Blinded to see

John Murray was known for his emphasis on exegetical theology rather than historical theology. For him, Calvinism had to be justified from Scripture. He wasn't someone who paid lip-service to sola scripture but in reality defaulted to tradition. Of course, like everyone, he was still conditioned by his background, but he made a good-faith effort to derive Calvinism from Scripture. 

In that regard I wonder if it's coincidental that Murray was blind in one eye. He lost one eye in WWI. I imagine it's harder to read with one eye than two eyes. So his visual impairment meant he couldn't be as prolific a reader as B. B. Warfield or E. J. Young. If you can't read as much, then that forces you to be more selective about what you read. The fact that he was blind in one eye may have enhanced his concentration on Scripture. If a Christian suffers from visual impairment, then constant Bible reading may be a priority. 

I'm reminded of something Virgil Thompson said about Toscanini:

…poor eyesight [is] probably responsible for the Toscanini style. When one cannot depend on reading a score in public, one must memorize everything. And when one memorizes everything, one acquires a great awareness of music's run-through. One runs it through the mind constantly; and one finds in that way a streamlined rendering…

If Murray's experience was analogous, to be steeped in the text of Scripture might facilitate his grasp for the flow of argument, narrative arc, and connections within or between books of the Bible. If you carry so much around in your head, then there's a constant process of mental comparison. So it may be that God providentially used–indeed, arranged–Murray's disability to make him excel at exegetical theology.  

God of life and truth

The ultimate reality of which Moses was the shadow, the archetype of which Moses was the ectype, now appeared. The true light (John 1:9), the true grace were now manifested.’ It is in this sense that we are to understand our Lord when he said, ‘I am the way, the truth, and the life’...He is the God of truth and all truth derives its sanctity from him. This is why all untruth or falsehood is wrong; it is a contradiction of that which God is... The necessity of truthfulness in us rests upon God’s truthfulness. As we are to be holy because God is holy, so we are to be truthful because God is truthful. The glory of God is that he is the God of truth; the glory of man is that he is the image of God and therefore ‘of the truth’ (cf John 18:37). It is not without significance that the arch-enemy of God and his kingdom is the father of lies; ‘he does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own, because he is a liar and the father of it’ (John 8:44).

https://www.the-highway.com/truth_Murray.html

There are some problem with this inference:

i) Not only is God the exemplar of truth, but as Murray mentions, the exemplar of life. Conversely, Satan is not only the archetypal liar, but the archetypal murderer. 

Likewise, humans are life-givers, through the power of procreation. In that respect, we emulate God–at a finite, derivative level. 

But where does our duty lie if we can save innocent life through an altruistic falsehood? Which of God's exemplary attributes provides moral guidance in that situation: the God of life or the God of truth? Is our primary obligation in that situation to safeguard truth or to safeguard life? Does the preservation of truth take precedence over the preservation of life? So Murray is arbitrarily selective in his appeal to God's nature. 

ii) I don't think we can automatically extrapolate from what's right for God to what's right for us. God is not exposed to the vulnerabilities that lead human agents to lie, to get out of the situation. Of course, that doesn't justify lying in general. But we can find ourselves in dangerous or unjust situations through no fault of our own, where a lie may be the only escape. God is never in that desperate position or predicament. So it's not analogous. God is not in every respect our role model. In some respects he's a radically different kind of being, with some unique prerogatives. 

Wet devils and dry devils

As we know, the grace of baptism turns a dry devil into a wet devil. With that in mind, here's a case for paedobaptism:

http://faculty.wts.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/For-You-And-Your-Children.pdf

Existential theology

You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies (Jn 8:44). 

Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son (1 Jn 2:22). 

Little children, keep yourselves from idols (1 Jn 5:21).

i) In his influential article on "The Sanctity of Truth," John Murray takes the position that lying is intrinsically wrong. His argument relies heavily on the concept of alethinos in Johannine usage. However, I think he fails to capture the nuance of the alethinos word-group in Johannine theology.

Translations commonly render alethinos as "truth".  Although "truth" is a valid translation, lexicographers include "genuine" or "real" as alternative definitions. So the traditional rendering prejudges the meaning of the term. 

ii) In addition, we need to distinguish between the meaning of words and the meaning of concepts. What is John's concept of alethinos? In context, I don't think it means propositional truth, although that's covered. Rather, John uses alethinos as an antonym for what is counterfeit. For John, there's a dualism between what's authentic or genuine, on the one hand, and what's spurious or counterfeit, on the other. 

iii) But even though that's semantically valid, it's too generic to capture the underlying concept, which is more specific. What makes something authentic or inauthentic? That involves the ultimate contrast between God and whatever denies God or supplants God. God is the standard of comparison. What God is like. What he says and does.

Satan and idolatry are the antithesis of alethinos. Satan is a usurper. Pagan deities usurp the real God. Idolatry is delusive. 

An idolater or heretic doesn't merely deny the truth. He misrepresents God. He replaces God with something else. 

iv) This has a propositional dimension, but it also has an existential dimension. An authentic life tracks the reality of God. An inauthentic life deviates from the reality of God. 

v) Suppose you care for a senile relative. She's forgotten that her parents are dead. She's forgotten that her husband is dead. Everyday she asks about them. Where are they? Why doesn't she see them?

Should you tell her they are dead? She will forget. Telling her they are dead makes her repeatedly relive their death every day, or several times a day. Imagine the shock and trauma of hearing that time and again as if for the very first time. What could be more cruel?

Is it not better to tell her a comforting lie? They are shopping. They will be back soon. 

