The Free Offer of the Gospel and American Presbyterianism

[Puritan Sailor]

I would recommend the book The Marrow Controversy by David Lachman. Unfortunately, it's out of print now, but maybe if enough of you folks petition Rutherford House to publish it again they might do it. He documents thoroughly the doctrinal positions of all parties involved in the Marrow controversy, and shows the obvious neonomian influence in the opponents of the Marrow as well as Matthew's point above refuting the charges of Amyraldianism. One has only to read the Marrow yourself and see that the charges against it were false. But I have spoken of this in other threads...

It does need to continue in print, but it could really stand retypesetting; the original was simply a repro of the typed dissertation.

Perhaps you could lend a hand???

 

[NaphtaliPress]

I would recommend the book The Marrow Controversy by David Lachman. Unfortunately, it's out of print now, but maybe if enough of you folks petition Rutherford House to publish it again they might do it. He documents thoroughly the doctrinal positions of all parties involved in the Marrow controversy, and shows the obvious neonomian influence in the opponents of the Marrow as well as Matthew's point above refuting the charges of Amyraldianism. One has only to read the Marrow yourself and see that the charges against it were false. But I have spoken of this in other threads...

It does need to continue in print, but it could really stand retypesetting; the original was simply a repro of the typed dissertation.

Perhaps you could lend a hand???

I think I drafted a note to that effect last year; but I don't recall where it went if I sent it; David is quite the traveler. My main problem right now is I don't know where my copy is!

 

[Ron]

The OPC nodded off on that one I'm afraid.

Ron

Reformed Apologist: Does God Desire the Salvation of All?

Very good article here Ron.

In a word, not only can God not save the reprobate. 2000 years ago He acted in time sealing that inability. For God to desire the salvation of the reprobate is to say that God - today - desires that Jesus would have died for the reprobate 2000 years ago. What can God desire on this regard other than the past be different? Does God live with any sense of regret?

While this may sound logical, there is a problem. Namely, did the Lord Jesus sincerely desire that the rich young man repent and embrace the offer of mercy? I think Mark 10:21 answers the question:

Jesus looked at him and loved him. "One thing you lack," he said. "Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

Here we see that Christ loved the young man and desired that he forsake sin and follow Him as Saviour and Lord, yet, at the same time, the young man had not been elected to eternal salvation, nor did Christ die for him on the cross.

Daniel,

Just a couple of observations:

1. I was speaking of God's lack of desire to save those elected unto damnation. I was not speaking to the question of whether God loved them. Accordingly, I could argue, but I won't, that logically speaking God could love but not desire to save those He has elected unto damnation. My theology doesn't allow for that distinction but I suppose it is logically tenable. After all, we are called to love our wives and our neighbor but that does not require that we desire the same things for them. Accordingly, (and again I don't think that Scripture teaches this), it is not a logical contradiction for Jesus to love certain ones he does not desire to save.

2. Now I will argue my point. You seem to be making an assumption that needs to be justified because your position up until now depends on it. Your assumption is that the rich man whom Jesus loved was damned in the end. I don't find that in the text. I do find that the rich man walked away, but don't many walk away from the demands of the gospel prior to receiving the word with gladness? Does God always grant repentance and faith to His elect upon their first hearing the good news? Who knows, this Rich Man could have been none other than Saul of Tarsus. Accordingly, you may not build your case that Jesus loves or desires to save those who are damned in the end based upon that text, for the simple reason the text doesn't say whether the man was saved in the end. It does say though, "With God all things are possible."

3. So again, how do you reconcile God's supposed desire to save those elected unto damnation when the atonement was not for them and the Holy Spirit refuses to grant them faith and repentance? If God desires to save those elected unto damnation, then why doesn't He? Please don't say because they won't come to him; that would imply that God desired to save you be-cause of your willingness to come to Him, which of course would reverse the theo-logical order of your willingness and God's willingness, making the initiative yours not His. At the end of the day, you have God desiring to save those who won't come to Christ but the truth of the matter is, the atoning sacrifice of the Savior was not for them, which is why Jesus does not pray for them and the Holy Spirit refuses sovereignly to convert them. Any desire God would have for them to be saved would need to be indexed to God's desire to save them. God does not desire dead men to come to life on their own. Accordingly, any desire to save them would have to include a regret of what is past since God already determined that He would not give them life, which is why He does not try to give them life.

