|
Summary: Iain Murray is confused about church government.
He proof texted his quotes, cited nothing of the Westminster Standards of value, dealt with nothing surrounding the actually controversy during the 17th century, but dismissed it. Strange since that was the quintessential debate with over 30,000 written texts on the subject. You would figure he'd quote AT LEAST the "Grand Debate."
Even though he dealt with the three and two office view, i think he is mixing up apples and oranges to a great extent with his conclusions on government in general.
The Minutes of the Assembly would have helped him greatly, because they document the scriptural reasons why church-government is important. And it should cause anyone remotely familiar with the [i:e28bde0952]Solemn League and Covenant[/i:e28bde0952] to question what Murray said. Why in the world would Scotland, Ireland and England join together in the SL&C knowing full well that the National Covenant was Presbyterian in Government?
I don't like when people misquote others as well. That's not Murray's style generally. For instance, he quotes Owen, "'All contests about church-order . . . are vain, empty, fruitless."
It would help to know what Owen actually said and was talking about - Obs. XIII. All contests about church-order, state, interest, power, with whom the church is, are vain, empty, fruitless, unprofitable, among [b:e28bde0952]those who cannot evidence that they belong unto this general assembly."[/b:e28bde0952] He is not talking about what Murray is talking about. Owen is saying that for those who are not apart of the "heavenly" elect, such contests of doctrine are not applicable and do not good. Murray needs to be more careful.
I love Murray. But I do not think this article was helpful. He is writing on something not clear in his mind.
Be SLOW to publish.
[Edited on 6-24-2004 by webmaster]
|