Tag Archives: Auchterarder Creed

11/17/20

Ready for the Gospel

© Maksym Chornii | 123rf.com

In “The Order of Grace,” the fifth video in the teaching series The Whole Christ, Sinclair Ferguson remarked how the serpent distorted the character of God in Genesis 3. He noted this was the very essence of legalism, when God’s loving character was divorced from His law. Our eyes become focused on the law as if it consisted of naked commandments and not as the directives of our heavenly Father who wants the very best for us. In a remarkable way, Genesis 3 underlines how closely related to one another legalism and antinomianism are. We often think of antinomianism and legalism as opposites to one another, but we discover in the gospel they are dealt with “by using exactly the same medicine.”

One of the questions raised by the controversy over the “Auchterader Creed,” and The Marrow of Modern Divinity, was, do we forsake sin and repent in order to be prepared to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ? Thomas Boston thought that putting repentance first was not a helpful way to understand the message of the gospel. However, there was a concern that failing to put repentance first would lead people into antinomianism if they did not have the law of God leading to conviction of sin, and then to faith. Boston and others wanted to argue that just as an increase in our sanctification does nothing to our justification, repentance does not precede faith as a condition for coming to Christ.

For some people that was a very frightening thought. If you don’t insist that you’ve got to add to your justification and your sanctification, then will people not live any way they want? If you’re as justified in the first day of your Christian life as you will be on the last day of your Christian life, and you’re saying to people, “You can live any way you want in between.”

Insisting that there were conditions that need to be met before you came to faith in Christ “poisoned the waters, rather than brought forth the pure water of the gospel.” Yet, does not the very language of Scripture indicate that repentance must come before believing? Ferguson then reminded his audience of what was said previously about the “ordo salutis,” the order of salvation (See “Wandering Into Legalism”), that it was often conceived of as a chain. Ferguson said this image of a chain necessarily has one link closing over another, in a kind of progression of links.

And it seems to me that that very way of looking at things, understanding the application of redemption by looking through spectacles that have been crafted, as it were, to see a chain as the organizing principle, almost inevitably means that either you put the link of repentance before faith or you put the link of faith before repentance. And when you’ve done that, you’ve already produced a way of looking at things that is likely, it seems to me, to lead you astray.

Repentance and faith are not joined together like two links in a chain, “They are simply ways of describing what happens when we are united to Jesus Christ and trust Him. We cannot come to Him without leaving the past. And we certainly cannot leave the past unless we come to Him.” Calvin and the Westminster Confession of Faith put it this way—repentance is necessary for salvation, but repentance is not the instrument by which we come to faith in Christ. Genuine repentance takes place within the context of faith, the context of us responding to the grace of God and Jesus Christ in the gospel.

This is why Paul said the law ultimately will not lead us to repentance. Ferguson said: “It may convict us of sin, but the turning around requires the kindness of God, the hope of salvation.” There is no genuine repentance unless there is a sense and a trust in the promised mercy of God in Jesus Christ. “This is what transforms repentance from a work that we accomplish to a response that we make wrought in us by the power of the Holy Spirit as we turn from our sinful lifestyle to a genuine faith in our Savior Jesus Christ.” Genuine repentance always takes place within the context of saving faith.

If repentance is not steeped with faith in Jesus Christ, then it’s legalism, not evangelical repentance. “Repentance is not the means by which we come to Christ.” It is the other side of the coin of faith in which we entrust ourselves to Christ. If you think about repentance and faith chronologically, you are in danger of legalism. “You need to set it within the context of the grace of God in the gospel.” John Calvin said: “A man cannot apply himself seriously to repentance without knowing himself to belong to God. But no one is truly persuaded that he belongs to God unless he has first recognized God’s grace.”

At this point, Ferguson referred to the parable of the prodigal son, or as he retitled it, the parable of the waiting father. Chapter 15 of Luke begins with the Pharisees and scribes grumbling that Jesus receives and even eats with (unclean) sinners. The rabbis taught that God welcomes a penitent sinner, but Jesus sought out sinners, and even ate with them. By their complaint, the Pharisees and scribes effectively were saying that sinners were not good enough to receive the gospel. They’ve not repented, so they’re not really qualified to hear the gospel; they’re not ready for the gospel.

