That’s not quite a review, but random thoughts about a book that recently came under my radar and made me fall in love with it, The Marrow of Modern Divinity, written in 1645 in England by an by an author of whom we know little. The book was controversial and it is stil controversial, and one of the reasons I suppose comes from the fact that aims to present the gospel clearly in contrast with both legalism and antionmianism.

The style is unusual, it’s a fictitious dialogue about which I’ll write in another post, and just as an introduction, and what follows are the words of a pastor for a young convert regarding union with Christ. I’ll try in other posts to bring more quotes I find to be worthy for sharing. The format is taken from a
blog

I tell you from Christ,
and under the hand of the Spirit,
that your person is accepted,
your sins are done away,
and you shall be saved;
and if an angel from heaven should tell you otherwise,
let him be accursed.

Therefore, you may (without doubt) conclude
that you are a happy man;
for by means of this your matching with Christ,
you are become one with him,
and one in him,
you ‘dwell in him, and he in you’ (1 John 4:13).

He is ‘your well beloved, and you are his’ (S. of S. 2:16).

So that the marriage union betwixt Christ and you
is more than a bare notion or apprehension of your mind;
for it is a
special,
spiritual, and
real union:
it is an union betwixt the nature of Christ,
God and man,
and you;
it is a knitting and closing,
not only of your apprehension with a Saviour,
but also of your soul with a Saviour.

Whence it must needs follow that you cannot be condemned,
except Christ be condemned with you;
neither can Christ be saved,
except you be saved with him.

And as by means of corporeal marriage all things become common betwixt man and wife;
even so, by means of this spiritual marriage,
all things become common betwixt Christ and you;
for when Christ hath married his spouse unto himself,
he passeth over all his estate unto her;
so that whatsoever Christ is or hath,
you may boldly challenge as your own.

‘He is made unto you, of God,
wisdom,
righteousness,
sanctification,
and redemption’ (1 Cor. 1:30).

And surely,
by virtue of this near union it is,
that as Christ is called ‘the Lord our righteousness’ (Jer. 23:6),
even so is the church called, ‘the Lord our righteousness’ (33:16).

I tell you,
you may,
by virtue of this union,
boldly take upon yourself,
as your own,
Christ’s watching,
abstinence,
travails,
prayers,
persecutions,
and slanders;
yea,
his tears,
his sweat,
his blood,
and all that ever he did
and suffered
in the space of three and thirty years,
with his
passion,
death,
burial,
resurrection,
and ascension;
for they are all yours.

And as Christ passes over all his estate unto his spouse,
so does he require that she should pass over all unto him.
Wherefore,
you being now married unto Christ,
you must give all that you have of your own unto him;
and truly you have nothing of your own
but sin,
and, therefore, you must give him that.

I beseech you, then,
say unto Christ with bold confidence,
I give unto thee, my dear husband,
my unbelief,
my mistrust,
my pride,
my arrogancy,
my ambition,
my wrath,
and anger,
my envy,
my covetousness,
my evil thoughts,
affections,
and desires;
I make one bundle of these and all my other offences,
and give them unto thee.

And thus was Christ made ‘sin for us, that knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him’ (2 Cor. 5:21).

‘Now then,’
says Luther,
‘let us compare these things together,
and we shall find inestimable treasure.

Christ is full of
grace,
life,
and saving health;
and the soul is freight-full of all
sin,
death,
and damnation;
but let faith come betwixt these two,
and it shall come to pass,
that Christ shall be laden with
sin,
death,
and hell;
and unto the soul shall be imputed
grace,
life,
and salvation.

Who then is able to value the royalty of this marriage accordingly?

Who is able to comprehend the glorious riches of his grace,
where this rich and righteous husband,
Christ,
doth take unto wife this poor and wicked harlot,
redeeming her from all devils,
and garnishing her with all his own jewels?

So that you,
through the assuredness of your faith in Christ, your husband,
are delivered from all sins,
made safe from death,
guarded from hell,
and endowed with the
everlasting righteousness,
life,
and saving health
of this your husband Christ.’

And All of God’s People Say...Amen

Amen indeed!

Thanks Gabriel for posting this. 

