Many Sheep are Without, Many Wolves are Within
- Thread starter Casey
- Start date
- Status
MrMerlin777
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Scanned over it briefly. Will dig into it more later. Looks good from what I scanned.
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
Casey,
very nice.
very nice.
wsw201
Puritan Board Senior
Just read your paper. Very good job. I don't know if you have listened to the examination of Rev. Wilkins by the LA Presbytery (its on the AAPC web site) but he uses John Murray to bolster his position regarding the visible/invisible church. In fact his defenders used the same quotes.
Casey
Puritan Board Junior
Don't get me wrong, John Murray is usually a very persuasive author! But his short article trying to argue that the language of visible/invisible church is unbiblical is not very convincing at all (it does not take long to read it to realize this). I find it surprising that anyone would use it as a defense for their position, especially since Murray doesn't interact with any of the traditional biblical arguments for the distinction.
Pilgrim
Puritanboard Commissioner
Don't get me wrong, John Murray is usually a very persuasive author! But his short article trying to argue that the language of visible/invisible church is unbiblical is not very convincing at all (it does not take long to read it to realize this). I find it surprising that anyone would use it as a defense for their position, especially since Murray doesn't interact with any of the traditional biblical arguments for the distinction.
My guess is that they use Murray as an appeal to a higher authority, similar to how they have used Murray's argument against the traditional terminology of a Covenant of Works. (It would be interesting to investigate to what extent if any Murray's rejection of the visible/invisible distinction is connected to his rejection of the classic terminology of the Covenant of Works.)
Basically the thinking is probably something like "If Murray believed it, it can't be that bad." It is an attempt to put their opponents on the defensive and in the position of not only arguing with them but arguing with Murray.
Some one can correct me if I'm mistaken, but I believe this piece was one of some papers Professor Murray had said he did not want published after his death. Could be he knew it was not ready for prime time?
Don't get me wrong, John Murray is usually a very persuasive author! But his short article trying to argue that the language of visible/invisible church is unbiblical is not very convincing at all (it does not take long to read it to realize this). I find it surprising that anyone would use it as a defense for their position, especially since Murray doesn't interact with any of the traditional biblical arguments for the distinction.
Casey
Puritan Board Junior
Very interesting question. His Collected Writings doesn't say where the article came from, either.
There should be something in the preface to the volume it is in, as I. Murray makes note of this piece in passing I think; or at least I've assumed it was this piece.
Casey
Puritan Board Junior
Most of the articles are footnoted (is that a verb?) with where they were taken, but this article has no such footnote. The Preface explains that some were not previously published, but makes no special mention of this particular article. I suppose it may have never been intended to be published, but . . I don't know where we have any documentation of that? (I would be happy if we did, and I'd happily update my article with such information!)
Mmmmh. Maybe I'm spreading stories then. 
I'll see if I can find what I "think" I am remembering.
I'll see if I can find what I "think" I am remembering.
Looks like I'm at least confusing a comment in the preface to volume 2. Not sure where I read the idea he was opposed to publishing his papers? In any event, if an aritcle was not footnoted as to source, that means it was from the MS and the first time it was published was in the works.
Casey
Puritan Board Junior
And I was hoping you'd find something showing that he had changed his mind concerning that article!
Sorry to disappoint; I'll let you know if I figure out what I was thinking about; if I remember.
And I was hoping you'd find something showing that he had changed his mind concerning that article!
Casey
Puritan Board Junior
For those interested in "primary source" locations where FV authors reject the visible/invisible church distinction, here is a quote from a footnote in the OPC justification report (fn311).
Just further proof that they don't understand the basics of Reformed ecclesiology.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