4. We might begin here. Does God desire in any sense that they not be saved? In other words, since God desires His decree to come to pass and His decree includes men not coming to Christ, may we not conclude that God desires that men not come to Christ? And if so, then wouldn't it be a contradiction to say that God desires that those same men come to Christ? How can God desire His decree without desiring every component thereof?

Blessings,

Ron

 

[Ron]

Joshua,

I agree with what you are saying. Unfortunately, the way I understand it, the term “free offer,” which literally suggests something more akin to what you say, has been hijacked to mean “sincere desire.” Accordingly, if someone asks whether I affirm the “free offer,” I’d probably do well to inquire what is behind the question.

In passing I'll note that I find a kind providence in the book that the OPC typically uses for communicant membership class. Confessing Christ teaches in the section on Unconditional Election that God does not love those he does not elect unto salvation.

In His grace,

Ron

 

[Amazing Grace]

I would recommend the book The Marrow Controversy by David Lachman. Unfortunately, it's out of print now, but maybe if enough of you folks petition Rutherford House to publish it again they might do it. He documents thoroughly the doctrinal positions of all parties involved in the Marrow controversy, and shows the obvious neonomian influence in the opponents of the Marrow as well as Matthew's point above refuting the charges of Amyraldianism. One has only to read the Marrow yourself and see that the charges against it were false. But I have spoken of this in other threads...

Patrick, again my contention with the Marrow Men is that it was the embyonic stage of what is now the WMO which in turn connects hypothetical universlaism with the offer of the Gospel. That within the offer, God actually desires the reprobate or unregenerate to embrace this warrant of faith. The whole idea perpetrated by them and other puritans in this time of preparationism by Law, where there conscious of the reprobate and unregenerate is seared leading them to "seek' for Christ, and continue on for years seeking one who has not died for them is such a dreadful thought for myself and against the nature of God. It is pavlovian in a sense. To dangle Christ as a savior for those whom it is never intended is malicious on the part of the preacher. It is not the word offer that is problematic, it is the distinction fo which they spoke. Owen himself defines offer and proclaiming, presenting, lifiting up, Christ and that is Scriptural. But to claim that the Atonement, because of speculated universal aspects, gives the preacher the right to give all head for head a warrant to embrace Christ is going beyond what is true. I will also note that the charge of antinomianism was terribly wrong against them. Yes the neonomians who were in charge of the Scotland church presented a conditional Gospel that is much worse than those of the marrow men. There is much written about this issue, of which I know I am not nearly as clear as them, yet it is possible to glean from what is written a sense of what the MM intentions were.

And you are simply mistaken that they were arguing that way. Lachman's book points that out from the original sources. They did not base the offer upon a universal atonement but upon the command and promise of God. One thing that never comes up in these discussions, and Lachman does an excellent job pointing this out, is that the Marrowmen and their opponents read different authors. ...When you read the Marrow men within the context of their own tradition, they are perfectly orthodox and in perfect harmony with the Westminster Standards, as Boston proved so well in his explanatory notes to the Marrow.

Patrick et al who are defending the mm as being orthodox/biblical in their meaning of the 'offer', could YOU please provide the clarification by them please? Not lachman's understanding. See, I have provided quotes from Boston,Chalmers,Erskine that go beyond the scriptural meaning of offering Christ. I am not about to go buy a book, instead let us look at exactly their own words. While perhaps defending against opposition as the marrow men, their writings outside of this controversey should be clear on this so called warrant to believe, seeker error they proposed. And this cannot be denied Patrick regarding this Law preaching bringing all under conviction causing them to seek a remedy but alas end up without a cure given to them or found by them..

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Daniel,

Just a couple of observations:

Sorry, Ron I did not realise I was addressing any of your comments.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Patrick et al who are defending the mm as being orthodox/biblical in their meaning of the 'offer', could YOU please provide the clarification by them please? Not lachman's understanding. See, I have provided quotes from Boston,Chalmers,Erskine that go beyond the scriptural meaning of offering Christ. I am not about to go buy a book, instead let us look at exactly their own words. While perhaps defending against opposition as the marrow men, their writings outside of this controversey should be clear on this so called warrant to believe, seeker error they proposed. And this cannot be denied Patrick regarding this Law preaching bringing all under conviction causing them to seek a remedy but alas end up without a cure given to them or found by them..

I'm sorry, I don't see any quotes by Boston, Chalmers, and Erskine. The quotes you pointed out which the EPC doesn't like about the Marrow are all sufficiently answered by Boston in his explanatory notes on those passages. The evidence is right there for all to read. As for the warrant to believe, that comes straight from the Westminsters Divines in the Sum of Saving Knowledge (of which the Marrow was a contemporary product using the same sources many of the Divines would have used). It's perfectly orthodox reformed terminology in the Puritan and Scottish tradition. Not sure what the rub is there. Why should I believe on Christ if I don't know I'm elect? How you answer that question will completely govern your preaching of the gospel.

Just because the book was condemned doesn't mean it was condemned justly by the Church of Scotland. Councils do err (as Lachman sufficiently shows as well). And the Marrow men themselves being interogated provided perfectly orthodox answers to their interogators.

As for Lachman, he does provide the extensive quotes you would like from sources that none of us possess anymore. If you want to have a more informed opinion on the subject I suggest you check it out. All the objections from the EPC are sufficiently answered there. Someday, if I have the time, I will try to mine out some more quotes. I'll have to bow out for now.

 

[Amazing Grace]

I'm sorry, I don't see any quotes by Boston, Chalmers, and Erskine. The quotes you pointed out which the EPC doesn't like about the Marrow are all sufficiently answered by Boston in his explanatory notes on those passages. The evidence is right there for all to read. As for the warrant to believe, that comes straight from the Westminsters Divines in the Sum of Saving Knowledge (of which the Marrow was a contemporary product using the same sources many of the Divines would have used). It's perfectly orthodox reformed terminology in the Puritan and Scottish tradition. Not sure what the rub is there. Why should I believe on Christ if I don't know I'm elect? How you answer that question will completely govern your preaching of the gospel.

Brother Patrick:

We must remember that I also do not agree about the antinomian charge brought against them. This was another condemnation the neonomians of Scotland levied. Assurance is the essence of faith as they proposed. They were 100% biblical on assurance, and I commend their refusal to recant against the neonomians of the day. That said, the rub, as you ask, is that the Canons of Dort reject the thoughts contained by the MM and some puritans, perhaps from certain "divines" also. So as you said not only do councils err, but obviously individuals too. if the 'sources' as you call them, perpetrate the same vein of thought, then Scripture and Dort reject those who are from that fountain of thought also. Boston in his book, "Human Nature in Fourfold State" as well as those "divines" you mentioned propose that preaching Law can make the unregenerate hunger and thirst for righteousness. Becasue of some invented "awakening grace" given by God. This will casue them, to repeat myself ad nauseum, to "seek" a remedy in Christ offered to them. Yet He is not to be found by them.

Look at what Dort has to say:

…the Synod rejects the errors of those who teach: that the unregenerate man is not really nor utterly dead in sin, nor destitute of all powers unto spiritual good, but that he can yet hunger and thirst after righteousness and life, and offer the sacrifice of a contrite and broken spirit, which is pleasing to God. For these are contrary to the express testimony of Scripture., "Ye were dead through trespasses and sins," Eph. 1:1, and: "Every imagination of the thought of his heart are only evil continually," Gen. 6:5, 8:21.

Now, if Boston and others recanted of this thought, I know not. I have yet to find evidence that they have. And perhaps under trial, they denounced this error, yet continued to teach it outside the court of the church.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Here is what Westminster has to say about the use of the law to all men and to the unregenerate.
Westminster Larger Catechism Q.95.Of what use is the moral law to all men?
The moral law is of use to all men, to inform them of the holy nature and will of God, (u) and of their duty, binding them to walk accordingly; (w) to convince them of their disability to keep it, and of the sinful pollution of their nature, hearts, and lives; (x) to humble them in sense of their sin and misery, (y) and thereby help them to a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ, (z) and of the perfection of his obedience. (a)
u LEV 11:44-45; LEV 20:7-8; ROM 7:12
w MIC 6:8; JAM 2:10-11
x PSA 19:11-12; ROM 3:20; ROM 7:7
y ROM 3:9, 23 [9, 35 in MAX but text correct, not repeated]
z GAL 3:21-22
a ROM 10:4
Variants:
1)“use, to ... “them, of”: MSb.
2)“accordingly: to”: Tyler.
3)“keep it; and”: Tyler1 possibly has a semi-colon.
4)“hearts and lives”: W1438; FOURTH; Dunlop; RPa; L&R. E.Rob has the comma.
5)“lives, to”: THIRD; FOURTH; COX.
6)“in the sense of their sin” (MSa;[FONT=&quot]†[/FONT] RPa): MSa; RP; L&R; E.Rob. The word “the” is not in the MSS and appears to not have been added until 1725 with RPa. [FONT=&quot]†[/FONT]Bower notes a “the” here in MSa. In the copy there is a faint mark and there is space for a “ye”, but it is too faint to verify in the copy.
7)(1) “misery; and”: MSb. (2) “misery and”: Tyler.

