Marrow Men

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

DanielC

Puritan Board Freshman
Just finished reading Fisher's Marrow of Modern Divinity (and, coincidently, Ames Marrow of Theology).

Allow me to attach my recommendation to both, but particularly to the Marrow of Modern Divinity. That book is awesome. It will hone your understanding of the gospel and the place of the law to a razor's edge (or at least, more than any other merely human book I know of, with all due respect to Luther's Commentary on Galatians - also a must read).

There's a lot of stuff to read out there, but let's face it - when it all comes down to it, if there's anything to learn well its this: the gospel of grace and how God wants us to glorify Him. That's what the Marrow is all about - hence the title. :thumbup:

Puritansailor - thanks for the recommendation.

Also, just picked up Pilgrims Progress III, The True Christian's Love to the Unseen Christ, and Precious Remedies for Satan's Devices. Anyone care to share their thoughts on those before I begin to form my own?

Daniel
 
yeah. it's actually pretty hard not to be aware of it after reading the book, seeing as the appendix includes the answers the marrow men gave to the GA Commission's Twelve Queries in regards to the Marrow. Good answers, by the way.
 
Daniel, I'm glad you enjoyed it. It's one of my favorites both theologically and practically. It's about time for me to read through it again too.

You've also picked another masterpiece: The True Christian's Love to the Unseen Christ. This is Vincents best book in my opinion. And it changed my life. It was one of my first Puritan reads and sealed my fate as a Puritan lover. Be prepared to rejoice and mourn at the same time.
 
The General Assembly wasn't convinced! I personally am against the Marrow Men-tality. I don't like it one bit. Gotta run though...
 
My issue with the Marrow Men in a nutshell:

The gospel [b:1c627ff32b]is[/b:1c627ff32b] a presentation of God's gracious command to all to repent and believe.

The gospel [b:1c627ff32b]is not[/b:1c627ff32b] despite the Marrow Men's delusions a statement in which "Christ died for all". This is double-mindedness for any true Calvinist. Christ died for the elect. We do not need to go around psychologizing with sinners. Jesus like a good shepherd laid his life down for his sheep. For one to confess that doctrinal point and then turn to the unregenerate and tell him that Jesus died for him, is misguided.

This is essentially about having distinctly Calvinistic preaching as opposed to Amyraldian rhetoric. Marrow Men are thankfully Calvinist in doctrine, [i:1c627ff32b]until[/i:1c627ff32b] you start talking about the free offer. Suddenly Jesus died for the sins of everyone. Humbug I say. Bawlderdash. :judge:
 
Ian, I think I understand your concerns, and was expecting you to say that after reading another post of yours discussing hyper-calvinism. But honestly, I think you are a marrow man in disguise, but perhaps you just don't know it yet. Then again, I may be mistaken.

You're right, the general assembly didn't agree with the Marrow Men. And then again, Catholics didn't agree with Luther. Sometimes church councils are wrong. Anyway, it should make us proceed with caution.

In this case, the GA was wrong.

I'm guessing you haven't actually read the Marrow, judging from a couple things you said before. Actually, I'm guessing you've gotten most of your info from the PRCA or people repeating their stuff - those guys don't like the Marrow for sure.

First of all, the Marrow Controversy really ISN'T about Limited Atonement, like you said earlier. Its about whether or not repentance is a work that must be done before you can partake of Christ. The GA (the neonomians) said yes. Reformed folks say no, faith and repentance come afterwards graciously. The Marrow Men were accused of being Antinomian (though a third of the book is devoted to crushing antinomianism). They were simply anti-neonomian, declaring that repentance was not the new law that must be fulfilled before Christ can save you.

That was the issue. But the hyper-calvinist issue (i.e., the PRCA issue - they ARE hyper-calvinist, even though they don't say so) with the Marrow regards limited atonement and the general call. I see you agree with the fact that many are called but few are chosen. That's hard to argue with.

AND I agree with you that Christ only died for the elect. Obviously, if Jesus died for everyone, than everyone would be saved. The thing is, the Marrow Men would agree with you to. It's not that your doctrine is wrong or theirs is wrong (you both believe that Jesus only died for the elect). Its that your understanding of their beliefs is wrong. In Boston's notes on the Marrow, he specifically denies that "Christ died for all." Seeing as I don't have a copy on me at this moment, I might quote him later.

