Dr. Peter Masters - John Murray not orthodox on ordo salutis?

[manito2000]

Hello everyone...

I have a quick question. In listening to the most recent Oct 2012 Seminary .mp3's from the Metropolitan Tabernacle Dr. Masters gives various things one should watch for in evangelistic preaching. One comment caught my attention. He states that Dr. John Murray was not orthodox on the ordo salutis. He said something to the effect that the traditional calvinistic understanding does not match what Dr. Murray put forth in Redemption Accomplished and Applied. He said that traditionally calvinists have not understood that regeneration occurs in an instant and then comes faith. He explained that the traditional understanding is that regeneration is sort of like a process and the end result is faith. Hope I'm being clear...

Thanks...

 

[Pergamum]

Do you have a quote?

 

[JonathanHunt]

No, you are not being clear at all.

What is your question? Are you asking if Peter Masters is correct? I'll make no comment on that front except to say that some other reformed baptists such as Geoff Thomas don't share his perspective. Take what he says, consider it, and form your own judgment.

It is well-known that Dr Masters does't like 'Redemption Accomplished and Applied' - he has spoken on this subject at School of Theology in the past.

 

[jwithnell]

If you are saying instant in the sense of time, you are correct: the orthodox view speaks of ordo salutis as a logical progression, not temporal. One is redeemed, so one may have faith. I'd note that Dr. Murray was of the 20th century's masters of exegesis, so much so that people like C.Van Til actually deferred to him when working with a text. Given his ability to discern what's in the text, I'd be really leery of someone who generally wants to disregard him.