In response to their complaint, Jesus told three parables: the parable of the lost sheep (Luke 15:3-7), the parable of the lost coin (Luke 15:8-10) and the parable of the prodigal son (Luke 15: 11-32). There is a heightening tension here. In the far country, what leads the son to repentance? “It is the memory that there is food in his father’s house.” He is at the end of himself, but does not say, “I think I need to repent.” Rather, he recalls there is food in the father’s house. “In the story, it’s just the possibility that there might be provision for his need in his father’s house that first brings about the turning home.” Theologically, it is the way the mercy of God evokes the beginning faith in his life and leads him to say, “I will arise and go to my father”—I will go home; I will repent.

The theme that emerges from these three parables is God and the angels rejoice when one who was lost, is found; when one who was dead becomes alive again. God freely offers mercy and salvation to sinners and he celebrates when a wayward son returns to him. Although repentance of the son is important in the parable of the prodigal son, the father’s readiness to forgive stands out. His unexpected actions represent the fatherly love of God for wayward human beings.

Notice that the father sees his returning son when he was still a long way off (Luke 15:20). The father was apparently watching closely for his son’s return. Then the father does something extraordinary—he runs to his son. Culturally, it was undignified for an older man to lift up his robes and run. This father could have done nothing more shameful than what he did. “What that father should have done was to have arranged a ceremony in which the prodigal son would be shamed.”

The father’s actions indicate complete forgiveness and restoration of the younger son. He embraced and kissed him. He ordered the best robe to be put on his son and for shoes to be found for his feet. To commemorate this special occasion, he called for a fattened calf to be killed. The father unequivocally rejected the son declaring he was no longer worthy to be called his son (Luke 15:21). Before the son can say, “Make me one of your hired servants,” the father embraced him in his love.

He’s not going to let this boy say, “Make me one of your hired servants,” because, “This my son was lost and is found. He was dead and he is alive.” And pictorially it’s as though the grace of the heavenly Father—although to be truthful, in the parable it’s really Jesus who is the father, isn’t it? . . . He says, “My child, you were lost and you’re found. You were dead and you’re alive.” The father is a picture of the Lord Jesus.

The older brother complained that despite all the time he served the father, never disobeying him, he never received even a young goat to celebrate with his friends. But when this son, the one who squandered the father’s property on prostitutes comes, “You killed the fattened calf for him!” We see here the reflection of the judgmental spirit of the Pharisees. The father’s reply to his older son is telling: “All that is mine is yours.”

Those who rely on their faithfulness, expecting that they should receive a greater reward than a mere repentant sinner, have missed the point. Jesus Christ came to seek the lost and rejoices when the wayward repent and return.

This article has been based on “The Order of Grace,” the fifth video in Sinclair Ferguson’s teaching series, The Whole Christ, from Ligonier Connect. Here is a link to Ligonier Connect. The video series is itself based upon his book of the same name. You can review summaries of the Marrow Controversy here and here. If the topic interests you, look for more of my ruminations under the link, The Whole Christ.

04/28/20

The Marrow of the Whole Christ

Old church tower at the village of Auchterader © wfmillar (cc-by-sa/2.0)

“Everything God has to give us He gives to us in the person of our Lord Jesus Christ.” We must never look at the benefits Our Lord gives us, without seeing them in Christ’s hands, because we have them only in Him. “It takes a whole Bible, to teach a whole Christ, in order to make a whole Christian. . . . So often Christians are diverted from the Lord Jesus Christ.” These remarks were spoken by Sinclair Ferguson in his video series on The Whole Christ. They helped introduce his first talk on the Marrow Controversy, a little-known dispute within the Scottish church that took place in the early 18th century. But the dispute involved issues that exist in the church today.

In February of 1717, the Presbytery of Auchterarder intended to ordain William Craig, who was seeking to preach the gospel within the Presbytery of Auchterarder. There was a unique question asked of every candidate, a question that became known as the Auchterarder Creed. Craig had previously said he could give a satisfactory response to the question, but then he began to have second thoughts. He came back to the Presbytery and said he did not think he has been entirely honest and could not affirm the Auchterarder Creed. He was voted on again, and his license to preach was revoked.

