John Murray...again

[Sydnorphyn]

Does anyone know where the following originated: book, article?

"Murray was quite honest about his own reservations about the Reformed tradition and quite clear when he was modifying the tradition."

Did Murray at any time challenge any of the standard reformed positions - covenant, baptism, etc.?

John

 

[R. Scott Clark]

Yes. Mr Murray revised a few traditional Reformed formulations. He revised our covenant theology by sometimes openly questioning and even rejecting the covenant of works in favor of the phrase "the covenant of life" (though, in the standards they refer to the same thing - and if counting matters, the WCF uses the expression "covenant of works" in two different chapters at least 4 times so that it has to be reckoned as part of the system of doctrine). He rejected the covenant of redemption (pactum salutis) between the Father and the Son from eternity.

He also revised the doctrine of sanctification to include a forensic/definitive element. He strongly questioned or rejected the visible/invisible distinction when reckoning the church.

He was quite conscious about these revisions.

He remained quite traditional in most of his theology (doctrines of Scripture, God, Christ, Soteriology (including justification), Church, Sacraments, and last things (though he became a post-millennialist later in his career as he wrote his 2 vol commentary on Romans).

He was a little confusing in his doctrine of baptism -- perhaps partly because he rejected the visible/invisible distinction).

He was very clearly in favor of the traditional Protestant doctrine of justification sola gratia, sola fide, solo Christo. Faith, in the act of justification is only receiving and resting.

He did introduce a certain amount of tension between covenant theology and our doctrine of justification which helped to set the stage for the current controversies.

I hasten to add that, whatever my disagreements with Mr Murray's revisions of traditional Reformed theology, I have the utmost respect for Mr Murray. He was usually very clear in his writing and thinking. He was truly gifted and can even be called heroic - he taught at WTS (Phila) when it was a small, struggling school. He could easily have abandoned the American fight for Reformed orthodoxy in favor of Scotland, but he stuck it out and taught generations of Reformed pastors.

For more on this see our Covenant, Justification, and Pastoral Ministry.

See also J K Jeon's sympathetic treatment in his book on Murray and Kline.

rsc

Does anyone know where the following originated: book, article?

"Murray was quite honest about his own reservations about the Reformed tradition and quite clear when he was modifying the tradition."

Did Murray at any time challenge any of the standard reformed positions - covenant, baptism, etc.?

John

 

[R. Scott Clark]

A couple of additional thoughts.

Murray's books on imputation and divorce are, in my opinion, quite good. I'm very pleased that the recent volume by the theological studies dept at WTS/P reprinted that it.

As to some of the methodological questions that have arisen since the end of his career see some of the essays in the VanDrunen ed. Pattern of Sound Doctrine which contains a couple of essays trying to account for the WTS/WSC approach to systematics.

rsc

 

[Rev. Todd Ruddell]

Murray also posited, in his defense of the "Free offer of the Gospel" a kind of tension in the will of God, that God desired what He had not decreed. This seems to be a departure from traditional reformed doctrine as well.