That's not contrary to the Johannine concept of alethinos. In fact, that's consistent with the Johannine concept of alethinos. Acting in a way that's consonant with God's compassion, mercy, and lovingkindness. 

That may ruffle some feathers, but sometimes we need to reexamine a traditional interpretation. 

John Murray on “traditions”: “We should not be dupes of Rome …”

Murray wrote on “tradition” – including Protestant traditions and Reformed traditions:
http://www.the-highway.com/tradition.html

There is truly a catholic tradition to which all due respect is to be paid and for which we should thank God. The Romish Church has attempted to monopolize the word ‘Catholic’ by trying to fix upon itself the denominational name, ‘the Catholic Church’. Protestants should not be the dupes of Rome in this respect and should resist every attempt on the part of Rome to appropriate that denomination. The Church of Rome is not the catholic church. It is presumption for her to claim to be. We should understand that all who profess the true religion belong to the catholic church and in the catholic tradition we glory. The catholic tradition is enshrined particularly in the ecumenical creeds, and is found also in the line of orthodox interpreters and theologians throughout the centuries.

There is also a Protestant tradition. It is the viewpoint of the Protestant church as over against the perversions and apostasies of the Romish communion. This tradition is enshrined in the great Protestant creeds and in the theology of the Protestant reformers. It is also embodied in the worship and practice that prevailed in the Protestant churches of the 16th and 17th centuries.

There is in like manner a reformed tradition. It is enshrined in the reformed creeds, theology, worship and practice. It is in this latter tradition that we specially glory. And we glory in it because we believe that it is the purest repristination and expression of apostolic Christianity. It is in this tradition that we move; it is the stream along which we are borne; it is the viewpoint we cherish, foster and promote. We cannot abstract ourselves from it; it gives direction and orientation to our thought and practice.

The entire article is here.

From The Presbyterian Guardian, 1947, May 10 and 25 and reprinted in Collected Writings of John Murray - Vol. 4 Studies in Theology (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1982) pp. 264-273. This was mentioned in a footnote in Allen, Michael; Swain, Scott R. (2015-01-13). Reformed Catholicity: The Promise of Retrieval for Theology and Biblical Interpretation (Kindle Locations 3133-3134). Baker Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

* * *

With all of that having been said, I agree there is a “catholic tradition”, but I disagree that we should stumble all over ourselves to find it and claim it. Here’s what I wrote in some Facebook comments in response to reviews I’ve seen of the work “Reformed Catholicity”:

I think “catholicity” is over-rated as a goal or concept. The word “catholic” has come to mean “universal”, but the “universality” was derived from a Greek cultural project before it became identified with the early church. The word “catholic” is derived from the “Second Sophistic” movement, among Greek city-states, to retain their Greek culture in the face of their Roman masters (Allen Brent, “Ignatius of Antioch”). It certainly is not a New Testament word, and while it was a useful concept, helping to unite a geographically disparate group of churches, like the concept of “apostolic succession”, it has been and can continue to be abused. I don't think it is a strong enough or safe enough concept around which to rally in our time.

Reasons why: Here is another marginalized concept from Allen and Swain:

There is no other such gulf in the history of human thought as that which is cleft between the apostolic and the immediately succeeding ages. To pass from the latest apostolic writings to the earliest compositions of uninspired Christian pens is to fall through such a giddy height that it is no wonder if we rise dazed and almost unable to determine our whereabouts. Here is the great fault—as the geologists would say—in the history of Christian doctrine. There is every evidence of continuity—but, oh, at how much lower a level! The rich vein of evangelical religion has run well-nigh out; and, though there are masses of apostolic origin lying everywhere, they are but fragments, and are evidently only the talus which has fallen from the cliffs above and scattered itself over the lower surface.

Allen, Michael; Swain, Scott R. (2015-01-13). Reformed Catholicity: The Promise of Retrieval for Theology and Biblical Interpretation (p. 1). Baker Publishing Group. Kindle Edition. Citing B.B. Warfield here, B. B. Warfield, “The Significance of the Westminster Standards as a Creed” (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1898), 4.

Warfield is correct about the “cleft between the apostolic and the immediately succeeding ages”. I’ve cited other writers, extensively – not marginalized kooks, but first-rate theologians of the 20th century, who have studied this period, including Cullmann, Torrance, and others, who note the absolute abyss into which the “Apostolic Fathers” fell.

“Traditions” (small “t”) as we come to know them are always going to be useful to us, in one way or another. Either they will be helpful to us in understanding what certain generations of Christians believed to be helpful, or as bad examples in seeing excesses that we are to avoid.

But to enshrine “traditions” as normative – this is not something we should be eager to do. Whether they are useful and helpful to us, as are the traditions of the Reformed Orthodox, or whether they are found to have been unhelpful and even harmful (as “apostolic succession” has been) – these are all things that we should be very keen to hold up to the light of Scripture, which is “the ground and pillar of our faith”.

Bearing false witness to our fine feathered neighbors

Well, if you ask me, this raises serious ethical questions. Surely it's a flagrant violation of the 9th Commandment to deceive a mallard by using duck call? 

Duck Commander ~ Triple Threat ~ Duck Hunting Call New by Duck Commander

• 
  
  
• #1 Best Seller  in Duck Calls & Lures
• Product Features
• Replicates the quack, feed call and hail call of a mallard hen
• Sports & Outdoors: 

Duck Dynasty - A&E

www.aetv.com/duck-dynasty‎ 

Check out Duck Dynasty, a show about the family that runs the duck call fabrication business.