Taken from J.V. Fesko’s book titled Justification: Understanding the Classic Reformed Doctrine, 32-34

One of the famous eighteenth-century debates that surrounded the doctrine of justification was the Marrow Controversy. The debate erupted in Scotland surrounding the republication of the a book entitled The Marrow of Modern Divinity. The book was likely written by Edward Fisher, a seventeenth-century theologian, and was published in two parts in 1645 and 1649. The book is a series of dialogues on the doctrine of atonement and the dangers of antinomianism and neonomianism. At the time of its publication, the book was recommended by two prominent Westminster divines, Joseph Caryl (1602-73) and Jeremiah Burroughs (1599-1646). Moreover, the author claimed to derive his work from the teachings of a number of prominent Reformed theologians including John Ball (1585-1640),  Theodore Beza, Heinrich Bullinger (1504-75), John Diodati (1576-1649), Thomas Goodwin (1600-80), Thomas Hooker (1586-1647), John Lightfoot (1602-75), Martin Luther, Peter Martyr Vermigli (1499-1562), Wolfgang Musculus (1497-1563), William Perkins, Amandus Polanus (1561-1610), Robert Rollock (1555-99), and Zacharia Ursinus, to name a few. When the book was originally published, there was no uproar. The same cannot be said when it was republished in Scotland.

In Scotland in 1718 the book was republished because an English Puritan soldier brought the book with him into Scotland, and it eventually fell into the hands of Thomas Boston (1676-1732). Boston was so pleased with the work that he and a colleague had the work republished. The book displeased a number of ministers who apparently held neonomian views and therefore condemned the book for its supposed advocacy of antinomianism. A careful reading of the book will reveal that it did not advocate antinomianism, but rather set forth sola fide. Like Calvin before, Fisher was careful to distinguish but not separate justification and sanctification and recognize that sinful man is justified by faith alone to the exclusion of works:

[Fekso quoting The Marrow of Modern Divinity] “Therefore, whensoever, or wheresoever, any doubt of question arises of salvation, or our justification before God, there the law and all good works must be utterly excluded and stand apart, that grace may appear free, and that the promise and faith may stand alone: which faith alone, without law or works, brings thee in particular to the justification and salvation, through the mere promise and free grace of God in Christ; so that I say, in through the mere promise and free grace of God in Christ; so that I say, in the action and office of justification, both law and works are to be utterly excluded and exempted as things which have nothing to do in that behalf. The reason is this: for seeing that all our redemption springs out from the body of the Son of God crucified, then is there nothing that can stand us in stead, but that only wherewith the body of Christ is apprehended. Now, forasmuch as neither the law nor works, but faith only, is the thing which apprehends the body and passion of Christ, therefore faith only is that matter which justifies a man before God, through the strength of that object Jesus Christ, which it apprehends.”

Despite the book’s careful delineation between justification and sanctification the Assembly of the Church of Scotland condemned it as antinomian. Nevertheless, there were a number of minister, including Thomas Boston, who cam to the book’s defense, noting that it simply contained doctrinal truths couched in scriptural language and in phrases taken from Reformed confessions and catechisms. The Assembly eventually rebuked those who defended the book, but no further action was taken and the controversy eventually dissipated.

Marrow men unite!

il

neophytus – a  Young Christian

evangelista - a Minister of the Gospel

—-

neophytus: Indeed sir, if I were holy and so righteous as some men are, and had such power over my sins and corruptions as some men have, then I could easily believe it; but alas! I am so sinful and so unworthy a wretch, that I dare not presume to believe that Christ will accept of me, so as to justify and save me.

evangelista: Alas! man, in this saying, you seem to contradict and gainsay both the apostle Paul, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself; and  that against your own soul: for whereas the apostle Paul says, ‘that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners (1 Tim. 1:15), and doth justify the ungodly (Rom. 4:5), why, you seem to hold, and do in effect say, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save the righteous, and to justify the godly. And whereas our Saviour says, the whole need not a physician but the sick; and that he came not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance (Matt. 9:12); why you seem to hold, and do in effect say that the sick need not a physician, but the whole: and  that he came not to call sinners, but the righteous to repentance. And indeed, in so saying, you seem to conceive, that Christ’s spouse must be purified, washed, and cleansed from all her filthiness, and adorned with a rich robe of righteousness, before he will accept her; whereas he himself said unto her, ‘As for nativity, in the day that thou wast born, thy navel was not cut, neither wast thou washed with water to supple thee; thou wast not swaddled at all, nor salted at all. No eye pitied thee to do any of these things unto thee; but when I passed by thee, and looked upon thee, behold thy time was a time of love. And I spread my skirt over thee, and covered they nakedness; yea, and I sware unto thee, and entered into covenant with thee, and thou becamest mine (Ezek. 16:4-8). ‘And I will marry thee unto me for ever; yea, I will marry thee unto me in righteousness, and in judgement, and in mercy, and compassion (Hos. 2:19).

