for then should we be called, saved, and quickned, when we are dead in sinne, foolish, disobedient, and enemies to God,〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, According to our works of righteousnesse which we had done, contrary to Ephes. 2.1, 2, 3, 4, 5.11.12, 13. 2 Tim. 1.9. Tit. 3.3. (2.) Then common generall gifts might also engage Christs free grace. 3. Men might pre∣vene Grace, and forestall Christ and his merits, which over∣turnes the foundation of the Gospell, and cries down Christ and free Grace.*

Asser. 4. All these fore-going endeavours and sweatings being void of Faith, cannot please God, Hebr. 11.6. These who act in the strength of them, are yet in the flesh, and not in the Spirit, and so can doe nothing acceptable to God, being yet out of Christ, Rom. 8.8. Joh. 15.4, 5, 6. and the tree being corrupt, the fruit must be soure, and naught; humiliation, sorrow for sin, displeasure with our selves, that goe before conversion, can be no formall parts of conversion, nor any essentiall limbs, mem∣bers or degrees of the new creature; nor so much as a stone or pin of the new building. Divines call them, gradus ad rem, initium materiale conversionis; non gradus in re, nec initium formale: For parts of the building remaine in the building; when the house is come to some perfect frame, all those bastard pieces, coming not from the new principle the new heart, Christ formed in the soule, are cast out as unprofitable. Paul, when he meets with Christ, casts off his silks and sattins, that hee was lordly of while hee was a Pharisee, as old rags, losse and dung, and acts now with farre other principles and tooles. Its all new worke, after another Sampler; heaven workes in him now.

Asser. 5.* Those are not morall preparations which wee per∣forme before conversion, nor have they any promise of Christ annexed to them; as, Hee that is humbled under sinne, shall be drawne to Christ: Hee that wisheth the Physician, shall be cured, and called to repentance: Wee read of no such promise in the word. 2. A man not in Christ, is without the sphere or element of Christ, at the wrong side of the doore of the sheep-fold, hee is not in Emanuels land; and all the promises of God are in Christ, Yea and Amen, 2 Cor. 1.20. The whole stock of Gospel-promises are put in Christ, as the first Subject;* and be∣leevers have them from Christ, at the second hand. Christ keeps, as the true Ark, the book of the Testament, the beleevers Bible. Its true, the new heart is promised to the elect, even while they are not in Christ, but they cannot make claime to that promise till they be first in Christ: but those promises are made, in a speciall manner, to Christ, as to the head of the redeemed, to be dispensed by Christ, to those onely whom the Father gave him before time. And as the promises are peculiar to Christ, so the persons and grace promised, both the one and the other, are due to Christ, and result from the Head, to those who in Gods decree onely shall be members; as righteousnesse, life eternall, and perseverance, are made to those that are members. 3. Ma∣ny runne, and obtaine not, 1 Cor. 9.24, 25, 26. Many strive to enter in, and shall not be able, Luk. 13.24. Many lay a founda∣tion, and are not able to finish, Luk. 14.29. Many hunt, and catch nothing: Many have stormes of conscience, as Cain, and Judas, who goe never one step further. When therefore Anti∣nomians impute to us, that wee teach, That to desire to beleeve, is faith: To desire to pray,(a)is prayer.(b) They foulely mistake; for raw desires, and wishes after conversion, and Christ, are to us no more conversion, and the soules being drawn to Christ, then Esau's weeping for the blessing, was the bles∣sing; or Balaam's wish to die the death of the righteous, was the happy end of such as die in the Lord. But the sincere de∣sires and good will of justified persons, are accepted of the Lord, for the deed: and when Christ pronounceth such bles∣sed as hunger for righteousnesse, wee say, in that sense, a sin∣cere desire to pray, and beleeve, is materially, and by concomi∣tancy, a neighbour, and neare of kin to beleeving, and praying, A virtuall or seminall intention to pray, beleeve, love Christ, doe his will, is in the seed, praying, beleeving; when the in∣tention is supernaturall, and of the same kind with the act; as the seed is the tree: Wee say not so of naturall intentions and desires. As Abrahams sincere intention to offer his son, was the offering of his son; the widows casting in her mite, was, in her honest desire, the casting in of all that shee had; certainly, not all simply, that had been against charity toward her selfe: but (2) single desires, unfained aimes, weigh as much with Christ, as actions, in their reality. So wee say many are, in affections, Martyrs, who never die nor suffer losse for Christ; because no∣thing is wanting on the part of such Saints, thus disposed, but that God call them to it. So Abraham offered his son Isaac to God; because Abraham did all on his part, and hee was not the cause, why hee was not offered and made an actuall sacrifice to God; but Gods countermand and his forbidding was the cause, and nothing else.

Asser. 6. The humiliation and sorrow for sin, and desire of the Physician, by way of merit, or 2. by way of a morall dis∣position, having the favour of a Gospel-promise, doe no more render a soule nearer to Christ and saving grace, then the want of these dispositions; for as a Horse, or an Ape, though they come nearer to some shadow of reason, and to mans nature, then the Stork, or the Asse, or then things voyd of life, as stones and the like; yet as there is required the like omnipotency to turn an Ape into a Man, as to make a stone a sonne of Abra∣ham; so the like omnipotency of grace is required to turne an unhumbled soule into a saved and redeemed Saint, as to turne a proud Pharisee into a Saint. And merit is as farre to seek in the one, as the other. So an unconverted sinner, though some way humbled, if the Lord of free grace should convert hi•, were no lesse oblieged to free grace, and no lesse from laying any tye or bands of merits, or obligation, by way of promise, on Christ, for his conversion, then a stone made a beleeving sonne of Abraham, should be in the same case of conversion. And 3. the humbled soule, for ought hee know•s, (I speak of legall humiliation) hath no more any Gospel-title or promise that saving grace shall be given to him, even of meere grace, upon condition of his humiliation, or externall hearing, or de∣sire of the Physician, then the proud Pharisee.* Yet as the bo∣dy framed and organized is in a nearer disposition to be a house to receive the soule, then a stone, or a block; so is an humbled and dejected soule, such as cast-down Saul, and the bowed-down Jayler, and those that were pricked in their hearts, Act. 2. in the moment before their conversion were nearer to con∣version, and in regard of passive and materiall dispositions made by the Law-worke, readier to receive the impression and new life of Christ formed in them, then the blaspheming Jewes. Act. 13. and the proud Pharisees, who despised the counsell of God, and would not be baptized, Luk. 7.30. There be some pre∣paratory colours in dying of cloth, as blue, that dispose the cloth for other colours more easily; so is it here: And a fish that hath swallowed the bait, and is in the bosome of the net, is nearer being taken, then a fish free and swimming in the Ocean; yet a fish may break the net, and cut the angle, and not be taken. A legally-sitted man may be not farre from the Kingdome of God, Mar. 12.34. and yet never enter in. And those same dispositi∣ons, in relation to Gods •nd in saving the elect, are often means, and disposing occasions, fitting soules for conversion: though some be like a piece of gold lying in the dirt,* yet it is both true mettall, and hath the Kings stamp on it, and is of equall worth with that which goeth currant in the market. So, in regard of Gods eternall election, many are in the way of sin, and not con∣verted as yet, notwithstanding all the luster of fore-going pre∣parations, though they be as truely the elect of God, as either those that are converted, yea or glorified in heaven; yet their preparations doe lead them, in regard of an higher power, (that they see not) to saving grace. And for any thing revealed to us, God ordinarily prepares men by the Law, and some previ∣ous dispositions, before they be drawne to Christ. I dare not peremptorily say,* that God useth no prerogative Royall, or no priviledges of Soveraignty, in the conversion of some who find mercy between the water and the bridge; yea, I thinke that Christ comes to some like a Roe, or a young Hart, skipping and leaping over hills and mountaines, and passeth over his owne set line, and snatcheth them out of hell, without these prepara∣tions; at least, hee works them suddenly: And I see no incon∣venience, but as in Gods wayes of nature, hee can make dispen∣sations to himselfe, so in the wayes of grace, wee cannot find him out. However, sure of crabbed and knotty timber hee makes new buildings; and it is very base and untoward clay that Christ, who maketh all things new, cannot frame a vessell of mercy of. To change one specie or kind of a creature into another, a lyon into a lamb, and to cause the wolfe and the lamb dwell together, and the leopard lie down with the kid, and the calfe and the young lyon and the fatling together, and a little child to lead them, is the proper work of Omnipotency, what∣ever be the preparations, or undisposition of sinners.