Q96.What particular use is there of the moral law to unregenerate men?
The moral law is of use to unregenerate men, to awaken their consciences to fly from wrath to come, (b) and to drive them to Christ; (c) or, upon their continuance in the estate and way of sin, to leave them inexcusable, (d) and under the curse thereof. (e)
b 1TI 1:9-10 [Dunlop misplaced “96” in front of note “c” instead of “b”. Not repeated in L&R or RP.]
c GAL 3:24
d ROM 1:20; With ROM 2:15 [Rothwell, etc. Compared With]
e GAL 3:10
Variants:
1)“Although those”: MSb.
2)“of use, to”: MSb.
3)“consciences, to”: MSa.
4)“flee from” (RPa): RP; L&R; E.Rob.
5)“and, to”: MSb.
6)(1) “Christ: or”: Dunlop; L&R. (2) “Christ, or, upon”: E.Rob.
7)“or upon”: Dunlop.
8)“estate, and”: MSa.

 

[Amazing Grace]

Here is what Westminster has to say about the use of the law to all men and to the unregenerate.
Westminster Larger Catechism Q.95.Of what use is the moral law to all men?
The moral law is of use to all men, to inform them of the holy nature and will of God, (u) and of their duty, binding them to walk accordingly; (w) to convince them of their disability to keep it, and of the sinful pollution of their nature, hearts, and lives; (x) to humble them in sense of their sin and misery, (y) and thereby help them to a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ, (z) and of the perfection of his obedience. (a)
u L

Q96.What particular use is there of the moral law to unregenerate men?
The moral law is of use to unregenerate men, to awaken their consciences to fly from wrath to come, (b) and to drive them to Christ; (c) or, upon their continuance in the estate and way of sin, to leave them inexcusable, (d) and under the curse thereof. (e)
b 1

Then how does this relate to Dort? It appears they are against each other in this respect. Yet since I have not studied the WCF, more explination would be needed. I can agree with [c] and [d] in Q96. Yet, there is no scriptural evidence of the "law regeneration" Thats is what it appears to espouse. John 3 speaks directly agains this to nicodemus, who was zealous for the Law being a pharissee.

The book of Amos speaks of this also:
6"I gave you cleanness of teeth in all your cities,
and(M) lack of bread in all your places,
(N) yet you did not return to me,"
declares the LORD.

7"I also(O) withheld the rain from you
when there were yet three months to the harvest;
(P) I would send rain on one city,
and send no rain on another city;
one field would have rain,
and the field on which it did not rain would wither;
8so two or three cities(Q) would wander to another city
to drink water, and would not be satisfied;
(R) yet you did not return to me,"
declares the LORD.

9(S) "I struck you with blight and mildew;
your many gardens and your vineyards,
your fig trees and your olive trees(T) the locust devoured;
(U) yet you did not return to me,"
declares the LORD.

10"I sent among you a pestilence(V) after the manner of Egypt;
I killed your young men with the sword,
and(W) carried away your horses,[a]
and(X) I made the stench of your camp go up into your nostrils;
(Y) yet you did not return to me,"
declares the LORD.

11"I overthrew some of you,
(Z) as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah,
and you were(AA) as a brand plucked out of the burning;
(AB) yet you did not return to me,"
declares the LORD.

12"Therefore thus I will do to you, O Israel;
because I will do this to you,
prepare to meet your God, O Israel!"


All the judgemets becasue they broke the Law still did not turn them. How can we expect the unregenerate to thirst when he thinks he has enough to drink?

Another scripture that pertains to Law relating to the unregenerate.

John 6:

"No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.

I know I am not as clear as others. My thought process is weak at times. But i am very troubled by the thought that Law to the unregenerate can cause one to 'close with Christ' to seek Him. The inspired John states that only when the Father draws, one can come to Christ. Can one be drawn to Christ by Law in an unregenerate state? That thought, in this point of my understanding, I deny.

Paul does state in Glataians 3:
Galatians 3:24,25 - "The Law was our tutor to drive us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor."

Yet Paul was writing to believers here. For unbelievers, I agree with c and d in Q 96. It only points to their just condemnation and hopelesness of avoiding it.. TO believers, it shows the just punishment we deserved, yet escaped becasue of Christ.

1. Acts 13:39 - "By [Christ] everyone who believes is justified from all things from which you could not be justified under the Law of Moses.
2. Romans 3:21 - "But now the righteousness of God apart from the Law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets."
3. Romans 10:4 - "For Christ is the end [or goal] of the Law for righteousness to everyone who believes."


And lastly, If the law contains the revealed will of God, explaining the obedience to it for the unregenerate, can you let me know upon what ground unbelievers cannot be baptized, and partake of the Lord's supper, seeing that what the law says it says to them that have not been brought from death to life? If Boston and others claim that Law can draw the unregenerate to Christ, would they allow an unregenerate to partake of the supper or be baptised into the visible community?

 

[MW]

Thankyou, Mr. Ritchie, for the friendly discussion.

Mr Winzer

Thanks for the discussion; as we are not going to agree I will leave it there. Generally speaking, I do not engage in protracted debates with minsters for a number of reasons:

1) It may appear disrespectful.

2) They know more that I do, and so you have to acknowledge your limitations.

3) There are others which I have momentarily forgotten.

 

[MW]

The next words in the song are, "As bright as bright can be!" But I'm a very dull person, so obviously I don't eat enough of it.

Daniel,

You left out an important advantage for Rev. Winzer.

Vegemite.

It's really quite good for you. I think it might even stimulate the mind. Very delicious on toast with butter. I ate some at his house and I immediately gained a few IQ points.

I have heard of vegemite before (perhaps on an Australian TV show); didn't realise it was that good for you ; seriously though, I always enjoy discussions with Mr. Winzer - even though I don't always agree with him, you can be sure that he will give you the best argument of the opposing viewpoint.

Yet is matthew a "happy little vegemite''

 

[MW]

I would recommend the book The Marrow Controversy by David Lachman. Unfortunately, it's out of print now, but maybe if enough of you folks petition Rutherford House to publish it again they might do it. He documents thoroughly the doctrinal positions of all parties involved in the Marrow controversy, and shows the obvious neonomian influence in the opponents of the Marrow as well as Matthew's point above refuting the charges of Amyraldianism. One has only to read the Marrow yourself and see that the charges against it were false. But I have spoken of this in other threads...

It does need to continue in print, but it could really stand retypesetting; the original was simply a repro of the typed dissertation.

Yes, a very well documented work, and very hard on the eyes.

 

[Ron]

Daniel,

Just a couple of observations:

Sorry, Ron I did not realise I was addressing any of your comments.

Grace and peace, Daniel.

Ron

 

[JohnOwen007]

How do the non-Murrayites (if that's a word) explain Ezekiel 18:23 and 32:

18 "Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the sovereign LORD. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?"

32 "For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign LORD. Repent and live."

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

How do the non-Murrayites (if that's a word) explain Ezekiel 18:23 and 32:

18 "Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the sovereign LORD. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?"

32 "For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign LORD. Repent and live."

I think Mr. Winzer has stated his interpretation in one of the earlier posts in this thread.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Matthew has a section on this passage in his Murray on the Free Offer: A Review (PDF).

How do the non-Murrayites (if that's a word) explain Ezekiel 18:23 and 32:

18 "Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the sovereign LORD. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?"

32 "For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign LORD. Repent and live."

How do the non-Murrayites (if that's a word) explain Ezekiel 18:23 and 32:

18 "Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the sovereign LORD. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?"

32 "For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign LORD. Repent and live."

I think Mr. Winzer has stated his interpretation in one of the earlier posts in this thread.

 

[MW]

How do the non-Murrayites (if that's a word) explain Ezekiel 18:23 and 32:

18 "Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the sovereign LORD. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?"

32 "For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign LORD. Repent and live."

See the paper linked by Chris Coldwell. In brief, the context makes it clear that the statements are conditional, being explanatory of the general point that the soul dies for its own sin. God has no pleasure in the death of the penitent wicked; and the passage also teaches that He has no pleasure in the life of the apostate righteous.