Wherefore I beseech you, revoke this your erroneous opinion, and contradict the word of truth no longer; but conclude for a certainty, that it is not the righteous and godly man, but the sinful and ungodly man, that Christ came to call, justify, and save: so that if you were a righteous and godly man, you were neither capable of calling, justifying, or saving by Christ; but being a sinful and ungodly man, I will be bold to say unto you as the people said unto blind Bartimaeus, ‘Be of good comfort; arise, he calleth thee’ (Mark 10:49) and will justify and save thee. Go then unto him, I beseech you; and if he come and meet thee, (as his manner is) then do not you unadvisedly say, with Peter, ‘Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord!’ (Luke 5:8); but say, in plain terms, O come unto me; for I am a sinful man, O Lord! Yea, go on further, and say, as Luther bids you, Most Gracious Jesus and sweet Christ, I am a miserable, poor sinner, and, therefore, do judge myself unworthy of thy grace; but yet I, having learned from thy word that thy salvation belongs unto such a one, therefore do I come unto thee, to claim that right which, through thy gracious promise, belong unto me.

Assure yourself man, that Jesus Christ requires no portion with his spouse; no verily, he requires nothing with her but mere poverty: ‘the rich he sends empty away’ (Luke 1:53); but the poor are by him enriched. And, indeed, says Luther, ‘the more miserable, sinful, and distressed a man doth feel himself, and judge himself to be, the more willing is Christ to receive him and relieve him.’ So that, says he, in judging thyself unworthy, thou dost thereby become truly worthy; and so indeed, hast gotten a greater occasion of coming to him. Wherefore, then, in the words of the apostle, I do exhort and beseech you to ‘come boldly to the throne of grace, that you may obtain mercy, and fin grace to help in time of need’ (Heb. 4:16).

neophytus: But truly, si, my heart, as it were, trembles within me, to think of coming to Christ, after such a bold manner; and surely sir, if I should so come unto him, it would argue much pride and presumption in me.

evangelista: Indeed, if you should be encouraged to come unto Christ and to speak thus unto him, because of any godliness, righteousness, or worthiness, that you conceive to be in you; that, I confess, were proud presumption in you. But to come to Christ, by believing that he will accept of you, justify, and save you freely by his grace, according to his gracious promise, this is neither pride nor presumption (see Thomas Boston’s note): for Christ having tendered and offered it to your freely, believe it, it is true humility of heart to take what Christ offers you. (148-150)

Thomas Boston’s note: It is to believe the offer of the gospel, with particular application; to embrace it, and therein to receive Christ. And no man can ever receive and rest on Christ for salvation, without believing, in greater, or lesser measure, that Christ will accept of him to justification and salvation. Remove that gospel truth, that Christ will accept him, and his faith has no ground left to stand upon. (150)

Let’s pray that the Lord may raise up many, many evangelistas.

Readers let me know if there are any typos.

Taken from Marrow of Modern Divinity, Edward Fisher with the notes of Thomas Boston.

Thomas Boston’s notes:

“So we are perfectly saved by the works which Christ did for us in his own person, and no ways by the good works which he works in us, with and after faith. [Marg. Here is the main point and ground of our disagreement with the Papists.]

Caps are not mine.

Those who believe they do not have any philosophical presuppositions when they approach Scripture are simply unconscious of them and more easily misled by them.

Those of us who were born in the West in the twentieth century have been raised in a culture whose very way of seeing the world has been shaped by numerous philosophical strands of thought (Of course, various philosophical strands of thought have also influenced those born in the East). We simply cannot change the fact that we live after Decartes and Hume, after Kant and Hegel, after Marx and Nietzsche, and after Rorty and Derrida. The intellectual world in which we live has been affected in various ways, not only by rationalism and empiricism, but also by pragmatism, naturalism, existentialism, and relativism. We live in an era in which the confident arrogance of modernism is gradually giving way to skeptical arrogance of postmodernism. These various philosophies affect the way we think about God, man, language, revelation, history, science, ethics, politics, and more. Although we cannot pretend that these various strands of thought have not been part of the very intellectual air we breathe, we can make every effort to become self-consciously aware of the ways in which they influence and affect us. Only then are we able to detect these influences in our own thinking and critically examine them. (6, 7)

Taken from Keith Mathison’s book “From Age to Age: The Unfolding of Biblical Eschatology”

Taken from Danny Hyde’s book The Good Confession: An Exploration of the Christian Faith

Sola Scriptura does not mean that we do not need any help in understanding the Scriptures. We live in an individualistic generation. In Christian circles this expresses itself in a ‘me and my Bible’ type of attitude. We live in a time in which everyone does what is right in his own eyes when reading and interpreting the Scriptures (cf. Judg 21:25). We must not forget that God, in his infinite wisdom, has established a visible Church, and that in the Church he has ordained pastors and teachers throughout the history of the Church to expound and interpret the meaning of Scripture to the Church….even a person who says ‘I have no creed’ and, ‘I just read the Bible,’ ends up interpreting Scripture according to his or her own particular beliefs. Creeds and confessions limit our selfishness and unite our hearts in unselfishness to the Church that has existed throughout the ages. (17)

–

See Acts 8:26-40

Galatians 6:6

via here.