You should read it! It really is a great book. :bs2:
 
Daniel,

Though you hid it in a parenthetical statement...please don't repeat the tired old phrase that the PRC is hyper-calvinistic.This has been gone over before.Read past quotes from Hoeksema.Phillip Johnson is not trustworthy on this issue.the same applies to John Gill.
 
[quote:ecea86e6c2="Learner"]Daniel,

Though you hid it in a parenthetical statement...please don't repeat the tired old phrase that the PRC is hyper-calvinistic.[/quote:ecea86e6c2]

Interesting. I wouldn't say that I "hid it."

I did read the articles, I just didn't find your arguments convincing, unless I'm going with a more narrow definition of hypercalvinism. And then in that case I would agree with you.

I also read some of what Hanko said about what the Marrow Men taught. Having just read the Marrow, I'm guessing Hanko hasn't, cause he was way off. I am interested, though, in what you find so "hollow" about their theology?
 
Hi Daniel,

I am sorry.I didn't mean to say that you hid your hyper-calvinistic charge against the PRC.
A narrow definition is best,otherwise you will lump in many godly,biblical folks.If your definition is too wide it paints with too wide a brush.Too many people use the term 'hyper-calvinistic"as a theological swearword.Would you include A.W.Pink in your wide swath?
How about saying that hyper-calvinism does not believe in evangelizing.?Also,that it denies that we should exhort people to believe and repent.That it does not believe in missions.Some extras could be added but that is essentially it.The PRC does not fall under such charges.
Now I may be given the same treatment when I say that Marrowism is bad theology.It is certainly not Calvinistic.Marrowism is more than Edward Fisher and Thomas Boston.It includes Ralph and Ebenezer Erskine and James Hog.AND...a good many professing Calvinists today.
Did you ever read Thomas Chalmers'sermon:"Fury Not in God"?It is rife with Arminianism.
When the Scottish General Assembly made their decision many years ago,it condemned such theology as unorthodox.So should we.In like fashion the Synod of Dort should be upheld today.
For the sake of clarity,I do not mean to say that many with such wrong theology are not saved.But they are still biblically wrong.Arminianism and Amyraldianism is scripturally weak.(Maybe the former statement is "weak")
 
I do think the Marrow men aren't getting a fair shake here. They certainly were not Arminian. But the GA in that time period certainly was heading down that road. I would repeat the exhortation already given, to actually read the Marrow, and in particular Boston's notes. Also read the sermons of the Erskines. I think you will find it very hard to assert they are Arminian from their own material. Boston and the Erskines preached very similar to Rutherford and the earlier Scottish Presbyterians. And when you read through the Marrow, you will see that Boston often references them to support his claims. It was the GA who was drifting away. The Marrow men just refused to drift with them.
 
These accusations of my not having read the Marrow or Boston's notes are unfounded. Admittedly I haven't read all of the Marrow, or all of Boston's notes. But I did read them in their own context. And I have listened to part of Ferguson's defense of the book, BEFORE this conversation. I was appaled by his statement "we ought to preach to sinners,'Christ died for you'". The GA, from my limited knowledge, as well as the Synod of Dordt, Owen's treatment of Limited Atonement etc are better guides in understanding the Gospel then any of the aforementioned writers.
 
[quote:da3cf322c0="Ianterrell"]These accusations of my not having read the Marrow or Boston's notes are unfounded. Admittedly I haven't read all of the Marrow, or all of Boston's notes. But I did read them in their own context. And I have listened to part of Ferguson's defense of the book, BEFORE this conversation. I was appaled by his statement "we ought to preach to sinners,'Christ died for you'". The GA, from my limited knowledge, as well as the Synod of Dordt, Owen's treatment of Limited Atonement etc are better guides in understanding the Gospel then any of the aforementioned writers.[/quote:da3cf322c0]

Relax, Ian! No one accused you of not reading the book. I said I'm GUESSING you haven't actually read it, judging by some of the things you said before. If it makes you feel better, allow me to qualify it:

I don't think you've read enough of the Marrow, because you say that they teach things that just aren't in there.

I thought we were talking about the Marrow Controversy, not Dr. Ferguson. I shouldn't have to point out that he wasn't alive when the controversy happened. If we're talking about the Marrow Controversy, bringing in some Red Herring secondary source won't help your side. You have accusations, so show me where they said it. I HAVE read the whole book, and I just can't find what you're talking about. In other words, it seems to me that your accustations are unfounded. Prove me wrong with some foundation, please. Here's a primary source for you:

Query X: Whether the revelation of the divine will in the word, affording a warrant to offer Christ unto all, and a warrent to all to receive him, can be said to be the Father's making a deed of gift and grant of Christ unto all mankind? Is this grant to all mankind by sovereign grace? And whether is it absolute or conditional!

