Back in Print

It’s good to see this book back in print after being out of print for a few years. It is a good supplement to Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics.


  1. Matt Beatty said,

    October 30, 2008 at 9:56 am

    Could you summarize the contents of the book? The main point, at least?

  2. thomasgoodwin said,

    October 30, 2008 at 11:17 am

    Muller’s methodology in this book is something he wouldn’t do again; check out the preface! If he wrote the book again he would do it much differently, which is to say that it’s still such an important work that it’s reprint is still worthwhile despite the flaws.

  3. October 30, 2008 at 11:43 am

    What line does the author take?

  4. greenbaggins said,

    October 30, 2008 at 5:09 pm

    Rey, you were permanently banned from this blog. That admits of not extra grace periods. Of course, grace is something you don’t understand at all. If you comment again, I will go back and erase every comment you have ever posted here.

  5. JR said,

    October 30, 2008 at 6:01 pm


    I have read most of PRRD and he comments there on the topic of “Christ and the Decree.” Muller sets out to show that the Reformed Orthodox (17th c. dogmaticians) were not diverging from Calvin’s broad theological paradigm, nor did they see predestination as the ‘central dogma’ which controls all others. They certainly expanded it, but it was not a wholesale departure.

    Muller’s conversation partner (among others) is R.T. Kendall who made quite a lot of the ‘Calvin versus the Calvinists’ argument, attempting to drive a wedge between Calvin and the later Calvinists (Beza, Turretin, et al.).

    This, I believe, is the thrust of the book.

  6. JR said,

    October 31, 2008 at 10:18 am

    Also helpful is the dialogue between Marcus Johnson and Thomas Wenger in the latest issue of JETS (Sept. 2008).

  7. October 31, 2008 at 1:20 pm

    Is Dr. Muller Supra or Infra?

  8. Benjamin P. Glaser said,

    November 1, 2008 at 7:05 am


    I would have loved to respond to you on the proper thread but my posts keep being deleted (five last night).

    However that obvious problem aside y’all just do not seem to grasp that this would all have not happened if Jeff Hutchinson would have just apologized to begin with and if Daniel and myself had not been treated so harshly by the other “moderators” and posters at GB. There is no good reason that my posts were deleted and others including the flame throwing post by Matt Holst in #50 charging Daniel as “hate-filled” and with an “inability to behave with the most basic of Christian graces…” are allowed to stand, even congratulated by moderators.

    That sir is obnoxious.


  9. its.reed said,

    November 1, 2008 at 7:56 am

    And so we disagree.

  10. Benjamin P. Glaser said,

    November 1, 2008 at 8:44 am

    Deleting my posts again I see.

    Better to hide the disagreement and criticism than to deal with it openly.

  11. greenbaggins said,

    November 1, 2008 at 8:46 am

    Ben, your standpoint is not the only standpoint operating here. If you were to put yourself in our shoes for a bit, you might see that the wrong is not all on one side here, something that the theonomist on my blog have been totally unable to admit. I personally think that Jeff’s comment was unnecessary, but I am not his conscience. Therefore, yes, more slack is given to other moderators. I think that Jeff’s statement needs to be understood in context, which is also something the theonomists have been totally unwilling to do. Explanations have been offered and been totally ignored. So what are we supposed to think about continued accusations by the theonomists on this board? It is not as if our character has not been villified, Ben. We have been called all sorts of names by now. I’m sorry, but Daniel’s comments have been over the top, and that is the impression not just of the mods, but of all the non-theonomists who read this blog. It has been confirmed to me by email and by other sources. What distresses me the most is that theonomists seem to be utterly incapable of self-awareness. Only the non-theonomists are sinful in these exchanges. There isn’t the least little bit of sin on the part of any theonomist. They can waltz in here and claim the most outrageous things about NAPARC denoms, and then complain when they get called on it, claiming that their characters have been assassinated. That’s rich. So you’ll forgive us for thinking that the theonomist ethos is one of everyone else being wrong, sinful, Enlightenment-enslaved, character assassinating, always in the wrong, and never in the right. This discussion is over.

  12. jeffhutchinson said,

    November 1, 2008 at 11:38 am

    I appreciate the clarity of this discussion here, and what it has illuminated. I also appreciate Lane’s measured comment, that he thought my comment was “unnecessary,” while yet acknowledging that he is not my conscience. At the risk of further inflaming the discussion (but I am keeping the comments on this thread off!) I do want to say a word about my conscience, and why, for my conscience, I felt (and feel) it necessary to have commented.

    It is fairly simple. I don’t have a lot of time for blogs, but if my name is going to be attached to one as a Moderator, my conscience simply cannot allow comments like Daniel Ritchie’s (about Catholic priests needing to be executed, etc.) to go unchecked. I must distance myself from then, for the Lord’s sake, and the reputation of His gospel.

    Further, nonsensical comments about me having “borne false witness against a fellow Christian” (who are you, Kay Hagan?) violate Lane’s rules for posting here, and so will be deleted (I am not the only one deleting them; it has been a group effort!).

    Grace and Peace to all.

%d bloggers like this: