Dear Forum members,
I begin with this installment a discussion of the fourth aspect of common grace, probably the most widely accepted aspect, and about which much has been written. I refer to that point of common grace that is called the gracious well-meant gospel offer. It is the doctrine that defines the gospel as an declaration from God that it is his desire to save all that hear the gospel proclaimed.
Many books have been written on the subject, and it surely is not my intention to write yet another book. We shall therefore, limit these articles to an examination of what is meant by this gracious and well-meant gospel offer, what proof is given from Scripture and the confessions in support of it, what aberrations in doctrine have resulted from it, and what is the Biblical teaching over against it.
Actually, the doctrine itself is of rather recent origin. In the form in which it is taught by many churches today, it did not appear in the preaching until the so-called Marrow Controversy that took place in Scotland in the early part of the 18th century.
This does not mean, however, that various other doctrines that are a necessary part of the doctrine of the well-meant offer have not been taught in the church for a very long time. A brief survey of the history will demonstrate this.
Until the time of the great church father, Augustine, the church with few exceptions held to the doctrine of the free will of man. The church was, of course, preoccupied with the development of the truths of the trinity and the person and natures of our Lord Jesus Christ. It had little time to give the doctrines of salvation by grace any attention. This doctrine of the free will of man was thought necessary because of the heresies of Gnosticism and Manichaeism that had troubled the church. Both these heresies had taught that matter itself, of which the creation was composed, was inherently evil. There was, therefore a certain necessity in evil. To escape this necessity of evil, the church clung to the doctrine of man’s free will.
It was not until the time of Augustine that the church took a long and hard look at the widely accepted doctrine of free will. This was occasioned by the heresy of Pelagianism. (For a detailed history of Pelagianism and its teachings see my recently published book, Contending for the Faith, available from the RFPA.) Because Pelagianism was blatantly and openly a heresy that based salvation firmly in the hands of man, Augustine developed the doctrines of grace – the so-called “Five Points of Calvinism,” although, of course, they were not called that till over 1000 years later. Augustine’s teachings were exactly like we believe today. He even explained such texts as II Timothy 2:4, II Peter 3:9, and other such texts as are used by the defenders of the gracious offer of the gospel to prove that Scripture teaches this heresy, as referring only to the elect.
When the Roman Catholic Church faced the question of sovereign grace, it waffled badly. Many in the Romish Church insisted the atoning sacrifice of Christ was for all men and that this general atonement made salvation for all men possible . The Romish Church officially adopted a Semi-Pelagian view of salvation by faith and works.
While the Arminian controversy, which arose in the Netherlands in less than 100 years after the Reformation, did not address itself specifically to the question of the gracious offer of the gospel, it did condemn two doctrines inevitably attached to and an integral part of the offer. Although all adherents of the gracious offer of the gospel will not admit it, the broadening of the extent of the atonement is necessary to maintain the error. Because man is a sinner, only Christ can earn for the sinner God’s grace. He can do this only in his suffering and death of the cross of Calvary. The relation between the gracious offer and the atonement is so compelling that most who hold to the offer also hold to the doctrine that, at least in some sense, Christ died for every one. Even John Murray, the noted Presbyterian theologian, had no hesitation in writing: “The unbelieving and reprobate in this world enjoy numerous benefits that flow from the fact that Christ died and rose again.” (John Murray, Redemption – Accomplished and Applied [Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.,1955] 71.) But Dordt would have no such increasing the extent of the atonement beyond the elect. (Canons 2.8).
In France, the Amyraldian heresy arose, a heresy that developed another aspect of the doctrine of the gracious offer. This heresy taught that God has two wills, one of which determines salvation only for the elect, and another will according to which God desires the salvation of all men. This heresy, rejected by the Genevan theologians, nevertheless took root in Scotland and was held by the so-called Marrow Men. They taught, not only that the gospel had to be presented in such a way that God’s desire to save all men was proclaimed, but that it was right and proper to speak of Christ as dead for all men.
Although the Marrow position was officially condemned by the Presbyterian church of Scotland, it entered the Netherlands by way of the close ecclesiastical contact between those who were concerned for the orthodoxy of the church in the Netherlands and the Marrow men. And so, this idea entered into the thinking of Dutch theologians.
When the Separation of 1834 took place under the leadership of Henry De Cock and others, the movement was divided between an orthodox wing of the Separation represented by De Cock and Van Velzen, and a weaker wing represented by Brummelkamp and Henry De Cock’s son, Helenius De Cock.
The separation from the State Church that took place 52 years later under the leadership of Abraham Kuyper was, on this point of a gracious gospel offer, sound and orthodox. In fact Kuyper himself repudiated the idea of a gospel offer in his book, Dat De Genade Particulier Is (That Grace is Particular. This book has been translated by Marvin Kamps and is available from the Reformed Free Publishing Association, under the title, Particular Grace.) This book was written by the earlier Kuyper, several years before he published his three-volume work on common or general grace. But even in this latter work he did not and would not teach a gracious offer of the gospel.
Because many of the immigrants to this country in the latter half of the 19th century were from the Separation of 1834, the idea of a gracious offer of the gospel entered into the thinking of the Christian Reformed Church. Hence, when the common grace controversy erupted in the late nineteen-teens and came to a head at the Synod of the Christian Reformed Church, in 1924, the gracious gospel offer was a point at issue. The Synod included it in its decisions on common grace, although strangely enough, it was mentioned only in passing. The first point reads: “Regarding the first point, touching the favorable attitude of God toward mankind in general and not only toward the elect, synod declares that according to Scripture and the Confessions it is established, that besides the saving grace of God shown only to the elect unto eternal life, there is also a certain favor or grace of God which He shows to His creatures in general. This is evident from the Scripture passages that were quoted and from the Canons of Dordt, II, 5 and III, IV, 8, 9, where the general offer of the gospel is set forth . . .” (emphasis is mine, HH).
Yet, in spite of the fact that the “general offer of the gospel is only mentioned in passing, it became the most important part of the entire theory of common grace.
The issue was also faced by the Orthodox Presbyterian Church in the Forties when controversy arose between Cornelius Van Til and Gordon Clark over the incomprehensibility of God. In the report that was submitted to the General Assembly a section was devoted to the question of the gracious gospel offer. While this part of the report was never adopted by the OPC, it nevertheless was distributed in the churches by the General Assembly in pamphlet form. Authored by John Murray and Ned Stonehouse, it is a detailed defense of the gracious and well-meant gospel offer.
Today the doctrine has spread far and wide and its supporters from Northern Ireland to Australia. And so it has entered the thinking and theology of many churches and has driven the church into open Arminianism.
With warm regards,
Prof. Hanko
Showing posts with label Marrow Controversy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Marrow Controversy. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Friday, April 10, 2009
The "Marrow Controversy" (10)
.
Dear Forum members,
.
We must turn now, in our historical treatment of the error of common grace in general and the gracious and well-meant gospel offer in particular, to the Marrow Controversy, which troubled the Presbyterian Church of Scotland in the first half of the 18th century. Before we do this, however, I must make a few remarks about theological developments in the British Isles, after the Westminster Assembly that relate to our subject.
.
The Presbyterian Church never became the state church in England. After the Cromwell inter-regnum, England was once again under a monarchy with the Stuarts from Scotland on the throne. The State Church again became the Anglican Church. Only in Scotland did Presbyterianism become a vital part of the life of the nation. A struggle in Scotland over the question of whether the Presbyterian Church of Scotland or the Anglican Church would be the state church resulted in a victory for the Presbyterian Church.
.
There were many who opposed some of the doctrines of the Westminster Confession. John Davenant, a delegate from England to the Synod of Dordt, defended a modified Amyraldian position. The same was true of Richard Baxter. Amyraldianism continued to have its supporters.
.