Ans.- ...although we believe the purchase and application of redemption to be peculiar to the elect, who were given by the Father to Christ in the counsel of peace, yet the warrent to receive him is common to all. Ministers, by virtue of the commission they have received from their great Lord and Master, are authorized and instructed to go preach the gospel to every creature... - Messrs. Hog, Boston, Williamson, Kid, Wilson, Erskine, Erskine, Wardlaw, Davidson, Bathgate, Hunter (i.e., the "Marrow Men" - not just Fisher and Boston, BTW)

What's wrong with that? How bout this (from Boston's notes):

Therefore he says not (talking about Fisher - DanielC), 'Tell every man that Christ died for him;' but Tell every man 'Christ is dead for him;' that is, for him to come to and believe on; a Saviour is provided for him, the ordinance of heaven for salvation for lost man, in the use-making of which he may be save; even as one has said of old, Tell every man that hath slain any person unawares, that the city of refuge is prepared for him, namely, to flee to, that he may be safe; and every one bitten by a serpent, that the brazen serpent is set up on a pole for him, namely, to look unto, that he may be healed. Both of these were eminent types of Christ... Jn. iii. 14-16, 'And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the son of man be lifeted up, that WHOSOEVER believeth on him should not persih, but have eternal life... Matt xxii. 4, "Tell them which are bidden, Behold, I have prepared my dinner: my oxen and my fatlings are killed, and all things are ready, come unto the marriage." There is a crucified Savious, with all saving benefits, for them to come to, feed upon, and partake of freeely.

I could go on, but I do have things to do. Honestly, I cringed a bit when I saw the phrase, 'Christ is dead for you, ' while I was reading, but the notes explain the odd phrase, and the rest of the book clearly teaches solid Calvinism. Besides, the book ISN'T EVEN ABOUT LIMITED ATONEMENT. Its about the true gospel as opposed to both antinomianism and legalism. It also explains the place of the law quite well, and is informative in regards to the Covenant. Limited Atonement is right around point #47 in terms of what the book is about, I'd say, and even then they support it!

No doubt if you set your mind to digging to find some error, I'm sure you could somewhere - its not the Bible. That doesn't mean that humans can't write useful things just because we aren't infallible, or that the Marrow isn't useful. Some people spend their lives trying to find the bad in everything - or that they aren't good at it. But there is such a thing as being aware and condemning the bad without being consumed by it to the neglect of beauty and good things. Not that anyone here does that, but Ian, you don't like the Marrow Men-tality "one bit," when its grand subject is the gospel of Jesus Christ!

I know you're reformed, and I can't see where the Marrow Men disagree with you. Can you please show me where they are in error? Learner: again, can you show me where they stray from Calvinism? We're talking about the Marrow of Modern Divinity here primarily (we're in the library) and secondly, the Marrow Controversy itself, so lets try to stick with that in this thread.

Daniel :bs2:
 
Learner - you're probably right. Maybe I should narrow my definition of hyper-calvinism.

Daniel :bs2:
 
[quote:ba74701725="DanielC"][quote:ba74701725="Ianterrell"]These accusations of my not having read the Marrow or Boston's notes are unfounded. Admittedly I haven't read all of the Marrow, or all of Boston's notes. But I did read them in their own context. And I have listened to part of Ferguson's defense of the book, BEFORE this conversation. I was appaled by his statement "we ought to preach to sinners,'Christ died for you'". The GA, from my limited knowledge, as well as the Synod of Dordt, Owen's treatment of Limited Atonement etc are better guides in understanding the Gospel then any of the aforementioned writers.[/quote:ba74701725]

Relax, Ian! No one accused you of not reading the book. I said I'm GUESSING you haven't actually read it, judging by some of the things you said before. If it makes you feel better, allow me to qualify it:[/quote:ba74701725]

I'm not offended Daniel. But I don't know why you are taking this patronizing tone with me. I don't need to be pacified. Stick to dealing with content, not dealing with whatever perception you have of my attitude. We aren't talking either face to face, or on the phone. You have no idea how "offended" I am. Which as I said before, I'm not. Again stay on task.


[quote:ba74701725] I don't think you've read enough of the Marrow, because you say that they teach things that just aren't in there.[/quote:ba74701725]

Do I have to read everything Fischer says to understand his point of view?