 

[JohnOwen007]

See the paper linked by Chris Coldwell. In brief, the context makes it clear that the statements are conditional, being explanatory of the general point that the soul dies for its own sin. God has no pleasure in the death of the penitent wicked; and the passage also teaches that He has no pleasure in the life of the apostate righteous.

Thanks for the link Chris, and the brief explanation Matthew. I enjoyed reding the link and see from where you're coming now. I appreciate your point of view, but find the Murray reading a little less contorted.

God bless.

 

[Bygracealone]

With regard to the Marrow Men, I would highly recommend listening to Sinclair Ferguson's three message series on the subject. They can be found here under audio sermons: Scottish Preachers: Sinclair Ferguson

He also has a message there on the Free Offer that may be of interest.

I would also recommend Ted Donnelly's article found in the Banner of Truth magazine issue 486, March 2004: "Does a Limited Atonement Preclude a Sincere Offer of the Gospel to All Sinners" - Edward Donnelly

I've appreciated the interaction on this thread from both sides of the debate.

 

[KMK]

With regard to the Marrow Men, I would highly recommend listening to Sinclair Ferguson's three message series on the subject. They can be found here under audio sermons: Scottish Preachers: Sinclair Ferguson

I was not able to download them.

 

[Bygracealone]

My apologies brother Klein. I did a quick search and found the sermons at Sermonaudio. You can download and listen from this link: SermonAudio.com - Search Results

Blessings!

Steve

 

[Gesetveemet]

I agree Matthew. Yet one does not have to read all the works of Wesley to conclude he was in error. Therefore one needs not read all the works of each marrow men. The burden of proof has been accomplished against them in regards to the offer of the Gospel. In other arreas, I agree with them. They were not Antinomian at all. They were Amyrauldian in the atonement, and free grace in justification. And I do commend that part greatly. Yet it cannot be denied they were not biblical in their assesment of the offer

No, you do not need to read all the works of the Marrowmen, just the one which I referenced. It contradicts the gross charges you have made against their teaching. And on the basis of it, I can and do deny the charge that they were not biblical in their assessment of the offer. The Marrow teaching concerning the work of Christ is not that He died for all, but that His death is offered to all. That is not Amyraldian, but orthodox reformed. The Westminster Larger Catechism answer 32 states, "The grace of God is manifested in the second covenant, in that he freely provideth and offereth to sinners a Mediator, and life and salvation by him."

Rev Winzer,

Did not the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of Scotland condemned the views of the Marrow men or have I been reading to much STUFF on the internet?

ALSO

Here are some controversial quotes from the book The Marrow of Modern Divinity


Section I,
Christ's fulfilling of the law in the room of the elect.
“Christ hath taken upon him the sins of all men.”

Chapter II, Section III, 3
The warrant to believe in Christ
“The Father hath made a deed of gift and grant unto all mankind.”

Chapter II, Section III, 3
The warrant to believe in Christ.
“The Father hath made a deed of gift and grant unto all mankind.”

Chapter II, Section III, 3
The warrant to believe in Christ
“Go and tell every man without exception, that here is good news for him, Christ is dead for him.”

THE TWELVE QUERIES
WHICH WERE PROPOSED TO THE TWELVE MARROW MEN, BY THE COMMISION
OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND, 1721;
WITH THE MARROW-MEN’S ANSWERS TO SAID QUERIES.
‘That whatever Christ did for the redemption of mankind, He did it for you.”


Have a good Lord’s day.
William



.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

What is the official view of the following denominations on the free, or well-meant offer of the gospel:

PCA

OPC

RPCNA

WPCUS

Presbyterian Reformed Church

RPCUS

RPCGA

ARPC

And anyone else that I have not thought of?

This thread has gone way

Could someone please answer the question?

 

[MW]

Did not the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of Scotland condemned the views of the Marrow men or have I been reading to much STUFF on the internet?

The issue is a little more complex than that, as is Presbyterian procedure. The ministers continued to teach Marrow doctrines without discipline. It was only the book itself which was prohibited from being recommended.

Here are some controversial quotes from the book The Marrow of Modern Divinity

Concerning controversial statements in the book, these are all explained in Boston's notes, which one will find online. Yes, there is some loose language, but able nonetheless to be reconciled with traditional categories of reformed thought. The problem is that the modern reader tends to read the language within the categories of the present Calvinist/Arminian debate. Those categories are slightly different because of the emergence of evangelical Arminianism.