Many throughout the British Isles, known as Puritans objected to the formal orthodoxy of the State Church in England (Anglican) and the worldliness of its members, as well as its retention of Romish rites and ceremonies. Further, they charged the Church with the error of Antinomism. While I cannot go into this aberration in these articles, we may notice in passing that this error first appeared in Germany in the Lutheran churches of the Reformation. The chief defender of Antinomianism was John Agricola, but the error was (and is) always a threat to the church. In general, Antinomism taught that the redeemed and justified child of God did not have the obligation to keep the law of God. Antinomism denied the “must” of the law of God, for, so it argued, the justified sinner is righteous in Christ wholly apart from works. The charge was often leveled against the Presbyterian Church in Scotland because, the church held firmly to the doctrine of justification by faith alone, and opponents of that doctrine often accused the orthodox of teaching Antinomianism although the charge was false. That is, enemies of justification by faith alone attempted to thwart the doctrine by leveling against it a charge of Antinomianism. While the charge itself was not true, it was true that, because the Presbyterian Church was the State Church, all the citizens of the nation were technically members and the responsibility of the church. Among these were countless people who were thoroughly irreligious, hardly ever came to church and lived completely worldly lives.
.
This objection was brought against the Presbyterian Church of Scotland in the latter part of the 17th century and the early part of the 18th century by those who were later called the Marrow men, and who, while also charging the Presbyterian Church with antinomism, found fault with the worldliness and spiritual carelessness of so many in the church, and ascribed it to a lack in the preaching of the gospel. They charged the church with producing preachers who were cold and abstract and who lacked the passion for souls that ought to characterize the preaching. They wanted preaching that was conducive to leading people to Christ and thus produce genuine conversion..
* * * *
The origin of the name “Marrow Men” is found in a book by Edward Fisher, written in 1645, which appeared under the title, The Marrow of Modern Divinity (Swengel: Reinar Publications, 1975). In this book Fisher, in a dialogue between three fictional characters (Nomista [representing the law of God], Neophytus [representing a new convert] and Evangelista [representing the gospel]) discuss the problems in the church and find many of them to be rooted in a wrong conception of preaching. As, in his book, he analyzed the problems in the church, Fisher, through his fictional characters and attempting to alter the character of the preaching, made and defended statements such as these: “Christ hath taken upon Him the sins of all men;” “[In Christ] the Father hath made a deed of gift and grant unto all mankind;” “Whatsoever Christ did for the redemption of mankind, He did it for you;” “Go and tell every man without exception, that here is good news for him, Christ is dead for him.” This warmer approach to preaching, so he argued, would make it attractive to people and make the gospel more acceptable to those to whom it was preached.
.
In the early part of the 18th century the book came to the attention of some of the men in the church in connection with a controversy over what was called “The Auchterader Creed”. The Auchterader Creed was a statement drawn up by the Auchterader Presbytery, which the presbytery required a candidate to the ministry to sign in order to be licensed to preach. The statement read: “It is unsound to teach that a man must forsake sin in order to come to Christ.” In the course of the debate reference was made to Fisher’s book as containing the solution to the problem presented by the Auchterader Creed. The book of Fisher was republished and became itself an issue on the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of Scotland. After due consideration, Fisher’s book was condemned by the Assembly on the following grounds.
.
1) The book taught that assurance was of the essence of faith. (While there is no point in entering into this controversy, we should notice that the Westminster Confession, in 18.3, wrongly, denies that assurance is of the essence of faith: “This infallible assurance [of faith] doth not so belong to the essence of faith, but that a true believer may wait long, and conflict with many difficulties before he be partaker of it”.
.
2) It taught a universal atonement and pardon in the cross. (This was especially evident from the statement in the book that Christ was dead for all. While the distinction was attempted between Christ dying for all and Christ dead for all, this was a mere play on words and a subtle effort to defend a universal atonement.)
.
3) The book taught that holiness was not necessary to salvation. (From this teaching and that of point 5 below, arose the charge that Edward Fisher (and the Marrow Men who rejoiced at his teachings), were antinomian. So the charge of Antinomianism was made by the Marrow Men against the church, and by the church against the Marrow Men.)
.
4) It taught that the fear of punishment and the hope of reward are not allowed to be used as incentives to obedience.
.
5) It held that the believer is not under the law as a rule of life.