*Asser. 7. Not any Protestant Divines, I know, make true repentance a worke of the Law, going before faith in Christ. 1. The Law speakes not one word of Repentance; but saith, either doe, or die. Repentance is an Evangelike ingredient in a Saint. 2. Christ was made a Prince, and exalted to give re∣pentance, Act. 5.31. and the Law as the Law, hath not one word of Christ, though it cannot contradict Christ, except we say, that there bee two contradictory wills in Christ, which were blasphemy; but some dispositions before conversition, I conceive Antinomians yeeld to us.* For one saith, a speaking of the manner of his conversion. One maine thing, I am sure, was to get some soule-saving-comfort, that moved mee to reveale my troubled conscience to godly Ministers, and not in generall to allay my trouble. Yet I can make good from Scripture, that this desire can be in no unconverted soule; a Physitian that mi∣stakes the cure doctrinally, will prove a cousening comforter. And another b saith. The persons capable of justification are such, as truely feele what lost creatures they are in themselves, and in all their workes: this is all the preparative condition that God requireth on our part, to this high and heavenly worke, for hereby is a man truely humbled in himselfe, of whom God speaketh, saying, — I dwell with him that is of an humble Spi∣rit, &c. To make persons capable of justification, here is re∣quired a true feeling that they are lost in them•elves, and in all their workes. But this can be no preparative condition of justification, as Eaton saith, Because true feeling must follow Faith, not goe before it.* And 2. true feeling is proper to ju∣stified persons; nothing going before justification, and so, which is found in unjustified persons, can be proper to justified per∣sons onely. 3. Antinomians say, Sinners as Sinners, and con∣sequently all sinners are to beleeve justification in Christ, with∣out any foregoing preparation. This man saith, Prepared and feeling persons that are sensible of sinne, are onely capable of justification. 4. To truely feele a lost condition, cannot be all the Preparative condition, for the word hath annexed no pro∣mise of justification to the unjustified, who shall feele his lost condition. For the place Esai 57. speaketh of a justified sinner, not of an unjustified, who is onely prepared for justification. 1. Because God dwels in this humbled soule, then he must be justified and converted. Ephes. 3.17. That Christ may dwell in your heart by faith. 2. This is a liver by faith, and so justified; the just shall live by faith, Habak. 2.4. Rom. 1.17. Gal. 3.11. Hebr. 10.38. And he must live by Faith, whom the high and loftie One revives.*"
 
It's certainly true that the Marrow men had a distinctive theology within broader Scottish evangelicalism, and it can be contrasted with that of other evangelicals like John Willison, but Myers' view sounds quite novel. Does he get into the distinctives of the Moderates, the influence of the theology of Richard Baxter, etc?

He does not spend time on that in this piece. Perhaps he does in his larger treatment of the Marrow in his work, Scottish Federalism and Covenantalism in Transition (Pickwick, 2015), as noted by @CathH above or in the podcast/YouTube video posted just above by @Alexander Suarez.

His main focus in this piece is to establish the federal nature of the controversy. He goes through the differing federal structures of Hadow, Boston, and Erskine, starting with a discussion on the different views of the Covenant of Redemption: whether part of the Covenant of Grace or a distinct covenant. He places a lot of the foundational issues in the controversy in relation to Boston and Erskine’s bi-covenantalism and Hadow’s tri-covenantalism. This leads to a discussion of the grace bestowed in the Covenant of Grace, where "Boston and Erskine insisted that the grace of the Covenant of Grace was bestowed immediately, whereas Hadow envisioned a mediate graciousness" (page 349). This is followed by discussion on differences in viewing the Covenant of Grace as definite or indefinite. "Boston and Erskine viewed the Covenant of Grace as an indefinite covenant while Hadow viewed it as a definite covenant, although not in the sense normally envisioned by such terminology" (page 351).

Myer's discussion of these differences is meant to show that they were elements that fueled the fire of disagreement when the controversy arose.

"On most issues, the differences between Boston and Erskine’s federal theology and Hadow’s federal theology would not cause significant problems. The Marrow of Modern Divinity was a different matter. The Marrow approached issues of law and grace from an explicitly covenantal perspective and, from within that paradigm, it used provocative language to discuss issues requiring considerable theological nuance. As a result, many statements in the Marrow had radically different meanings when read from within Hadow’s federal construction than they did when read from within Boston and Erskine’s system." -- page 352

On your note about John Willison, Myers does address that briefly.

"Secondly, the Marrow controversy’s foundation in differing, yet equally continuous, developments of Scottish federal theology addresses the oft-ignored conundrum of John Willison and others like him who were ardent defenders of the free offer of the Gospel, yet who appeared to oppose that free offer in siding with the General Assembly against the Marrow brethren. Nestled within Willison’s federal theology were all the strictures of Hadow’s—a distinct Covenant of Redemption that yields a definite Covenant of Grace in which God bestows grace in sequential orderliness (Willison 1794: 22–7). Simply stated, from within Willison’s federal theology, the language of the Marrow would have sounded suspicious, particularly under the glare of Hadow’s withering critique. In this, Willison serves as a contemporary litmus test for the Marrow controversy. Had that controversy concerned simply the question of whether the Gospel should be offered freely to all mankind, Willison would have sided with Boston and Erskine. But that was not the root of the Marrow controversy. The Marrow controversy sprang from the implications of different federal systems and in that federal dispute, Willison was with Hadow." -- page 355-356
 
It's certainly true that the Marrow men had a distinctive theology within broader Scottish evangelicalism, and it can be contrasted with that of other evangelicals like John Willison, but Myers' view sounds quite novel. Does he get into the distinctives of the Moderates, the influence of the theology of Richard Baxter, etc?

Sorry, it's long enough ago that I can't go into specifics very knowledgeably. Baxter isn't listed in the index For what it's worth. I would have preferred to call his view insightful rather than novel. It was an incredibly refreshing read at the time. I was familiar with the narrative that this was a straightforward fisticuffs between legalists and evangelicals (haven't read Lachman, not sure if this would be a fair representation of his view) but Myers adds a lot of much more detailed analysis and shifting the discussion towards the different federal frameworks is very fruitful.
 
This is where it is helpful to read A Puritan Theology and realize that there were those who did not see the CoR as distinct from the CoG.

This is a really interesting thread and demonstrates that the kind of controversies that arise are similar to those that might occur today.

Ironically, though, a Marrow Man (like me) would argue with a more strict person who might deny that the Gospel offer is freely offered to sinners by the minister without reference to their status as elect or regenerated.

Typically, however, the problem today with Federal "clashes" ahs to do with those who take a Klinean view and muddle the CoW and see the distinction between Law and Gospel as indicative vs imperative. Both sides would have seen many of the more extreme elements (e.g. Lee Irons) as antinominan.
 
I wonder how Van Doodewaard's The Marrow Controversy and Seceder Tradition sees things...I just cracked it open.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top