The major concern is the statement, "Christ is dead for you," which includes within it two issues-- universal redemption, and assurance as the essence of faith. It can be pointed out (1.) that the Marrow avoids saying "Christ died for you." It might be asked, Why, if it intends to teach universal redemption? In no sense does it teach that the death of Christ accomplished anything for all men. It merely points to the fact that the death of Christ is offered in the gospel, and that offer warrants the evangelised sinner to believe in Christ to the saving of his soul. Granted, the language is likely to cause misunderstanding, and hence I think it wise not to use it; but the language can nonetheless be understood charitably within the context of the sinner's warrant to believe. (2.) With regard to the second issue, the Marrowmen were quite right to insist that there is a direct assurance in the act of faith besides a reflex assurance. The direct assurance pertains to the truthfulness of what God has revealed in the gospel. A sinner must be sure that when God says believers shall be saved that they shall undoubtedly be saved. The traditional denial of assurance as the essence of faith, as the Marrowmen pointed out, pertains solely to the question as to whether the individual has in fact believed with saving faith, and hence only refers to assurance as a reflex act of faith.

 

[BLD]

Lachman's work is one of the best secondary sources I've ever read, on any subject. Alright...so I haven't read very much of anything else, but it's a dang good book. Someone said they would rather read the Marrow men's words than dig into secondary sources. Well, considering that you all are dealing with an issue in church history, an issue which had tons of background, I think it's pretty silly to go all ad fontes. Unless, of course, you are extremely well read in the primary sources of Reformed orthodoxy, which, in this case, would include things like the minutes of the GA that condemned the book and the various pamphlets that were written about it, etc. Let's not undermine scholars who've done hundreds of hours of work on this. If this sounds like elite-ism, well...if you can find any other way for fellas like me to understand both the synchronic and diachronic contexts of 18th century Scotland, by all means let me know, it would save me a lot of time reading secondary stuff; it is often quite boring.

 

[BLD]

I'm not sure what the rule are for posting extended quotes from copywrited material, so if this and my next post goes against those rules, please let me know ASAP.

Phil Ryken has done quite a bit of work on Scottish Presbyterianism. I've only read portions of his work on Boston, so I'll leave that one for someone else to comment on. However, I thought this concluding thought from his piece in Protestant Scholasticism: Essays in Reassessment, Trueman & Clark eds. (Carlisle: Patternoster, 1999) on pg. 209-210. This might not be helpful, since it seems like most folks want to jump strait into dogmatics in this discussion and since it's even more off topic, I suppose, than what's already been said (by all means, will someone please answer the original question).

The influence of scholasticism on Scottish theology was more readily apparent when the church was troubled by internecine squabbles in the early eighteenth century. The same academic techniques that helped to distinguish Reformed theology from its rivals threatened to become disruptive - or even destructive - when they were mishandled within the kirk.
The best known of the eighteenth-century ecclesiastical conflicts, the Marrow Controversy (1718-23), generated a vast quantity of pamphlet literature. Yet many of the short works produced during the controversy are deficient in theological erudition, a fact occasionally noted by the controversialists themselves. Opponents are often quoted out of context, dubious constructions are placed on the disputed terms, and unwarranted theological conclusions are deduced from valid premises. To put it another way, zeal for doctrinal orthodoxy often outstrips integrity of theological method. Many of the Marrow and anti-Marrow pamphlets attempt to employ scholastic techniques, but fail to do so effectively.
The Marrow Controversy reveals that scholastic method becomes pedantic when it is applied with universal thoroughness. It is noteworthy that several of the most important pamphlets and treatises written during the Marrow Controversy draw heavily from Samuel Rutherford's anti-Antinomian writings. Rutherford thus helped to set the tone for early eighteenth-century Scottish polemics. Rutherford was a frequent critic of Antinomian and Arminian theology, and it is in some of his writings on these subjects that the effects of his scholasticism are least salutary. Polemics are partly a matter of taste, of course, and one's view of a particular polemicist largely depends upon which side of an argument one favors. Yet a lucid polemic will always be valued for the clarity it brings to a theological dispute, and on this score Rutherford cannot always be commended. His Survey of the Spiritual Antichrist is exhaustive in its rebuttal of Antinomian arguments, but it is often needlessly repetitive, failing to synthesize the issues or to appreciate the differences between various degrees of theological error. Rutherford's Survey thus shows that scholasticism can become an encumbrance - as it subsequently became in the Marrow Controversy - when every point in a theological disagreement receives equally exhaustive treatment. The potential liabilities of scholasticism are also apparent in the extensive polemical writings against John Simson (1667-1740). The confusion surrounding Simson's theology was partly due to his own lack of candour, but the treatises written against him also lack the sense of proportion which effective polemics require.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

On copyrighted material follow the rules for 'fair use.' The above looks well within it. If you start posting more than a several pages worth; then you have gone beyond fair use I expect.

 

[BLD]

The following is from Lachman’s work. I’ve paraphrased some of it, as you can see. Again, if this lengthy quote goes against the rules, please let me know ASAP. I didn't find anything about it when I read the rules.

A few of the quotes that were brought up here were also brought up in condemnation of the Marrow during the GA proceedings, and/or the pamphlet war during the time. Many don’t realize that the author of the Marrow was merely quoting someone else in three of the most common ones that are cited as evidence that it teaches a universal design of the atonement.

The first is from Luther: “Christ hath taken upon him the sins of all men”[ Commentarie upon Galatians (London: George Miller, 1635), fol. 137b]. The second is from Ezekiel Culverwell: “The Father hath made a deed of gift, and grant unto all mankind, that whosoever of them all shall believe in his son shall not perish” [A Treatise of Faith (London: I. D. for Hen: Overton, 1633), p. 15]. The third was from John Preston: “Hence it was that Christ said to his disciples, go and preach the gospel to every creature under Heaven, that is, go tell every man without exception, that here is good news for him, Christ is dead for him” [The Breast-Plate of Faith and Love (London: W.I. for Nicolas Bourne, 1632), p. 8]. (Lachman, 22)

An examination of the context of the passages in question in the Marrow shows that the Assemply was mistaken in its interpretiaton, The phrases “deed of gift and grant” and “Christ is dead for him” are used in Evangelista’s reply to Neophytus’s question: “hath such an one as I, any warrant to believe in Christ?” His further objection, expressing a fear that he may not be one of the elect and therefore, though he be called, he shall not be saved, makes it clear that he understands Evangelista to be speaking of the gospel offer and not of a universal redemption. Evangelista’s reply confirms this, steering him away from God’s secrets of election and reprobation and directing him, not to the death of Christ for all, but rather to the offers of “pardon generally to all.” Yet more decisively indicative of the opinion presented in the Marrow is the sentence immediately prior to the quotation from Luther. Here reference is made to Christ’s putting “himself in the room and place of all the faithful,” and expression which, as Riccaltoun later pointed out, an advocate of universal redemption could not use.

The sense of the phrases “deed of gift and grant” and "Christ is dead for him” as intended by Culverwell and Preston respectively is another, somewhat more ambiguous question. (Lachman, 24-25)

Lachman doesn’t think Culverwell or Preston were universalists. But, either way

it is not legitimate to conclude that the Marrow endorses such a view in making use of a passage designed only to present the universal gospel offer, one which Culverwell expressly asserts is phrased so as to avoid making a statement on the issue. (Lachman, 26)

While there is thus some question as to the position of both Culverwell and Preston in regard to the extent of the atonement, there is no indication that the phrases in question were used in the Marrow with any other design than that for which Culverwell and Preston originally employed them: to present in forceful language the gospel offer of Christ to all men.

In placing such stress on a free offer of Christ and in affirming that Christ put himself in the place of the elect, the Marrow reflects the consensus of the Reformed thought on the preceding fifty years, which, while describing Christ’s work as a fulfilling of the covenant of Grace for the elect, affirmed that he was to be offered to all. The Calvinistic universalists, stressing the universal gospel offer and considering a universal redemption a necessary foundation for it, nevertheless held that Christ’s death had a special reference to the elect. The Marrow stresses that which all teach, a gospel offer to all and, though placing no emphasis on it, affirms a limited atonement. (Lachman 27-28)

David Lachman, The Marrow Controversy (Edinburgh: Rutherford House, 1988).

 

[BLD]

On copyrighted material follow the rules for 'fair use.' The above looks well within it. If you start posting more than a several pages worth; then you have gone beyond fair use I expect.

Thank you