This past weekend, we were blessed to have Dr. William VanDoodewaard speak at our annual theology conference - The Marrow of Salvation. The title makes reference to "The Marrow of Modern Divinity," a 17th century English book that caused a controversy in Scotland 50 years later. Why does this old book written by a dead guy and argued over by more dead guys matter to us? I'm glad you asked, and I will answer the question by giving a snippet of each talk.
Session 1 - This session was about the book itself. The Marrow was written to help the reader find the middle ground between the 2 ditches of legalism and antinomianism. It was written in the form of a dialogue between a legalist, an antinomian, a new believer, and a minister. This book was recommended by the official government censor and went through several reprintings. Then why the controversy? The Presbyterian church in Scotland in the early 1700's began to drift away from the gospel of free grace in Christ in reaction to antinomianism. IOW, in combating an error, they over-corrected, and legalism began to creep in. The Marrow was rediscovered and answered the questions of many ministers who were concerned about the state of the church. Unfortunately, The Marrow and its supporters were charged with antinomianism, but contrary to the accusations, revival sprang up in the Church because the sufficiency of Christ and the gospel of grace were seen afresh.
Session 2 - One Scottish minister was greatly helped by The Marrow in his own struggles for assurance, his pastoring, and preaching of the gospel. Who was he? Thomas Boston. Dr. V read many quotes from Boston's memoirs, which prompted me to search out a used copy. Unfortunately, it is out of print. It was very helpful to see the human side of dead theologians that we admire. They struggled too. They had sorrows in their lives, and they needed Jesus just as much as we do.
Session 3 - Repentance, Faith, and Assurance in the context of the Marrow Controversy. Dr V discussed more of the legalistic tendencies at the time and why the Marrow Brethren disagreed. This talk was very, very interesting and extremely applicable to us today. The anti-Marrow group were getting law and gospel confused. They confused "preparatory grace" from the Holy Spirit with "experiential preparationaism" and created preconditions for coming to Christ. Yes we should ask whether we have repented and want to turn from our sins, but this can turn into achieving a certain level of repentance and remorse before we can receive the gospel. But is my repentance enough? Is it genuine enough? When is enough enough? Sound familiar?
[Editorial comment: IMO the reformed-ish church today has a lot in common with the legalistic tendencies of the Scottish Presbyterians of the 1700's. I've seen this in the writings and quotes from folks who react against easy-believism. I've also seen this when works become a requirement for justification not the fruit and when obedience is conflated with faith. This is also a weakness in the Baptist camp. Most of us have grown up nonconfessional and may still be nonconfessional so we were or are still lacking the categories of the covenant of Works and the covenant of grace to help get a handle on the law and gospel distinction. We also bring with us the baggage of evangelical pietism and revivalism that loves to make demands of surrendering enough, suffering enough, sacrificing enough, desiring God enough. I want to thank my Presbyterian brothers and sisters for continuing to bang the drum about this problem and who have helped me understand its importance.]
Session 4 - The answer to legalism and antinomianism is a right view of Christ. This talk was a declaration of who Christ is and what he has done for us in the gospel and given to us freely by his grace. Glorious!
Here's a link to the talks which I highly recommend if you want to be encouraged in the all sufficiency of Christ in the gospel.
Session 1 - This session was about the book itself. The Marrow was written to help the reader find the middle ground between the 2 ditches of legalism and antinomianism. It was written in the form of a dialogue between a legalist, an antinomian, a new believer, and a minister. This book was recommended by the official government censor and went through several reprintings. Then why the controversy? The Presbyterian church in Scotland in the early 1700's began to drift away from the gospel of free grace in Christ in reaction to antinomianism. IOW, in combating an error, they over-corrected, and legalism began to creep in. The Marrow was rediscovered and answered the questions of many ministers who were concerned about the state of the church. Unfortunately, The Marrow and its supporters were charged with antinomianism, but contrary to the accusations, revival sprang up in the Church because the sufficiency of Christ and the gospel of grace were seen afresh.
Session 2 - One Scottish minister was greatly helped by The Marrow in his own struggles for assurance, his pastoring, and preaching of the gospel. Who was he? Thomas Boston. Dr. V read many quotes from Boston's memoirs, which prompted me to search out a used copy. Unfortunately, it is out of print. It was very helpful to see the human side of dead theologians that we admire. They struggled too. They had sorrows in their lives, and they needed Jesus just as much as we do.
Session 3 - Repentance, Faith, and Assurance in the context of the Marrow Controversy. Dr V discussed more of the legalistic tendencies at the time and why the Marrow Brethren disagreed. This talk was very, very interesting and extremely applicable to us today. The anti-Marrow group were getting law and gospel confused. They confused "preparatory grace" from the Holy Spirit with "experiential preparationaism" and created preconditions for coming to Christ. Yes we should ask whether we have repented and want to turn from our sins, but this can turn into achieving a certain level of repentance and remorse before we can receive the gospel. But is my repentance enough? Is it genuine enough? When is enough enough? Sound familiar?
[Editorial comment: IMO the reformed-ish church today has a lot in common with the legalistic tendencies of the Scottish Presbyterians of the 1700's. I've seen this in the writings and quotes from folks who react against easy-believism. I've also seen this when works become a requirement for justification not the fruit and when obedience is conflated with faith. This is also a weakness in the Baptist camp. Most of us have grown up nonconfessional and may still be nonconfessional so we were or are still lacking the categories of the covenant of Works and the covenant of grace to help get a handle on the law and gospel distinction. We also bring with us the baggage of evangelical pietism and revivalism that loves to make demands of surrendering enough, suffering enough, sacrificing enough, desiring God enough. I want to thank my Presbyterian brothers and sisters for continuing to bang the drum about this problem and who have helped me understand its importance.]
Session 4 - The answer to legalism and antinomianism is a right view of Christ. This talk was a declaration of who Christ is and what he has done for us in the gospel and given to us freely by his grace. Glorious!
Here's a link to the talks which I highly recommend if you want to be encouraged in the all sufficiency of Christ in the gospel.
Comments
Post a Comment
Civil and pertinent comments are appreciated. Trolling will be deleted. Thanks.