The Marrow Controversy and an interesting footnote

For the past 10 years, my church has been hosting a theology conference. We've had some great speakers over the years, and this year's topic and speaker were announced yesterday. The topic is The Marrow of Salvation: Assurance, Legalism, & Antinomianism with Dr. William VanDoodewaard from Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary.

Our pastor just preached a series on assurance, and I read The Whole Christ by Sinclair Ferguson last year, which goes into the practical application of the Marrow Controversy. Thus I am looking forward to the conference. What was the Marrow Controversy? Dr. VanDoodewaard will be giving the historical background in one of his talks, but in a nutshell, the dispute centered on whether a group of Scottish Presbyterians (labeled the Marrow Men) were advocating antinomianism. Spoiler alert - They weren't. They were defending the gospel. The dispute also centered around a book, The Marrow of Modern Divinity by Edward Fisher. I refrained from ordering it yesterday in the hope that this will be included at the conference book table. By the way, our speaker wrote the historical intro to this latest edition.

So to refresh myself, I pulled The Whole Christ off the shelf last night and started rereading it. I really appreciate Ferguson's clear explanation of what was the primary objection of the Marrow Men which he framed in the form of a syllogism:

Major premise: The saving grace of Christ is given to the elect alone.
Minor premise: The elect are known by the forsaking of sin.
Conclusion: Therefore forsaking sin is a prerequisite for saving faith. [43]

But do you see the fallacy?

The subtle movement from seeing forsaking sin as the fruit of grace that is rooted in election, to making the forsaking of sin the necessary precursor for experiencing that grace. Repentance, which is the fruit of grace, thus becomes a qualification for grace. This puts the cart before the horse. It stands the gospel on its head, so that the proclamation of the gospel, with the call to faith in Christ, becomes conditional on something in the hearer. [43]

Several pages later, Ferguson argues that the root lies in separating Christ from the benefits of his work.  If they are separated:

1) For the preacher: "How can I offer these benefits?" and
2) For the hearer: "How can I get these benefits into my life?" [48]

But when "Christ and his benefits are inseparable and that the latter are not abstractable commodities," [49] notice the change:

1) For the preacher: "How do I preach Christ himself?" and
2) For the hearer: "How do I get into Christ?" [49]

And here's the kicker:

Whenever the benefits of Christ are seen as abstractable from Christ himself, there is a decreasing stress on his person and work in preaching and in the books that are published to feed that preaching. This is accompanied by an increased stress on our experience of salvation rather than on the grace majesty and glory of the Lord Jesus Christ. [49-50]

Hmmm. And now we come to the footnote. Ferguson uses John Owen's The Mortification of Sin as an example of the above. Among younger ministers (and the YRR crowd) this book is probably more popular than Owen's The Glory of Christ or Communion With God. 

That may be understandable because of the deep pastoral insight in Owen's short work, but it may also put the practical cart before the theological horse. Owen himself would not have been satisfied with hearers who learned mortification without learning Christ. A larger paradigmatic shift needs to take place than only exchanging a superficial subjectivism for Owen's rigorous subjectivism. What is required is a radical recentering in a richer and deeper knowledge of Christ, understood in terms of his person and work. There can be little doubt that Owen himself viewed things this way. [50, footnote 24.]

As Providence would have it, we just started a series on The Mortification of Sin in Sunday school. Yesterday we had a good discussion about the balance between healthy self-examination versus unhealthy navel gazing. If there is no overarching view of Christ, then it would be easy to slip into the fear that my standing before God is based on how well I am mortifying the deeds of the flesh. But don't worry. No one is teaching that! It could also be a matter of disposition where some (like me) are more prone to legalism/moralisim and trying to measure up in my own strength. But the answer isn't for the legalists to become a little bit more antinomian and vice versa. The answer is to be grounded in Christ - his person, work, and benefits, as demonstrated in the gospel.

Anyway, given how these theological streams are coming together via Sunday school, sermons, and reading, I am looking forward to the theology conference. There's nothing new under the sun, and I'm glad we can learn from the saints who have gone before us. If you are near the Hampton Roads, VA area, mark your calendar!