[quote:ba74701725]I thought we were talking about the Marrow Controversy, not Dr. Ferguson. I shouldn't have to point out that he wasn't alive when the controversy happened. If we're talking about the Marrow Controversy, bringing in some Red Herring secondary source won't help your side.[/quote:ba74701725]

Why do you assume I don't know who Ferguson is or what era the Marrow Controvesy took place in, or who was involved in it? Are these kinds of comments really necessary? Someone commented about Ferguson's series. That's the only reason why I mentioned him.

[quote:ba74701725]You have accusations, so show me where they said it. I HAVE read the whole book, and I just can't find what you're talking about. In other words, it seems to me that your accustations are unfounded. Prove me wrong with some foundation, please. Here's a primary source for you:

Query X: Whether the revelation of the divine will in the word, affording a warrant to offer Christ unto all, and a warrent to all to receive him, can be said to be the Father's making a deed of gift and grant of Christ unto all mankind? Is this grant to all mankind by sovereign grace? And whether is it absolute or conditional!

Ans.- ...although we believe the purchase and application of redemption to be peculiar to the elect, who were given by the Father to Christ in the counsel of peace, yet the warrent to receive him is common to all. Ministers, by virtue of the commission they have received from their great Lord and Master, are authorized and instructed to go preach the gospel to every creature... - Messrs. Hog, Boston, Williamson, Kid, Wilson, Erskine, Erskine, Wardlaw, Davidson, Bathgate, Hunter (i.e., the "Marrow Men" - not just Fisher and Boston, BTW)[/quote:ba74701725]

I already knew who the Marrow Men were. Again is this kind of approach necessary? Do I deserve to be talked to like an imbecile? I still take exception to their actual doctrines which I have looked at personally. I don't take exception to this statement...

[quote:ba74701725]Therefore he says not (talking about Fisher - DanielC), 'Tell every man that Christ died for him;' but Tell every man 'Christ is dead for him;' that is, for him to come to and believe on; a Saviour is provided for him, the ordinance of heaven for salvation for lost man, in the use-making of which he may be save; even as one has said of old, Tell every man that hath slain any person unawares, that the city of refuge is prepared for him, namely, to flee to, that he may be safe; and every one bitten by a serpent, that the brazen serpent is set up on a pole for him, namely, to look unto, that he may be healed. Both of these were eminent types of Christ... Jn. iii. 14-16, 'And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the son of man be lifeted up, that WHOSOEVER believeth on him should not persih, but have eternal life... Matt xxii. 4, "Tell them which are bidden, Behold, I have prepared my dinner: my oxen and my fatlings are killed, and all things are ready, come unto the marriage." There is a crucified Savious, with all saving benefits, for them to come to, feed upon, and partake of freeely.[/quote:ba74701725]

This is exactly what offends me about their ideas. Christ is not dead for them. A lamb prepared for all men. He is not a Savior provided for all men. He saves whoseover believes. I take exception to their language. You can accuse me of nitpicking, you can make fun of me, throw unwarranted comments at me. Fine. But my problem is that the Gospel is being watered down in their words.

[quote:ba74701725]I could go on, but I do have things to do. Honestly, I cringed a bit when I saw the phrase, 'Christ is dead for you, ' while I was reading, but the notes explain the odd phrase, and the rest of the book clearly teaches solid Calvinism. Besides, the book ISN'T EVEN ABOUT LIMITED ATONEMENT.[/quote:ba74701725]

I did not say that it did. I said this issue is about upholding Limited Atonement.

[quote:ba74701725]No doubt if you set your mind to digging to find some error, I'm sure you could somewhere - its not the Bible. That doesn't mean that humans can't write useful things just because we aren't infallible, or that the Marrow isn't useful. Some people spend their lives trying to find the bad in everything - or that they aren't good at it. But there is such a thing as being aware and condemning the bad without being consumed by it to the neglect of beauty and good things. Not that anyone here does that, but Ian, you don't like the Marrow Men-tality "one bit," when its grand subject is the gospel of Jesus Christ![/quote:ba74701725]

Daniel, look, I stated I had problems with the book. If you're going to make this into a scenario with me being opposed to the gospel, well I don't know what to say. Whatever the books deficiencies or merits, you didn't have to talk to me the way that you did. I'm not trying to oppose the Gospel at all. I'm trying to excavate it.