.
Because the whole issue was related to the preaching of the gospel, the General Assembly interpreted the book to be a defense of the gracious and well-meant gospel offer. And so it was. It was a bold attempt to introduce into the church the errors of Amyraldianism by means of altering the preaching. Because Christ’s atonement was for all men, preachers were to assure every hearer that God loved him, that it was God’s desire and intention to save everyone who heard the gospel, and that God earnestly and tenderly, through the gospel, wooed sinners to “close with Christ.” There was no need to reject the overtures of the gospel, because each man had a deed or grant that gave him the right to be saved, but the actual bestowal of salvation was conditioned on faith and acceptance of the overtures of the gospel.
.
Thus, although the Presbyterian Church of Scotland officially condemned these views, eventually they entered the church through the teaching of the Marrow men, and committed subsequent theology to this pernicious error.
.
Subsequent Presbyterianism has been influenced by the Marrow men and one finds that a gracious and well-meant gospel offer has infiltrated the thinking and preaching of many, if not most, of the Presbyterian Churches around the world.
* * * *
The question we now face is this: how did the idea of a gracious and well-meant gospel offer enter into Dutch thinking? From the time of the Synod of Dordt to the end of the 18th century it was not present in the Reformed Churches of the Netherlands.
.
There are several ways in which the gracious offer of the gospel was introduced into the Dutch Reformed Churches.
.
1) Because of the persecution of Protestants in France, many refugees found a sanctuary in the Netherlands. But many of these refugees were influenced by Amyraldianism, which had originated in France. D. H. Kromminga writes, “Before the revocation of the Edict of Nantes various heterodox opinions had made their appearance among the Reformed churches of France. At Saumur, professor Moses Amyraud had taught a double decree of predestination, an anterior decree determining that Christ should make atonement for sinners and that sinners should be called to salvation, and a further particular decree of the election of some and the preterition of others … These tendencies which were at work among the Huguenot refugees soon made their appearance also in the Netherlands and affected the course of scientific theology so that it began to lose its Reformed character.” (D.H. Kromminga, The Christian Reformed Tradition [Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1943] 48, 49.)
.
2) In the years subsequent to Dordt, the Reformed Churches suffered a period of doctrinal and spiritual decline – as was true in Scotland. Many, concerned about such outward religion as was practiced in the State Church in Netherlands, searched for an emphasis in theology and religion on piety, a godly life, and an assurance of salvation that came from inner conviction. These trends sparked what is sometimes called De Nadere Reformatie, or “The Later Reformation”. The perilous state of the Established Church and the reaction of many within the church to dead orthodoxy and ungodliness of life found in the church, paralleled the situation in Scotland at the time of the Marrow controversy.
.
3) The spiritual state of the church opened the door in the Netherlands to influences from the Marrow men in Scotland. Such influences were actually brought about by exchanges of professors in the universities, ministers in the pulpits and close contact through books and pamphlets. In fact, many of the books written by the Marrow men and their followers were translated into Dutch and became the spiritual food for people who were starving for God’s Word in the apostate State Church. But the price to pay for such exchanges was an introduction into Dutch thinking of the well-meant gospel offer. It took firm hold and characterized a stream of Dutch theology that has lasted to the present.
.
And so, in my own ecclesiastical tradition, the gracious and well-meant gospel offer has had remarkable influence.
.
We will continue this in our next installment, God willing,
.
With warmest regards in the Lord,
.
Prof. Herman Hanko
Dear Forum members,
.
We must turn now, in our historical treatment of the error of common grace in general and the gracious and well-meant gospel offer in particular, to the Marrow Controversy, which troubled the Presbyterian Church of Scotland in the first half of the 18th century. Before we do this, however, I must make a few remarks about theological developments in the British Isles, after the Westminster Assembly that relate to our subject.
.
The Presbyterian Church never became the state church in England. After the Cromwell inter-regnum, England was once again under a monarchy with the Stuarts from Scotland on the throne. The State Church again became the Anglican Church. Only in Scotland did Presbyterianism become a vital part of the life of the nation. A struggle in Scotland over the question of whether the Presbyterian Church of Scotland or the Anglican Church would be the state church resulted in a victory for the Presbyterian Church.
