The marrow controversy and Edwards.

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Conner

Puritan Board Freshman
I have lately been taken with an ardent desire to study the marrow controversy with all of its intricacies and have found myself thinking much of the theology of one who lived during this time whose theology I am much more familiar with than that of men like the erskines and Thomas Boston. I have in mind Jonathan Edwards. I am wondering what his relationship to the controversy would be. Obviously he would not side with the antinomians. Nor would he be a strict neo-nomian. Doesn't it seem however that he sometimes stresses the secondary means of assurance over and above the promises, as well as making repentance and condition fulfilling obedience of the very essence of saving faith? (e.g. Religious Affections, Theological discourse on Faith, God the greatest portion of the Christian, the manner in which the salvation of the soul is to be sought..etc...). Other times he seems to side with the marrow men (pardon for the returning sinner, the excellency of Christ etc...). Anybody have any thoughts or info on where Edwards would stand on this and the reason for the seeming internal contradictions in Edwards theology? If you would like me to provide quotes I would be happy to at a later point because my kindle won't work right now to open his works for some reason.
 
Conner said:
I have lately been taken with an ardent desire to study the marrow controversy with all of its intricacies and have found myself thinking much of the theology of one who lived during this time whose theology I am much more familiar with than that of men like the erskines and Thomas Boston. I have in mind Jonathan Edwards. I am wondering what his relationship to the controversy would be. Obviously he would not side with the antinomians. Nor would he be a strict neo-nomian. Doesn't it seem however that he sometimes stresses the secondary means of assurance over and above the promises, as well as making repentance and condition fulfilling obedience of the very essence of saving faith? (e.g. Religious Affections, Theological discourse on Faith, God the greatest portion of the Christian, the manner in which the salvation of the soul is to be sought..etc...). Other times he seems to side with the marrow men (pardon for the returning sinner, the excellency of Christ etc...). Anybody have any thoughts or info on where Edwards would stand on this and the reason for the seeming internal contradictions in Edwards theology? If you would like me to provide quotes I would be happy to at a later point because my kindle won't work right now to open his works for some reason.
Click to expand...

Here is his work on justification: Justification By Faith Alone  --  Jonathan Edwards
 
Here is a quote from Edwards. This is from the link that I provided in an earlier post.

Object. 5. It is objected against the doctrine of justification by faith alone, that repentance is evidently spoken of in Scripture as that which is in a special manner the condition of remission of sins: but remission of sins is by all allowed to be that wherein justification does (at least) in great part consist.

But it must certainly arise from a misunderstanding of what the Scripture says about repentance, to suppose that faith and repentance are two distinct things, that in like manner are the conditions of justification. For it is most plain from the Scripture, that the condition of justification, or that in us by which we are justified, is but one, and that is faith. Faith and repentance are not two distinct conditions of justification, nor are they two distinct things that together make one condition of justification. But faith comprehends the whole of that by which we are justified, or by which we come to have an interest in Christ, and there is nothing else that has a parallel concern with it in the
affair of our salvation. And this the divines on the other side themselves are sensible of, and therefore they suppose that the faith the apostle Paul speaks of, which he says we are justified by alone, comprehends in it repentance.

And therefore, in answer to the objection, I would say that when repentance is spoken of in Scripture as the condition of pardon, thereby is not intended any particular grace, or act, properly distinct from faith, that has a parallel influence with it in the affair of our pardon or justification. But by repentance is intended nothing distinct from active conversion (or conversion actively considered), as it respects the term from which. Active conversion is a motion or exercise of the mind that respects two terms, viz. sin and God, and by repentance is meant this conversion, or active change of the mind, so far as it is conversant about the term from which or about sin. This is what the word repentance properly signifies: a change of the mind, or, which is the same thing, the turning or the conversion of the mind. Repentance is this turning, as it respects what is turned from. Acts 26:19. — “Whereupon, O king Agrippa, I showed unto them of Damascus and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judea, and then to the aaaaaGentiles, that they should repent, and turn to God.” Both these are the same turning, but only with respect to opposite terms. In the former is expressed the exercise of mind about sin in this turning: in the other, the exercise of mind towards God.

If we look over the Scriptures that speak of evangelical repentance, we shall presently see that repentance is to be understood in this sense, as Mat. 9:13, “I am nota come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.” Luke 13:3, “Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.” And chap. 15:7, 10, “There is joy in heaven over one sinner
that repenteth,” i. e. over one sinner that is converted. Acts 11:18, “Then hath God alsoto the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.” This is said by the Christians of the circumcision at Jerusalem, upon Peter’s giving an account of the conversion of Cornelius and his family, and their embracing the gospel, though Peter had said nothing expressly about their sorrow for sin. And again, Acts 17:30, “But now commandeth all men every where to "repent.” And Luke 16:30, “Nay, father Abraham, but if one went to them frothe dead, they would repent.” 2 Pet. 3:9, “The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness, but is long-suffering toward us, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.” It is plain that in these and other places,
by repentance is meant conversion.
Click to expand...
 
Rich, what I meant was that how a person deals with people may affect their perception of necessary fruit or the language one uses in describing it. Over the course of a historical figure's life they face a range of issues and in the case of Edwards the half covenenter issue became more and more of an issue I have also heard pastors use language as if something is a condition of salvation when I know they mean it is a necessary fruit. For example I heard a PCA pastor describing forgiveness as a condition of salvation where I know he meant a necessary fruit of salvation. It could have been misunderstood as a precondition

You might enjoy Sinclaire Fergusen's series Pastoral lessons on the Marrow controversy
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=1120071123108
I always feel Sinclaire Fergusen puts allot fo work in to his sermons and they are worthwile
 
Last edited:
"Good works are in some sort implied in the very nature of faith, as is implied in 1 Tim. v.8. where the apostle, speaking of them that do not provide for their parents, says, "If any provide not for his own, and especially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith."
 
Here is another one where he seems to depart from Thomas Goodwin (who probably wrote more on faith than anybody in the history of the church.) "that love belongs to the essence of saving faith, is manifest by comparing "men have not heard nor perceived by the ear,&c. what he hath prepared for him that waiteth for him," as cited by the apostle, "it is for them that love him." Now it is evident that waiting for God, in the Old Testament, signifies the same with faith in God, or trusting in God. Dr. Goodwin, in vol.1. Of his works, p.286. Says, "the papists say, wickedly and wretchedly, that love is the form and soul of faith." But how does the truth of this charge of wickedness appear?" Etc...
 
Conner said:
Doesn't it seem however that he sometimes stresses the secondary means of assurance over and above the promises, as well as making repentance and condition fulfilling obedience of the very essence of saving faith?
Click to expand...

"Secondary means" is an unhappy term. Marks of grace are necessary in co-ordination with the promises because they "mark out" the one to whom the promises apply. The Marrowmen emphasised them as much as Edwards.

"Saving faith" and "justifying faith" are not identical. By faith alone a person is justified, but this faith is never alone in the person justified.
 
Conner said:
"Good works are in some sort implied in the very nature of faith, as is implied in 1 Tim. v.8. where the apostle, speaking of them that do not provide for their parents, says, "If any provide not for his own, and especially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith."
Click to expand...

and is worse than an unbeliever... in what sense.... worse (more inconsistent) than an unbeliever or worse off (is not genuinely a believer and condemned to a worse judgment)
I'm not sure which Paul meant

as far as love, Col 1:5 suggests the fruit of the Colossian's faith and love began the day they understood the grace of God in truth
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top