I already expressed the problems I had with the book. I didn't make general statements I dealt with their own words and ideas. I didn't attack you personally or expect this kind of response in return. If you would like to discuss this issue calmly I will proceed. If not...
 
Wow! This book does have a knack for stirring up controversy!

Sorry - I don't know how to do multiple quotes, so you may have to reference previous posts:

Ian, I'm glad you aren't offended. I never said you were. No need to put the word in quotes as if I did. I don't think you were attacking me personally, and again never said as much. I never meant to be degrading. Sorry that I came across that way. Please forgive me. :handshake: I don't think you're nitpicky - in fact, I like your zeal. I don't think you're an imbicil - your posts have been some of the most intellegent I've seen on the board. I know you aren't opposed to the gospel - I already said you're reformed. I know you know who Dr. Ferguson is - I never said you didn't, and you have no reason to imply I did.

Ian, I didn't write the names of the marrow men for you. It was in response to Learner's statement, "Marrowism is more than Edward Fisher and Thomas Boston.It includes Ralph and Ebenezer Erskine and James Hog.AND...a good many professing Calvinists today." I wanted to show I was getting my info from more than just Boston and Fisher. It was no means an attempt to make you look like an imbicil. Anyway, that's a really high standard if not knowing who the marrow men were makes one an imbicil. How many people in this world even have even heard of the marrow controversy? I DO think you are overreacting. Let's put that aside.

You did say "Yes my friend Eric Sigward made me aware of the Marrow Controversy. Basically its all about Limited Atonement at the end of the day." I don't think this is accurate. The controversy is about sola fide. Marrow men believe it, neonomians (the GA was neonomian) don't. I applaud their stand. The book itself is about the true gospel in opposition to both antinomianism and legalism. To say that you don't like the marrow mentality one bit over what seems to me to be a side issue is throwing out the baby with the bathwater, in my opinion. The Marrow's work on the place of the Law in the life of the believer is excellent, its distinctions between antinomianism, legalism, and the gospel is excellent. Its a good book. The Marrow men made a good stand.

You also did say, "The gospel is not despite the Marrow Men's delusions a statement in which "Christ died for all". Where did they say this? I can't find it. Like you, I wouldn't agree with such a statement. I share your zeal. But please show me where they say this. Or please retract it for the benefit of those who are considering the book.

Unless someone besides me wants to quote a primary source, it seems to me the argument here is about whether or not its acceptable to tell people that Jesus is dead for you, that is, there is a crucified sacrifice that is freely offered to you for the remission of your sins, even though we know that only the elect will be given the grace to believe. Honestly, I'm not comfortable with the statement "Christ is dead for you" (because Jesus is alive!) and wouldn't tell someone that in evangelism, but I do agree with the rest of the above statment, which is what Boston thinks Fisher meant by it. And I think so too, as the rest of the book testifies to his orthodoxy, including his belief in limited atonement. Anyway, for any onlookers, the book isn't even about this topic.

Once again, can anyone show me how the theology of the marrow men is hollow? or inconsistent? or where it strays from Calvinism? If you say they were, again, please show me.

Daniel
 
I will be quoting from A.A.Hodge's book :"The Atonement".In it he acknowledges that it is "excellent and orthodox".But he goes on to say that the Marrowmen make use of a term they call the "double reference of the atonement--a peculiarity which consequently for a long time unhappily distinguished the theology of the Secession Churches from that of the great current of the Reformed Churches...The statement in the Marrow from which they took their departure is as follows:'i beseech you to consider that God the Father,as he is in his Son Jesus Christ,moved by nothing but his free love to mankind lost,hath made a deed of gift and grant unto all men,that whosoever shall believe in his Son shall not perish,but have eternal life.'[p.126 in M.of D.]
Hodge goes on to say that the beliefs of the M.men are:"That God,out of his general philanthropy,or love fpr human sinners as such,has made a Deed of gift of Christ and of the benefits of his redemption to all indifferently,to be claimed upon the condition of faith.This general love of God is styled his 'giving love,'and is distinguished from his 'electing love,'of which only the elect,and his 'complacent love,'of which only the sanctified are the objects.This Deed of Gift or Grant of Christ to all sinners as such,they held,is not to be merely resolved into the general offer of the gospel,but is to be regarded as the foundation upon which that general offer rests.It is a real grant;universal;an expression of love;conditioned on faith;the foundation upon which the ministerial offer of salvation rests;and it is the 'warrant' upon which the faith of every believer rests,and by which that faith is justified."
Hodge continues a page later by saying that "all their forms of expression were confused and their laborious distinctions utterly profitless.".
I will have to stop here,for now.To be continued later D.V.
 
