Richard Muller is a professor at Calvin Seminary, which is associated with the Christian Reformed Church. As you will note in my other post, Calvin College has two professors questioning the historicity of the biblical account of creation. Here we have Richard Muller saying that Edwards didn't get his doctrine of predestination and the predetermination of the will from the Bible or from the classical Reformed view. Rather, Muller says, Edwards got his doctrine of philosophical necessity from philosophers of Edwards' day like Hobbes, et. al.
I find it interesting that Muller completely ignores the fact that Scripture itself teaches absolute predestination and the sovereignty of God. Muller even goes so far as to deny that the "Reformed" position and the Arminian position have completely different views on free will. According to Muller, both believed in free choice and free will and it's all a modern development we can blame on Edwards.
Unfortunately for Muller, we don't need to read 2,100 pages of bull to know he's full of it. Virtually all the Reformed Confessions teach both absolute predestination and the providence of God. Even the Westminster Confession goes into great detail on providence and how God is both in absolute control of all that happens and all without violating man's will. Why would the Confession go to such lengths if in fact the old line Reformers did not really believe in "philosophical necessity" as Muller labels the decrees of God?
I might add that nowhere in this lecture does Muller give an accurate understanding of the doctrine of total depravity or original sin. He's obviously confused. Furthermore, he fails to distinguish between the temporal order of God's decrees and the logical order of the decrees. For example, he fails to understand that the argument between the supralapsarians and the infralapsarians was not over the temporal falling out of the decrees in sequential order. No the dispute giving rise to the Remonstrance was the issue of the logical order of God's decree for the fall. Instead, Muller seems to think the Fall just happened and then God makes up an emergency recovery plan. Muller's view has more to do with Arminianism than anything else.
It seems to me that this whole Calvin versus Calvinism school of thought is about anachronistically reading back into the Reformation modern revisionist views. This is how Muller can with a straight face say that his reinterpretation of Edwards on this point is correct. Muller says Edwards invented absolute predestination and double predestination. I think to the contrary that it is Muller who is reinventing "classical" and old line Reformation theology to give his own departures from orthodoxy the dissimulation or appearance of correctness. The truth is Muller is a product of theological liberalism and cannot be trusted.
I did think his article, How Many Points? was good. But on a second thought, I wonder if he had an agenda with that article as well? Time will tell! One has to wonder how much of this stuff Riddlebarger has absorbed from Muller since he studied with Muller at Calvin Seminary? This also explains why Carl Trueman is so popular with the Amyraldians. He apparently uses this Calvin versus the Calvinists mindset to excuse what is obviously a serious departure from Calvin's view of the atonement as particular and not universal.
You heard me say it. I think Muller is out to sneak in the back door in much the same way that N.T. Wright and the Federal Visionists have.
Sincerely yours in Christ,
Charlie
I find it interesting that Muller completely ignores the fact that Scripture itself teaches absolute predestination and the sovereignty of God. Muller even goes so far as to deny that the "Reformed" position and the Arminian position have completely different views on free will. According to Muller, both believed in free choice and free will and it's all a modern development we can blame on Edwards.
Unfortunately for Muller, we don't need to read 2,100 pages of bull to know he's full of it. Virtually all the Reformed Confessions teach both absolute predestination and the providence of God. Even the Westminster Confession goes into great detail on providence and how God is both in absolute control of all that happens and all without violating man's will. Why would the Confession go to such lengths if in fact the old line Reformers did not really believe in "philosophical necessity" as Muller labels the decrees of God?
I might add that nowhere in this lecture does Muller give an accurate understanding of the doctrine of total depravity or original sin. He's obviously confused. Furthermore, he fails to distinguish between the temporal order of God's decrees and the logical order of the decrees. For example, he fails to understand that the argument between the supralapsarians and the infralapsarians was not over the temporal falling out of the decrees in sequential order. No the dispute giving rise to the Remonstrance was the issue of the logical order of God's decree for the fall. Instead, Muller seems to think the Fall just happened and then God makes up an emergency recovery plan. Muller's view has more to do with Arminianism than anything else.
It seems to me that this whole Calvin versus Calvinism school of thought is about anachronistically reading back into the Reformation modern revisionist views. This is how Muller can with a straight face say that his reinterpretation of Edwards on this point is correct. Muller says Edwards invented absolute predestination and double predestination. I think to the contrary that it is Muller who is reinventing "classical" and old line Reformation theology to give his own departures from orthodoxy the dissimulation or appearance of correctness. The truth is Muller is a product of theological liberalism and cannot be trusted.
I did think his article, How Many Points? was good. But on a second thought, I wonder if he had an agenda with that article as well? Time will tell! One has to wonder how much of this stuff Riddlebarger has absorbed from Muller since he studied with Muller at Calvin Seminary? This also explains why Carl Trueman is so popular with the Amyraldians. He apparently uses this Calvin versus the Calvinists mindset to excuse what is obviously a serious departure from Calvin's view of the atonement as particular and not universal.
You heard me say it. I think Muller is out to sneak in the back door in much the same way that N.T. Wright and the Federal Visionists have.
Sincerely yours in Christ,
Charlie
Click here to hear Richard Muller's lecture on Jonathan Edwards and the Freedom of the Will: Richard Muller’s Lecture on Jonathan Edwards’ View of Free Will « In Thy Light
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment