Wednesday, September 28, 2011

Is Ponter in the John Murray tradition?

For our part, our conversation is only with those Calvinists in the Spurgeonic or M’Cheyen or John Murray tradition. Our conversation is not with those in the Hypercalvinist tradition which denies the basic distinctions between secret will and revealed will in relation the actuality and sincerity of the well-meant offer. We are talking to those Calvinists who give answer to points 1. and 3. on the terms of traditional evangelical Calvinism, aka (for want of a better expression) the Spurgeon to John Murray type of Calvinism.
1) By limited atonement I define as, only the sins of the elect were imputed to Christ when Christ offered himself as a sacrificial victim 2000 years ago.
2) By High Calvinist, I define as those Calvinists, within the historically broad Reformed community, who assert that only the sins of the elect were imputed to Christ on the cross.

Is Ponter in the Murray tradition? In one respect he is, but in another respect he’s not.

He’s in the Murray tradition insofar as Murray regarded divine desire as one component of the gospel offer.

However, Murray, unlike Ponter, defended limited atonement. He does so in chap. 4 of Redemption: Accomplished and Applied. And he also interprets the Westminster Confession as teaching limited atonement. Cf. Collected Writings of John Murray, 4:256. 

No comments:

Post a Comment