.
There were many who opposed some of the doctrines of the Westminster Confession. John Davenant, a delegate from England to the Synod of Dordt, defended a modified Amyraldian position. The same was true of Richard Baxter. Amyraldianism continued to have its supporters.
.
Many throughout the British Isles, known as Puritans objected to the formal orthodoxy of the State Church in England (Anglican) and the worldliness of its members, as well as its retention of Romish rites and ceremonies. Further, they charged the Church with the error of Antinomism. While I cannot go into this aberration in these articles, we may notice in passing that this error first appeared in Germany in the Lutheran churches of the Reformation. The chief defender of Antinomianism was John Agricola, but the error was (and is) always a threat to the church. In general, Antinomism taught that the redeemed and justified child of God did not have the obligation to keep the law of God. Antinomism denied the “must” of the law of God, for, so it argued, the justified sinner is righteous in Christ wholly apart from works. The charge was often leveled against the Presbyterian Church in Scotland because, the church held firmly to the doctrine of justification by faith alone, and opponents of that doctrine often accused the orthodox of teaching Antinomianism although the charge was false. That is, enemies of justification by faith alone attempted to thwart the doctrine by leveling against it a charge of Antinomianism. While the charge itself was not true, it was true that, because the Presbyterian Church was the State Church, all the citizens of the nation were technically members and the responsibility of the church. Among these were countless people who were thoroughly irreligious, hardly ever came to church and lived completely worldly lives.
.
This objection was brought against the Presbyterian Church of Scotland in the latter part of the 17th century and the early part of the 18th century by those who were later called the Marrow men, and who, while also charging the Presbyterian Church with antinomism, found fault with the worldliness and spiritual carelessness of so many in the church, and ascribed it to a lack in the preaching of the gospel. They charged the church with producing preachers who were cold and abstract and who lacked the passion for souls that ought to characterize the preaching. They wanted preaching that was conducive to leading people to Christ and thus produce genuine conversion..
* * * *
The origin of the name “Marrow Men” is found in a book by Edward Fisher, written in 1645, which appeared under the title, The Marrow of Modern Divinity (Swengel: Reinar Publications, 1975). In this book Fisher, in a dialogue between three fictional characters (Nomista [representing the law of God], Neophytus [representing a new convert] and Evangelista [representing the gospel]) discuss the problems in the church and find many of them to be rooted in a wrong conception of preaching. As, in his book, he analyzed the problems in the church, Fisher, through his fictional characters and attempting to alter the character of the preaching, made and defended statements such as these: “Christ hath taken upon Him the sins of all men;” “[In Christ] the Father hath made a deed of gift and grant unto all mankind;” “Whatsoever Christ did for the redemption of mankind, He did it for you;” “Go and tell every man without exception, that here is good news for him, Christ is dead for him.” This warmer approach to preaching, so he argued, would make it attractive to people and make the gospel more acceptable to those to whom it was preached.
.
In the early part of the 18th century the book came to the attention of some of the men in the church in connection with a controversy over what was called “The Auchterader Creed”. The Auchterader Creed was a statement drawn up by the Auchterader Presbytery, which the presbytery required a candidate to the ministry to sign in order to be licensed to preach. The statement read: “It is unsound to teach that a man must forsake sin in order to come to Christ.” In the course of the debate reference was made to Fisher’s book as containing the solution to the problem presented by the Auchterader Creed. The book of Fisher was republished and became itself an issue on the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of Scotland. After due consideration, Fisher’s book was condemned by the Assembly on the following grounds.
.
1) The book taught that assurance was of the essence of faith. (While there is no point in entering into this controversy, we should notice that the Westminster Confession, in 18.3, wrongly, denies that assurance is of the essence of faith: “This infallible assurance [of faith] doth not so belong to the essence of faith, but that a true believer may wait long, and conflict with many difficulties before he be partaker of it”.
.
