Scholarly critiques of Richard Muller?

[RamistThomist]

Richard Muller is one of the top (if not the most important) English-language historical theologians today. His four volume PRRD helped me avoid Eastern Orthodoxy. That said, are there scholarly responses critical of Muller's larger work? I don't mean the Jonathan Edwards debate. I'll leave that aside for the moment.

 

[Alexander Suarez]

Richard Muller is one of the top (if not the most important) English-language historical theologians today. His four volume PRRD helped me avoid Eastern Orthodoxy. That said, are there scholarly responses critical of Muller's larger work? I don't mean the Jonathan Edwards debate. I'll leave that aside for the moment.

By the Jonathan Edwards debate, I assume you are also including the determinism (Muller) vs compatibilism (Helm) debate?

 

[RamistThomist]

By the Jonathan Edwards debate, I assume you are also including the determinism (Muller) vs compatibilism (Helm) debate?

Correct. I tend to side with Muller, but even if Muller is wrong on that, I think Edwards has larger problems. I was thinking of the Barthian "Calvin vs Calvinism" debate.

 

[Knight]

I think it was Paul Manata and James Anderson who got the better of him on that issue or one similar to it, but I'm not on facebook anymore to check (that most scholarly of sites!).

 

[RamistThomist]

I think it was Paul Manata and James Anderson who got the better of him on that issue or one similar to it, but I'm not on facebook anymore to check (that most scholarly of sites!).

I'm iffy on that. Manata largely ignored the extensive Reformed scholastic thought on the nature of the will. If I remember his few articles on Muller's book, he really doesn't interact much with the book beyond the opening pages. In any case, my problems with Edwards are elsewhere. The Manata debate, however, does illustrate the problem in another way: there is a distinction between whether Muller is correct vis-a-vis history and whether that position is correct vis-a-vis theology.

 

[jwright82]

I'm iffy on that. Manata largely ignored the extensive Reformed scholastic thought on the nature of the will. If I remember his few articles on Muller's book, he really doesn't interact much with the book beyond the opening pages. In any case, my problems with Edwards are elsewhere. The Manata debate, however, does illustrate the problem in another way: there is a distinction between whether Muller is correct vis-a-vis history and whether that position is correct vis-a-vis theology.

I'm unaware of the Edward's debate, like to know more, but the scholarship seems to side with Muller. Everywhere he's mentioned as being an expert. Even Frame only critiqued him on tertiary points. I'm sure he disagrees with Oliphant on the doctrine of God and yet he quotes him extensively in his book.

 

[arapahoepark]

I've only seen disagreements from Amyraldians. I recall interacting with the CalvinandCalvinists (no longer exists) site host who said something to the effect that hyper confessionalists are Muller fan boys. The evidence against Muller being that Amyraldians existed; some of it may have gone over my head but that's what I got.
Anecdotal I know...

 

[BaptistPastor1689]

Drew Sparks of Baptist Dogmatics engaged with Muller in his dissertation. He's a good scholar, and I'm sure he'd be willing to discuss Muller with. You can contact him here:

About & Contact — Baptist Dogmatics

www.baptistdogmatics.com

 

[Phil D.]

Drew Sparks of Baptist Dogmatics engaged with Muller in his dissertation

Sparks' dissertation is available here.

 

[RamistThomist]

I agree with Muller's broad claim that Calvin didn't teach the sweet teachings of Karl Barth, only to have them ruined by the scholastics. I think he is right on that point. I think more problematic areas are whether the tradition is Thomist or Scotist.