Continuing

"In the language of the 'Marrow men' God's 'giving love'signifies a general benevolence towards all human sinners...All really consistent Calvinists ought to have learned by this time that the original positions of the great writers and confessions of the Reformed Churches have only been confused,and neither improved,strengthened nor illustrated by all the talk with which the Church has,in the mean time,been distracted [by]the 'double reference'of the Atonement.If men will be consistent in their adherence to these 'Novelties,'they must become Arminians.If they would hold consistently to the essential principles of Calvinism,they must discard the 'Novelties'.(quotes from pages 380-385 in this post and the former)


On page 379 Hodge comments on Amyraldus and Testardus who were brought before the Synod of Alencon in 1637.Their errors are like the Marrow men in that both"attempt[ed]to engraft the notion of a general redemption upon the Calvinistic system...(page 375).Continuing on p.379:"When used by men otherwise orthodox this 'Novelity'is,...an evidence of absurdly confused thought and disordered language...it necessarily involves the use of language which properly and by common usage is significant of Arminian error.Its use generally marks a state of transition from comparative orthodoxy to more serious error.It often covers a secret sympathy with heresies not distinctly avowed."
 
This is from an excellent article called:"Universalism and the Reformed Churches".It's a publication of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church of Australia.The denomination bears a likeness to the PRC.The article has some important quotes from Edward Fisher's book.

1)"Christ hath taken upon Him the sins of all men."

2)Of Christ,"The Father hath made a deed of gift and grant unto all mankind."

3)"Whatsoever Christ did for the redemption of mankind,He did for you."

4)"Go and tell every man without exception,that here is good news for him,Christ is dead for him."
 
Okay,okay, but do we have to throw the whole book out? It seems like the Marrow Men were responding to a hyper-Calvinism that was so concerned that people show fruits of repentance that it was amounting to a kind of perfectionism.

Marrow-Men vs. Narrow-Men?
 
Meg,

First: These things are serious enough to warrant godly men taking exception with them. Who says the Marrow Men were fighting Hyper-Calvinism? Really it was inconsistent Calvinism against consistent Calvinism.

Second: Why do you assume that just because we are taking exception with a flawed Gospel that we are rejecting all the good that may be in the book? Christians do this kind of thing all time! Would you have asked Martin Luther why he was making a big deal out of a few small issues? He wasn't calling for a rejection of all the good in the Catholic Church he was calling for a rejection of the impurities. That's what's going on here. I'm interested in dealing with the impurities of the book, and the Marrow teachings, not the purities.
 
[quote:19b8a2cb41]Go and tell every man without exception,that here is good news for him,Christ is dead for him.[/quote:19b8a2cb41]

Ian,

Do you object merely to the part of the quoted sentence implying that Christ in fact died for all men, both the elect and non-elect? Or do you also object to the suggestion that the gospel should be freely offered to all?
 
Lauren. I'm not a hyper-calvinist. I believe we are called to preach the gospel to those of all cultures, social standing, and ethnic backgrounds. To "make disciples of the nations".
 
[quote:d4307ed00d]I'm not a hyper-calvinist. I believe we are called to preach the gospel to those of all cultures, social standing, and ethnic backgrounds. To "make disciples of the nations".[/quote:d4307ed00d]

Very glad to hear it -- and not surprised. Just wanted to make sure I understood where you're coming from. :handshake:
 
Lauren,

No Prob.

Josh,

That's my issue with the Marrow Men as well. The Gospel is principally repent and believe, not "Jesus died for you. Won't you accept him?" It is simple.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Von
  • Locked
Maurice Roberts and the Marrow Controversy
Replies
29
Views
4K
Five Solas
F
Reformed Covenanter
William Beveridge: Bad men cannot do good works
Replies
0
Views
387
Reformed Covenanter
Reformed Covenanter
M
  • Locked
H. Hanko: Love all men versus love evil
Replies
0
Views
2K
Mayflower
M
Reformed Covenanter
Samuel Blair: Does God create men to damn them?
Replies
0
Views
620
Reformed Covenanter
Reformed Covenanter
ReformedInSweden
  • Locked
Rom. 5:18 justification and life for all men
Replies
12
Views
3K
ReformedInSweden
ReformedInSweden
Back
Top