2) It taught a universal atonement and pardon in the cross. (This was especially evident from the statement in the book that Christ was dead for all. While the distinction was attempted between Christ dying for all and Christ dead for all, this was a mere play on words and a subtle effort to defend a universal atonement.)
.
3) The book taught that holiness was not necessary to salvation. (From this teaching and that of point 5 below, arose the charge that Edward Fisher (and the Marrow Men who rejoiced at his teachings), were antinomian. So the charge of Antinomianism was made by the Marrow Men against the church, and by the church against the Marrow Men.)
.
4) It taught that the fear of punishment and the hope of reward are not allowed to be used as incentives to obedience.
.
5) It held that the believer is not under the law as a rule of life.
.
Because the whole issue was related to the preaching of the gospel, the General Assembly interpreted the book to be a defense of the gracious and well-meant gospel offer. And so it was. It was a bold attempt to introduce into the church the errors of Amyraldianism by means of altering the preaching. Because Christ’s atonement was for all men, preachers were to assure every hearer that God loved him, that it was God’s desire and intention to save everyone who heard the gospel, and that God earnestly and tenderly, through the gospel, wooed sinners to “close with Christ.” There was no need to reject the overtures of the gospel, because each man had a deed or grant that gave him the right to be saved, but the actual bestowal of salvation was conditioned on faith and acceptance of the overtures of the gospel.
.
Thus, although the Presbyterian Church of Scotland officially condemned these views, eventually they entered the church through the teaching of the Marrow men, and committed subsequent theology to this pernicious error.
.
Subsequent Presbyterianism has been influenced by the Marrow men and one finds that a gracious and well-meant gospel offer has infiltrated the thinking and preaching of many, if not most, of the Presbyterian Churches around the world.
* * * *
The question we now face is this: how did the idea of a gracious and well-meant gospel offer enter into Dutch thinking? From the time of the Synod of Dordt to the end of the 18th century it was not present in the Reformed Churches of the Netherlands.
.
There are several ways in which the gracious offer of the gospel was introduced into the Dutch Reformed Churches.
.
1) Because of the persecution of Protestants in France, many refugees found a sanctuary in the Netherlands. But many of these refugees were influenced by Amyraldianism, which had originated in France. D. H. Kromminga writes, “Before the revocation of the Edict of Nantes various heterodox opinions had made their appearance among the Reformed churches of France. At Saumur, professor Moses Amyraud had taught a double decree of predestination, an anterior decree determining that Christ should make atonement for sinners and that sinners should be called to salvation, and a further particular decree of the election of some and the preterition of others … These tendencies which were at work among the Huguenot refugees soon made their appearance also in the Netherlands and affected the course of scientific theology so that it began to lose its Reformed character.” (D.H. Kromminga, The Christian Reformed Tradition [Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1943] 48, 49.)
.
2) In the years subsequent to Dordt, the Reformed Churches suffered a period of doctrinal and spiritual decline – as was true in Scotland. Many, concerned about such outward religion as was practiced in the State Church in Netherlands, searched for an emphasis in theology and religion on piety, a godly life, and an assurance of salvation that came from inner conviction. These trends sparked what is sometimes called De Nadere Reformatie, or “The Later Reformation”. The perilous state of the Established Church and the reaction of many within the church to dead orthodoxy and ungodliness of life found in the church, paralleled the situation in Scotland at the time of the Marrow controversy.
.
3) The spiritual state of the church opened the door in the Netherlands to influences from the Marrow men in Scotland. Such influences were actually brought about by exchanges of professors in the universities, ministers in the pulpits and close contact through books and pamphlets. In fact, many of the books written by the Marrow men and their followers were translated into Dutch and became the spiritual food for people who were starving for God’s Word in the apostate State Church. But the price to pay for such exchanges was an introduction into Dutch thinking of the well-meant gospel offer. It took firm hold and characterized a stream of Dutch theology that has lasted to the present.
.
And so, in my own ecclesiastical tradition, the gracious and well-meant gospel offer has had remarkable influence.
.
We will continue this in our next installment, God willing,
.
With warmest regards in the Lord,
.
Prof. Herman Hanko
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)