(This blog above gives you some helpful and brief notes on both books by the author of the blog who read them both; I think he might be apart of the Muller Mafia, good stuff).

1. Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification

2. The Intellectual Origins of the European Reformation.

January 18th, 2011.  It’s straight up cold here in Seoul. 

Concise Reformed Dogmatics (CRD) is a joy to read- tis Biblical, clear, and confessional.  Reading plans after reading CRD: 1.) Get my hands on Michael Horton’s The Christian Faith: A Systematic Theology for Pilgrims on Their Way 2.) Read it and pray.

Here are some quotes from CRD,

“We still need to consider the meaning of 2 Corinthians 5:21 and Galatians 3:13.  These words make us stand in awe.

God “hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him” (2 Cor. 5:21).  This means that God treated Christ as a sinner, because he imputed our sins to him.  Through faith we know that this is the reason why sin is not imputed to us (cf. Rom. 4:8).  We are declared to be righteous.  This constitutes a “wonderful exchange” (Luther).  ”Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, “Cursed is everyone that hangeth on a three” (Gal. 3:13).  According to Wiersinga (1971, 35ff.), this is the curse of the Jewish authorities, the defenders of the law, and not the curse of God.  However, the verse by itself and the context of Paul’s message are clear enough.  The apostle means God’s law and God’s curse (cf. Ridderbos, 1972, 28-32). ” (516)

“Dogmatics came to distinguish between Christ’s active and passive obedience. Although his obedience is indivisible, it does have these two facets.  He met the demand of God’s law on behalf of his people and bore the punishment for sin.  Whereas the former stresses what he did, the latter brings out what he suffered–” (518)

Taken from Concise Reformed Dogmatics (1992).

“3. It remains to discuss whether we should consider the law as the preeminent means whereby knowledge of sin is worked in man. We encounter this idea in Pietism and a number of representatives of the Second Reformation.

In opposition to this view we identify two clear perspectives.  In the first place we recall the fact that Paul declared the law to be “weak through the flesh” (Rom. 8:3).  We realize that he uses these words in a different context than we do here.  Yet there is a similarity.  The undoing through the law is part of true repentance.  It may be viewed as the dying of the old nature.  If the law on its own (preceeding and therefore separate from the gospel) would be able to break a man, it would be an effort on the part of the law.  However, the law is unable to change a sinful heart.  Works of the law do not please God.  It is rather sinful man tends to employ the law to justify himself.  It is impossible for the law by itself to humble man before God.

The law rather leads to hardening of sin.  Paul clearly identifies this tendency of the law to multiply sin (Rom. 3:20; 5:20).  He recognizes God’s judgment in this.  Sinful man employs the law to justify himself before God.  This is how he multiplies his sins.  He abuses the law to this effect. 

One should not treat the preaching of the law in isolation.  The entire Word of God comprises both the law and the Gospel.  No one can preach the Gospel while ignoring the accusation of the law.  Theologically, the accusation comes first.  How can the acquittal be announced before the accusation has been brought foward?

As accusation, the law always precedes the preaching of the gospel and resonates in it.  However, by limiting oneself to the accusation, one would fall short of the mandate to preach God’s Word.  By stopping after the word of the law, one cuts the gospel in half by eliminating its saving and purifying perspective.  It causes despair without indicating the way back to God” (433, bold mine).  

This is at the beginning of the chapter ten titled “Christ, the Mediator” from Concise Reformed Dogmatics.

29.1. Person and Work

Faith in Christ is the core of the creed of the church.  It is the heart of the Christian faith.  For this reason Christology is the centerpiece of dogmatics.

This chapter must be seen in the perspective of the preceding chapters.  We have in mind the doctrine of revelation because the revelation of salvation is God’s revelation in Christ, and the doctrine’s of man’s sin because of which the coming of Christ as Redeemer became necessary.  Subsequent chapters must be seen in the perspective of this chapter, namely the doctrine of the covenant of grace of which Christ is the Mediator; the doctrine of salvation, which he obtained; the doctrine of the church of whch he is the Head; the doctrine of the means of grace that the Spirit of Christ employs; and  the doctrine of consummation, an essential part of which is Christ’s return to judge. (437)

“God will have none to have a hand in the justfication and salvation of a sinner, but Christ only. And to say as the thing is, neighbor Nomista (legalist), Christ Jesus will either be a whole Saviour, or no Saviour; he will either save you alone or not save you at all.” -Evangelista