I’ve read with interest debates in the Reformed community on the doctrine of sanctification the last few years. Debates about the motivations and sources of sanctification now are worked through in discussions on Ref21, The Gospel Coalition, and other Reformed web blogs. Tullian Tchividjian has been at the center of these discussions and has received critiques from theologians and pastors such as Rick Phillips, William B. Evans, and Kevin DeYoung.
As a recent seminary graduate that is now doing a church planting internship, these discussions have also taken place around me. In addition, in my call to preach in a church plant where I am standing before young people plotted at different points on the spiritual spectrum (including agnostics), I feel the pressure to balance both Paul and James in presenting the gospel that both evangelizes and edifies.
However, a helpful observation by Tim Keller in his new book, Center Church: Doing Balanced, Gospel-Centered Ministry in Your City, has had me frame this debate in a new way. Rather than seeing one side of this debate advocating a non-Reformed or non-confessional view of sanctification, I believe something akin to the Marrow Controversy of the 18th century is happening.
Keller appeals to the Marrow Controversy as to why pastors and churches in the same denomination subscribe to the same confession but have different philosophies of ministry (what Keller calls ‘Theological Vision’). The Marrow Controversy had two sides that both subscribed to the Westminster Standards but worked out the implications of their confessional theology in different ways. The so-called Marrow Men (Thomas Boston, Ebenezer Erskine, Ralph Erskine) advocated the ‘free offer of the gospel’ while the opposition did not see gospel ministers as having the right to offer the gospel to those who did not show signs of election. The reason that the Westminster Standards did not resolve the issue is that systematic theology alone won’t answer all of our questions about practical theology, especially if it is a ‘boundary-set’ theology as opposed to ‘center-set’ (to borrow a line of thinking from Carl Trueman). A boundary-set theology answers many questions, but many others questions are left unanswered in light of our contemporary context.
Is something like this going on in the debate over sanctification? I am inclined to say yes. As I read a Tchividjian blog, a Jack Miller book, or listen to a Keller sermon, I don’t hear anything non-confessional regarding sanctification. Indeed, many imperatives jump out as I read or listen to these men. There is no denial of the third use of the law as such, but the emphasis and outworking of these ideas looks different pastorally than how their critics would prefer. Yet, this has less to do with the Westminister Standards and probably more to do with ‘Theological Vision’ and the various contexts these pastors and theologians do ministry.
I don’t agree with Tchividjian’s entire approach to the matter. I am more inclined to agree with William B. Evans, Sinclair Ferguson, and Richard Gaffin as to how they view sanctification in light of our union with Christ rather than our justification. I don’t deny that viewing one’s sanctification in logical connection to justification is unbiblical (it certainly isn’t). Rather, union with Christ seems to be the more dominant perspective in the New Testament. If we are to be as balanced as the Bible is balanced, then this needs to be preached and taught more than it currently is. (I am indebted to Evans for his work in this area.)
Yet, even if my emphasis and balancing perspectives are different from Tchividjian or others, the fact that this debate has less to do with confessional theology and is more like the Marrow Controversy will give me more grace and charity in discussing these issues, though the Marrow Controversy itself did lack charity. I am dialoging with men who are confessional, Reformed, and in good standing in their presbyteries. Their ‘imbalance’ shouldn’t be condemned. Rather, we should encourage loving, civil dialogue.
None of us are striking the most balanced presentation of this issues that takes into account all that the Bible says about soteriology. It would benefit the Reformed community to learn from other voices which articulate different emphases so that we don’t oscillate between legalism or antinomianism. It would also benefit the Reformed community to articulate a Reformed faith that seeks understanding from Scripture alone, realizing how nuanced God’s Word is when it comes to the motivations and sources of our becoming more like Jesus.
O Felix Culpa 
Pingback: The Contemporary Sanctification Debate: The New Marrow Controversy?
Pingback: The Contemporary Sanctification Debate: The New Marrow Controversy? | Redeemedography
Thanks for this, David. I first read it at The Aquila Report.
There’s one significant thing that must be said, however: In The Marrow Controversy, the “Marrow Men” were right, and the “Moderates” were wrong. It was much more than a matter of viewing the same truth from slightly different angles. The Gospel itself was at stake. I don’t think it’s an exaggeration to say that, in the current debate, Sanctification itself is at stake.
Frank, thanks for the comment.
I don’t disagree with you that in the Marrow Controversy that the ‘Marrow Men’ were right. As an ARP, I am also required to say such!
And I do say in my article that I disagree with Tullian’s approach in that he doesn’t take into account all that the Bible says about sanctification.
I would take issue with you with the claim that the gospel itself was at stake in the Marrow Controversy. Again, both sides were strictly confessional. The issue had less to do with the Westminster Standards and more to do with practical theology.
I would also disagree that sanctification itself is at stake. As I stated in my article, one may find imperatives and third use appeals when reading or listening to guys like Miller, Keller, Chappel, or Tchividjian. I may disagree with how Clark and Horton construct sanctification in relation to union, but I don’t believe the sanctification itself is at stake. Otherwise, would I claim that the Westminster Standards are defective and thus sanctification hangs in the balance? By no means.
I appreciate your article. The Marrow Controversy always piques my interest. I also appreciate your highlighting of the distinction between boundary set and center set theology.
Regarding the Marrow Controversy,I tend to agree with Frank. The Marrow Controversy was an issue of the Gospel (and the doctrine espoused by the “neo-nomians” was against the WCF. cf. 15.3).
In the present issue,I think that Tchividjian’s concern is to protect the Gospel, but he over reaches, especially in his more recent writings. There is much to be said, but I think the confession is fairly clear on its teaching about sanctification (you know the chapters: 13, 16,18). I don’t mean this disparagingly, but Tchividijian’s views on sanctification sound more Lutheran than Reformed. Please don’t hear me saying that he is disregarding the confession. I’m quite sure that he does not think he is outside of the boundary lines. His concerns are good and noble, but I feel that he pushes too far in the opposite direction of the errors he is correcting at the risk of giving an (unintentionally) unblblical outlook on sanctification in the Christian life..
Thanks for the comment.
Not all those who opposed the Marrow Men were neo-nomian. And even so, how would WCF 15.3 go against those who opposed the Marrow Men?
Also, I would agree with Sinclair Ferguson that the Marrow controversy is a gospel issue, and I think the sanctification debate today has implications for the gospel. But again, I wouldn’t claim that Tchividjian (and by extension, Horton and Clark) are non-confessional.
While I do agree that Tullian and others cite Luther more than a typical Reformed person, there is the debate over whether Luther is actually ‘Lutheran’ on sanctification. There is early, middle, and later Luther on the law of God. He doesn’t necessarily contradict himself, but his emphasis changes.
Sorry, Daniel, for calling you “David” earlier.
I should have qualified my remarks by saying something like, “If certain writers continue unchecked along the path they’ve chosen, the doctrine of sanctification itself will soon be at stake.” I’m actually more concerned about doubling-down on a weak theology than what is being taught at present. Ideas have consequences, and wrong ideas always have harmful consequences. Call this a “slippery slope” argument if you will. There have been many good men who have sincrely believed that they were in line with the Confession, but whose views became so one-sided that they actually departed from the Confession in significant ways.
I get called David a lot. 🙂 No problem.
Helpful Daniel. Thanks.