The decision of the Presbytery was appealed to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, and the General Assembly overturned the decision of the Presbytery. William Craig was then allowed to be licensed as a minister of the gospel. The question asked of him was: Do you agree that, “It is not sound and orthodox to teach that we need to forsake sin in order to come to Christ?” After the General Assembly had overturned the decision of the Presbytery of Auchterarder, Thomas Boston said to a minister sitting next to him that he had read a helpful book some twenty years before on the issue at hand: The Marrow of Modern Divinity, by Edward Fisher.

The Marrow addressed how we should offer the gospel of Jesus Christ to people, and what was the relationship between repentance and coming to faith in Jesus Christ—do we need to repent first, in order to a come to faith in Jesus Christ? It asked, what is legalism and what is antinomianism? Was it possible for a Christian to have assurance of salvation? The out-of-print book was then reprinted in 1718 by James Hog. Ferguson said it added “fuel to the fire” of the controversy begun by the Auchterarder Creed. The General Assembly began to discuss not only the Auchterarder Creed, but also The Marrow of Modern Divinity; and eventually banned the book.

A group of twelve men, including Thomas Boston and the Erskine brothers, Ralph and Ebeneezer, objected to the condemnation of the book by the General Assembly. Historically, they have become known as the Marrow Men. Although it was far from a perfect book, they felt the book enabled them to offer Jesus Christ freely to the lost. They also felt it helped them minister to Christians struggling with legalism or antinomianism, as well as bring doubting Christians to a full assurance of faith.

The Marrow of Modern Divinity was written in the form of a Socratic dialogue, a literary genre that uses a question-and-answer methodology, where two or more characters participate in a dialogue. The characters in the Marrow represented different points of view: Neophitus, the new Christian; Nomista, the legalist; Antinomista, the antinomian; and Evangelista, the wise pastor. The accusations that arose against the book and the Marrow Men, were that they taught, contrary to the Westminster Confession of Faith, a universal offer of the gospel based on universal redemption. Also, they were accused of teaching antinomianism—that in Christ, Christians were free from the law. And finally, that assurance was the essence of salvation; and if you were a Christian, then you would have assurance.

The charges were false. These were not the views of the Marrow Men; nor were they the views of The Marrow of Modern Divinity. But as Ferguson pointed out, these issues keep coming up in the church. If we believe Christ died to secure the salvation of the elect, how do we present Christ to people? Does it mean we should only offer Christ to the elect, and how do we know who are the elect? We would know by their repentance from sin; and when we see their repentance, we could offer Christ and his salvation to them. But then there is the question of the law: if the gospel is true, what is the purpose of the law now that we have become Christians?

And what about assurance? If I am a Christian, shouldn’t I enjoy the full assurance of salvation? One of the things The Marrow of Modern Divinity did for the Marrow Men was to set them free from some of the misunderstandings of the gospel which they had inherited from the kinds of teaching and preaching they had heard. Namely, that you could only offer the gospel to some people, because he only died for some people. Secondly, there was the problem of legalism, often characteristic of Christians who think that by their obedience, they can add to their justification.

Isn’t it true that it is actually quite difficult for many Christians to believe that they can never add to their justification? That they will never be more justified than they are the moment they come to faith in Jesus Christ. “Surely my sanctification will add to my justification.” Not if it is the justification of the gospel.

The “2016 State of American Theology Study” found that 53% of Americans believed salvation always begins with God changing a person so they can turn to Him in faith. 76% of Americans believed an individual must contribute his or her own effort for personal salvation. But how or when do you know if you’ve done enough? Many people, including the followers of the prosperity gospel, look at the blessings of faith in Christ. Martin Luther noted how Christians often become incurvatus in se, turned in upon ourselves. We begin to look at the benefits we have received rather than our benefactor, the Lord Jesus Christ.

You might think sanctification adds to your justification, if your justification was derived from yourself. But it can’t add to your justification if your justification was derived from Jesus Christ. We are in Christ; and in Christ every spiritual blessing is immediately ours. Ferguson said Thomas Boston thought the Auchterarder Creed was badly worded, but he knew there was nothing you do to qualify yourself to come to Jesus Christ. “You simply come to Him, because He’s invited you.”

This article has been based on “How a ‘Marrow’ Grew,” the first video in Sinclair Ferguson’s teaching series, The Whole Christ, from Ligonier Connect. There is a link above to Ligonier Connect. The video series is itself based upon his book of the same name. You can review summaries of the Marrow Controversy here and here. If the topic interests you, look for more of my ruminations under the link, The Whole Christ.