Stan

You’re welcome, Stan

Looking back at my struggle to believe the gospel of free grace, at the questions that appeared in my mind, at the doubts, setbacks and the toil that I suffered until I came to the assurance that exclusively for Christ’s sake my sins are washed away, I wish I had known the Marrow of Modern Divinity many years ago.

Why? Because the book is a dialogue between EVANGELISTA, a Minister of the Gospel, NOMIST, a Legalist, ANTINOMISTA, an Antinomian, and NEOPHYTUS, a Young Christian. If the book isn’t something, it is not boring. There is an animated dialogue between these characters, with objections raised, with clarifications that go deep and with precision define the gospel in contrast with both legalism and licentiousness. As Phillip Ryken put it in his introduction of the Marrow:

Both legalism and antinomianism are perennial dangers for the church and for individual Christians. When we begin to think of the Christian life primarily as a list of “dos” and “don’ts,” we are under the sway of legalism. When we begin to think that it is okay for us to go ahead and sin, because God will forgive us anyway, we are feeling the temptation of antinomianism.

The book itself leaves no people neutral, people who read will come to love it or to hate it. Historically it produced the Marrow Controversy in the church of Scotland in the eighteen century, which seems strange because the book appeared in the seventeen century. This controversy appeared because one of the most famous theologians that raised to public fame as the most frequently published Scottish author of the eighteenth-century, as Ryken tells us. His books were widely recommended during the Great Awakening in England and America. His name is Thomas Boston.

Boston was instrumental in bringing Marrow to fame after he published his own edition with notes. Marrow was his favorite book which saved his ministry. His notes extend from a few words to almost 5000 words essay. His notes constitute almost a second book that can be read apart from the Marrow and doubles the book’s value.

Boston with Erskine brothers and others who came to be knows as the twelve apostles were condemned as antinomians by the church of Scotland. Today the majority of the reformed churches recognize that this was a mistake. Still, the controversy, raging in the eighteen century and which condemned a book written one century earlier proves the perennial importance of the book.

Coming back to the book itself, it presents the gospel of God’s free grace against a form of legalism that masquerades itself as true christianity and against a form of antinomianism and licentiousness which profess belief in Christ’s free grace. It has the potential to upset everybody who’s not truly rooted in God’s grace.

Gabriel

Marrow is very good at exposing how counterintuitive is the gospel.

The gospel is perceived as boring only when its radical nature and counterintuitive message is not understood, especially when it is not presented with clarity.

Because of the clarity of the message of Marrow, pictured in contrast with both antinomianism and legalism, it became the target of the legalists, who classified it as antinomianism. As a clear exposition of the gospel, it was not boring. It provoked a reaction. People either loved it or hate it.

The counterintuitive nature of the gospel makes people exciting about it. And here is only one example of it.

Intuition tells us that antinomianism and legalism are opposites. Legalists are strict with their moral behavior, antinomians are at the other end of the spectrum in regard to sin. Wrong. See below

Antinomista says:

Well, sir, I cannot tell what to say, but, methinks, when a man is perfectly justified by faith, it is a very needless thing for him to endeavour to keep the law, and to do good works

Thomas Boston’s note on what Antinomista says:

This Antinomian principle, That it is needless for a man, perfectly justified by faith, to endeavour to keep the law, and do good works, is a glaring evidence that legality is so engrained in man’s corrupt nature, that until a man truly come to Christ, by faith, the legal disposition will still be reigning in him; let him turn himself into what shape, or be of what principles he will in religion; though he run into Antinomianism he will carry along with him his legal spirit, which will always be a slavish and unholy spirit. He is constrained, as the author observes, to do all that he does for fear of punishment, and hope of reward; and if it is once fixed in his mind that these are ceased in his case, he stands still like a clock when the weights that made her go are removed, or like a slave when he is in no hazard of the whip; than which there cannot be a greater evidence of loathsome legality.

What antinomianism and legalism has in common? Both categories think that the basic reason to keep the law and do good works is to be justified by it. That’s why legalists, when confronted with the true gospel, will cry “That’s antinomianism!” because in their opinion they think that the necessity of obedience to the law, the obligation to keep it evaporates if fear of punishment is removed or the hope of reward. That’s exactly how an antinomian thinks. Exactly how Thomas Boston said “slave when he is in no hazard of the whip.” Antinomians are basically still slave to the law, while pretending to be free. Their mentality had not changed.

The counterintuitive nature of the gospel comes from the fact that the free grace is opposite to legalism, not antinomianism. Antinomianism and legalism are two faces of the same coin: they confuse law and gospel. Legalists reject the gospel by their adherence to the law and antinomianists reject the law by their adherence to the gospel. Legalists reject the gospel because they pervert the law, and antinomians reject the law because they pervert the gospel.

No wonder that a book like Marrow that exposes both errors and exposes them as being in the same boat was so controversial.

Gabriel

One trait of legalism is it’s low view of sin. It sees a disproportion between sin and its consequences. But when the injury done to God is seen in its true proportion, sin becomes a serious matter.

Nomista: But, sir, methinks it is a strange thing that so small an offence, as eating of the forbidden fruit seems to be, should plunge the whole of mankind into such a gulf of misery.

Evangelista: Though at first glance it seems to be a small offence, yet, if we look more wistfully (that is, earnestly) upon the matter it will appear to be an exceeding great offence; for thereby intolerable injury was done unto God; as, first, His dominion and authority in his holy command was violated. Secondly, His justice, truth, and power, in his most righteous threatenings, were despised. Thirdly, His most pure and perfect image, wherein man was created in righteousness and true holiness, was utterly defaced. Fourthly, His glory, which, by an active service, the creature should have brought to him, was lost and despoiled.

Gabriel

This book looks great Gabriel! I saw it on Monergism, now I’ll have to add it to the wish list. Thanks so much for sharing.

Nate

Stan, Nate, you’re welcome. The book must be read in order to catch its value. It’s hard to find something that can be posted by itself, in isolation from the rest of the dialogue.

I find highly interesting a monologue of Nomista in which he describes his spiritual journey from what he considers legalism to grace. He talks how he was first converted to sheer legalism, in which he cared only about external conformity with the law. Next he understood that his righteousness must be internal and he put all his heart in it. But he understood that not only what he does but what he does not counts and tried to restrain his sinful passions. On his way, he receives counsels from different ministers but the counsel is bad. For example, he was not satisfied after all these transformations and see what advice he gets

Nomista: And then was I confident I was a true Christian, until I considered, that those Jews, of whom the Lord complains, (Isa 58), did as much as I; and that caused me to fear that all was not right with me as yet. Whereupon I went to another minister, and told him that though I had done thus and thus, and suffered thus and thus; yet was I persuaded that I was in no better condition than those Jews. O yes! said he; you are in a better condition than they: for they were hypocrites, and served not God with all their hearts as you do.

Excellent advice (smile). Nevertheless, he has no peace, because he starts to think about his sins before conversion. And he goes to another minister

Nomista: Then I went to a third minister of God’s holy word, and told how the case stood with me, and what I thought of my state and condition. He cheered me up, bidding me be of good comfort: for however my obedience since my conversion would not satisfy for my former sins; yet, inasmuch as, at my conversion, I had confessed, lamented, deplored, bewailed, and forsaken them, God, according to his rich mercy and gracious promise, had mercifully pardoned and forgiven them

Where does this minister place the trust of this guy? In his own confession, in his own repentance and forsaking of sin. Certainly the assurance is not placed in what Christ did for him, but in what he did: “inasmuch as” he did a good confession, God pardoned his sins. Great advice, again,

Still the guy, after he was at peace for awhile, is troubled again because he becomes aware of the corruptions of the heart.  He sees that he had not kept the law perfectly, and he goes to the same minister.

Nomista:And then I went to the same minister again, and told him how I had purposed, promised, striven, and endeavoured, as much as possibly I could, to keep the law of God perfectly; and yet by woeful experience I had found, that I had, and did still transgress in many ways; and therefore I feared hell and damnation. “Oh! but,” said he, “do not fear; for the best of Christians have their failings, and no man keepeth the law of God perfectly; and therefore go on, and do as you have done, in striving to keep the law perfectly; and in what you cannot do, God will accept the will for the deed; and wherein you come short, Christ will help you out.” And this satisfied and contented me very much. So I returned home again, and fell to prayer, and told the Lord that now I saw I could not yield perfect obedience to his law, and yet I would not despair, because I did believe that what I could not do Christ had done for me: and then I did certainly conclude, that I was now a Christian indeed, though I was not so before: and so have I been persuaded ever since.

“In what you cannot do, God will accept the will for the deed” - very good, isn’t it?

Hear what evangelista tells him:

Evangelista. Verily, I do conceive that this gives you no surer evidence of your being truly come to Christ, than some of your strict Papists have. For it is the doctrine of the Church of Rome, that if a man exercise all his power, and do his best to fulfil the law, then God, for Christ’s sake, will pardon all his infirmities, and save his soul. And therefore you shall see many of your Papists very strict and zealous in the performance of duties, morning and evening, so many Ave Marias and so many Pater Nosters; yea, and many of them do great deeds of charity, and great works of hospitality; and all upon such grounds, and to such ends as these. The Papists, says Calvin, cannot abide this saying, “By faith alone”; for they think that their own works are in part a cause of their salvation; and so they make a hotch-potch and mingle-mangle, that is neither fish nor flesh, as men say.

Wow, hotch-potch or not, the guy still thinks he is not in this situation:

Nomista. But stay, sir, I pray; you are mistaken in me; for though I hold that God doth accept of my doing my best to fulfil the law, yet I do not hold with the Papists, that my doings are meritorious; for I believe that God accepts not what I do, either for the work or worker’s sake, but only for Christ’s sake.

He thinks that he got out of the hook. Not so fast, not so fast.

Evan. Yet do you but still go hand in hand with the Papists; for though they do hold that their works are meritorious, yet they say it is by the merit of Christ that they become meritorious; or, as some of the moderate sort of them say, ”Our works, sprinkled with the blood of Christ, become meritorious.” But this you are to know, that as the justice of God requires a perfect obedience, so does it require that this perfect obedience be a personal one, viz: it must be the obedience of one person only; the obedience of two must not be put together, to make up a perfect obedience; so that, if you desire to be justified before God, you must either bring to him a perfect righteousness of your own, and wholly renounce Christ; or else you must bring the perfect righteousness of Christ, and wholly renounce your own.

It’s not my obedience plus Christ’s obedience, it’s either Christ’s or mine. I have to do it perfectly or accept Christ’s doing it perfectly to stand in my place. My pardon of sin does not rest in a combination of doing my best and Jesus’ blood covering my shortcomings, the part in which I fail to do.

At this point I remember the favorite illustration of Clifford Goldstein by which he hoped to show us, the detractors of Ellen White and adventism that she preached God’s grace in the investigative judgment. His best shot is the chapter 54 from Testimonies to the Church, volume 5. He presents this chapter in his Graffiti in the holy of holies, saying that somehow we didn’t get Ellen’s message of grace found there.

We are to exert every energy of the soul in the work of overcoming, and to look to Jesus for strength to do what we cannot do of ourselves. No sin can be tolerated in those who shall walk with Christ in white. The filthy garments are to be removed, and Christ’s robe of righteousness is to be placed upon us. By repentance and faith we are enabled to render obedience to all the commandments of God, and are found without blame before Him. Those who shall meet the approval of God are now afflicting their souls, confessing their sins, and earnestly pleading for pardon through Jesus their Advocate. White, 5T, page 472

This is exactly the hotch-potch, we fight and do our best and Christ pardons us. The subject is Joshua and the Angel, with God removing the filthy garments and giving a white garment. Notice why this is done, in the face of Satan’s accusations:

The people of God have been in many respects very faulty. Satan has an accurate knowledge of the sins which he has tempted them to commit, and he presents these in the most exaggerated light, declaring: “Will God banish me and my angels from His presence, and yet reward those who have been guilty of the same sins? Thou canst not do this, O Lord, in justice. Thy throne will not stand in righteousness and judgment. Justice demands that sentence be pronounced against them.”
But while the followers of Christ have sinned, they have not given themselves to the control of evil. They have put away their sins, and have sought the Lord in humility and contrition, and the divine Advocate pleads in their behalf. He who has been most abused by their ingratitude, who knows their sin, and also their repentance, declares: “‘The Lord rebuke thee, O Satan.’ I gave My life for these souls. They are graven upon the palms of My hands.” {5T 474.2}

There is a condition these people met “they have put away their sins,” “have sought the Lord in humility and contrition”. The basis for justification is a mixture of people’s repentance and putting away of sins and God’s mercy toward these kind of repentant sinners.  Instead of God justifying the ungodly, we end with God justifying the godly.

As Joshua humbly pleads for the fulfillment of God’s promises, Satan stands up boldly to resist him. He points to the transgressions of Israel as a reason why that people should not be restored to the favor of God. He claims them as his prey and demands that they be given into his hands to be destroyed.  {5T 468.1}
The high priest cannot defend himself or his people from Satan’s accusations. He does not claim that Israel are free from fault. In his filthy garments, symbolizing the sins of the people, which he bears as their representative, he stands before the Angel, confessing their guilt, yet pointing to their repentance and humiliation, relying upon the mercy of a sin-pardoning Redeemer and in faith claiming the promises of God.  {5T 468.2}

Notice that Joshua pleads for God’s mercy poiting to people’s repentace. Why not plead for mercy becaue of Christ’s merits alone? Because this is a hotch-potch. And Goldstein thinks that this scene is a clear presentation of the gospel and find faults with formers because they didn’t get that the Investigative Judgment in Ellen White’s interpretation is based on God’s grace alone.

Well, as you see, Goldstein has good company. Nomista’s journey proves this.
Gabriel

I forgot to place the end of this particular chapter from the Marrow of Modern Divinity. It’s beautiful. Enjoy

Antinomista. But believe me, sir, I would advise him to bring Christ’s and wholly renounce his own, as, I thank the Lord, I have done.

Evangelista. You say very well; for, indeed, the covenant of grace terminates itself only on Christ and his righteousness; God will have none to have a hand in the justification and salvation of a sinner, but Christ only. And to say as the thing is, neighbour Nomista, Christ Jesus will either be a whole Saviour, or no Saviour; he will either save you alone, or not save you at all. (Acts 4:12), “For among men there is given no other name under heaven, whereby we must be saved,” says the apostle Peter; and Jesus Christ himself says, (John 14:6), “I am the way, the truth, and the life; and no man cometh to the Father but by me.” So that, as Luther truly says, “besides this way Christ, there is no way but wandering, no verity but hypocrisy, no life but eternal death.” And verily, says, another godly writer, “we can neither come to God the Father, be reconciled unto him, nor have anything to do with him, by any other way or means, but only by Jesus Christ; for we shall not anywhere find the favour of God, true innocency, righteousness, satisfaction for sin, help, comfort, life, or salvation, anywhere but only in Jesus Christ; he is the sum and centre of all divine and evangelical truths: and therefore as there is no knowledge or wisdom so excellent, necessary, or heavenly, as the knowledge of Christ, as the apostle plainly gives us to understand, (1 Cor 2:2), that he ‘determined to know nothing amongst them, but only Jesus Christ and him crucified’; so there is nothing to be preached unto men, as an object of their faith, or necessary element of their salvation, which doth not in some way or other, either meet in Christ, or refer unto him.”

Amen!

by Gabriel
Legalists reject the gospel by their adherence to the law and antinomianists reject the law by their adherence to the gospel. Legalists reject the gospel because they pervert the law, and antinomians reject the law because they pervert the gospel.

Hmm...Interesting statement Gabriel. I’ve never thought of it like that before.

GABRIEL PROKSCH - 14 December 2009 01:31 PM

We are to exert every energy of the soul in the work of overcoming, and to look to Jesus for strength to do what we cannot do of ourselves. No sin can be tolerated in those who shall walk with Christ in white. The filthy garments are to be removed, and Christ’s robe of righteousness is to be placed upon us. By repentance and faith we are enabled to render obedience to all the commandments of God, and are found without blame before Him. Those who shall meet the approval of God are now afflicting their souls, confessing their sins, and earnestly pleading for pardon through Jesus their Advocate. White, 5T, page 472

This is exactly the hotch-potch, we fight and do our best and Christ pardons us. The subject is Joshua and the Angel, with God removing the filthy garments and giving a white garment.

Coming from a strong Methodist background, you can understand where Sister White is coming from and I don’t believe she was any further off than most of her contemporaries. Obedience was important to her, but also keep in mind that obedience is not done to justify us but to show our devotion. She makes it clear that our ‘filthy garments are to be removed and Christ’s robe of righteousness is to be placed upon us’. Only when this is done can we obtain the power to overcome sin, not before.

GABRIEL PROKSCH - 14 December 2009 01:31 PM

There is a condition these people met “they have put away their sins,” “have sought the Lord in humility and contrition”. The basis for justification is a mixture of people’s repentance and putting away of sins and God’s mercy toward these kind of repentant sinners.  Instead of God justifying the ungodly, we end with God justifying the godly.

“If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness’. Are you saying that this is only for those who have not found Christ yet or for those saved Christians who have sinned? I do not see justification by works in these quotes. I see obedience to Christ and repentant hearts in a continual walk with God. Perhaps it might be easier to fall into or justify legalism but I do not see anything theologically wrong with this from an Arminianist perspective.  Saved by grace through faith and having a continual walk with Christ which includes repentance and forgiveness as He ministers as our Advocate.

guibox - 02 January 2010 09:25 AM

GABRIEL PROKSCH - 14 December 2009 01:31 PM

We are to exert every energy of the soul in the work of overcoming, and to look to Jesus for strength to do what we cannot do of ourselves. No sin can be tolerated in those who shall walk with Christ in white. The filthy garments are to be removed, and Christ’s robe of righteousness is to be placed upon us. By repentance and faith we are enabled to render obedience to all the commandments of God, and are found without blame before Him. Those who shall meet the approval of God are now afflicting their souls, confessing their sins, and earnestly pleading for pardon through Jesus their Advocate. White, 5T, page 472

This is exactly the hotch-potch, we fight and do our best and Christ pardons us. The subject is Joshua and the Angel, with God removing the filthy garments and giving a white garment.

Coming from a strong Methodist background, you can understand where Sister White is coming from and I don’t believe she was any further off than most of her contemporaries. Obedience was important to her, but also keep in mind that obedience is not done to justify us but to show our devotion. She makes it clear that our ‘filthy garments are to be removed and Christ’s robe of righteousness is to be placed upon us’. Only when this is done can we obtain the power to overcome sin, not before.

GABRIEL PROKSCH - 14 December 2009 01:31 PM

There is a condition these people met “they have put away their sins,” “have sought the Lord in humility and contrition”. The basis for justification is a mixture of people’s repentance and putting away of sins and God’s mercy toward these kind of repentant sinners.  Instead of God justifying the ungodly, we end with God justifying the godly.

“If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness’. Are you saying that this is only for those who have not found Christ yet or for those saved Christians who have sinned? I do not see justification by works in these quotes. I see obedience to Christ and repentant hearts in a continual walk with God. Perhaps it might be easier to fall into or justify legalism but I do not see anything theologically wrong with this from an Arminianist perspective.  Saved by grace through faith and having a continual walk with Christ which includes repentance and forgiveness as He ministers as our Advocate.

Guibox,

You are correct about EGW being much like John Wesley, and EGW is really a product of her times. This goes for the health reform movement. It is easy to understand her writings if we know the historical context. I realized this when I read Ron Numbers book.

There is some good scholarship being done on EGW and some of this is described here:

http://revelation-armageddon.com/2009/10/29/an-historic-event.aspx

This will help understand the historical and contextual setting of her writings. This is being done mostly by liberal scholars. I doubt that they will understand her writings in light of her claims to be a prophet of God.

Stan

Stan Ermshar - 02 January 2010 11:30 AM

Guibox,

You are correct about EGW being much like John Wesley, and EGW is really a product of her times. This goes for the health reform movement. It is easy to understand her writings if we know the historical context.
Stan

Exactly Stan. And this is the problem and conflict I encounter with so many ‘near infallible White’ SDAs I clash with. EGW was a product of her times and worked accordingly to the information her culture and society had at the time. EGW was not a seer with a crystal ball. Her Methodist background and theology, and the medical and historical information available at the time did shape her views and information. She was not infallible in theology, medicine or history and we cannot ignore the historical context and application of much of her information to an emerging church in a 19th century culture as opposed to a blanket application throughout the ages for all generations of Adventists.

Anyway, we are digressing and going off topic. Sorry Gabriel.

I would be interested in reading The Marrow of Modern Divinity sometime.