John Murray's contribution to Covenant Theology?

[Peairtach]

Isn't that the point of the covenant, though? The only way God could ever have "owed" anyone anything, is by entering into an arrangement. Saying that in a counterfactual hypothetical situation Adam would have had a basis for recrimination seems to me far too speculative to be of any doctrinal value.

But God would have "owed" unfallen Adam e.g. at the very least not to inflict negative sanctions on him, because God is just.

This is what God "owes" to the unfallen angels also.

God isn't arbitrary in any of His dealings with His creatures but always does things in line with His own holy, good and righteous character.

This is ultimately the reason that Man can and always should have total confidence in God, because of who He is.

The Covenant of Works "wouldn't be worth the paper it was written on" if God wasn't the God He is.

I define grace as unmerited favor.

Part of the favour God gave to Adam was merited and part wasn't.

By giving life to innocent creatures made in His image, God owed them certain a duty of care in accordance with His own perfectly good character, but it was a duty which He voluntarily and knowingly entered into by creating them.

By voluntary condescension God gave to Adam and Eve far more than He needed to, and offered them through the Covenant of Works, far more than they deserved for their continued obedience.

 

[py3ak]

I don't think you can prove most of your assertions, Richard. I don't see on what grounds you can say that God is required to keep us in existence. He upholds all things by the word of His power; but since we owe Him our entire existence, and since our being brings nothing to Him, I don't see where Scripture or theology can teach that He must keep you in existence. While I'm not sure what you mean by arbitrary, I'm hesitant to deny arbitrariness: after all, creation, the covenant of works, election, redemption are all free and unconstrained acts on God's part: no external force and no inward necessity bound Him to any of those determinations.

 

[Peairtach]

I don't think you can prove most of your assertions, Richard. I don't see on what grounds you can say that God is required to keep us in existence.

Without the Covenant of Works (voluntary condescension) I don't know if God was required to keep Adam in existence, but He was required by His own nature to do justly by Him. The question of being annihilated is a very different one from negative sanctions, as "annihilationists" should note. There may have been something entailed in God's making Man in His Image that by which God committed Himself voluntarily to not annihilating Man.

Some would wonder, Does God annihilate anything that He has made? E.g. the Heavens and the Earth will be transformed into the New Heavens and Earth?

no external force and no inward necessity bound Him to any of those determinations.

But once He has done or said something his own Holy character will mean that He is consistent with that in what He subsequently does.

While I'm not sure what you mean by arbitrary,

By arbitray I mean that God will not do what is inconsistent with His own Holy character e.g. what is unjust. Of course it may be debated by some if it is unjust for God to annhilate sinless Adam or immerse sinless Adam in Hell, or place him in a less salubrious situation than Eden, but I'm sure we can agree that God would never do what is unjust, whatever that is.

 

[py3ak]

There may have been something entailed in God's making Man in His Image that by which God committed Himself voluntarily to not annihilating Man.

Or there may not have been. I'm not sure that it's appropriate to speak of justice without reference to the will of God; of course once He has spoken that's the end of the matter, but the language of constraint always troubles me - is it not possible to trust God if He is unconstrained?

 

[jwright82]

I can see both your point, Ruben, and your point, Richard. I might propose a middle ground here. God is free by virtue of being God to do as he pleases but He has bound his actions to his voluntary condescension in covenant with mankind. In fact all His dealings with man are through a covenantal basis, freely. So He is free but freely binds Himself according to the covenant. I think this is the point you are both making?

 

[Peairtach]

Or there may not have been. I'm not sure that it's appropriate to speak of justice without reference to the will of God; of course once He has spoken that's the end of the matter, but the language of constraint always troubles me - is it not possible to trust God if He is unconstrained?

For God to be "constrained" by His own character is not constraint for God, but God being Who He Is and glorifying Himself in relation to His creatures.

If you're saying that God is theoretically able to be bad, yet because His will is thrice Holy, he never will be. I don't know if you're going as far as that in speaking of an "unconstrained" God.

God has the power to be bad, but He is Holy, Holy, Holy, so He will never do what is morally wrong for God to do, and what it is morally wrong for God to do, is reflected analogically in what it is moprally wrong for Man made in God's Image to do.

---------- Post added at 01:54 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:43 AM ----------

I can see both your point, Ruben, and your point, Richard. I might propose a middle ground here. God is free by virtue of being God to do as he pleases but He has bound his actions to his voluntary condescension in covenant with mankind. In fact all His dealings with man are through a covenantal basis, freely. So He is free but freely binds Himself according to the covenant. I think this is the point you are both making?

Somewhat. But I'm going somewhat further and saying that God had an obligation in how he treated a sinless human being that He'd freely called into existence anyway whether or not He entered this blessed Covenant of Works with Him or not.

The voluntary condescension of placing him in Eden and covenanting with him that certain blessings would accrue if he continued without eating from the Tree was on top of this basic duty God owed to unfallen Man by virtue of God's own character.

The same could be said of the unfallen angels. E.g. All I'm saying - as a rather extreme example - is that it would be unjust of God to send the unfallen angels to Hell forever, and therefore He would never do it, because He is freely God.

 

[py3ak]

For God to be "constrained" by His own character is not constraint for God, but God being Who He Is and glorifying Himself in relation to His creatures.

If you're saying that God is theoretically able to be bad, yet because His will is thrice Holy, he never will be. I don't know if you're going as far as that in speaking of an "unconstrained" God.

God has the power to be bad, but He is Holy, Holy, Holy, so He will never do what is morally wrong for God to do, and what it is morally wrong for God to do, is reflected analogically in what it is moprally wrong for Man made in God's Image to do.

No, God does not have the power to be bad, because that isn't a power at all. But also, and this is probably where the heart of the disagreement lies, because it's simply absurd, like a married bachelor or a square circle. God defines right and wrong, so we know anything He does is right (for Him to do) in virtue of the fact that He does it. Also, discussions about the relationship of will and nature always run the risk of virtually forgetting that in virtue of God's simplicity, "the divine willing is the divine nature."

Somewhat. But I'm going somewhat further and saying that God had an obligation in how he treated a sinless human being that He'd freely called into existence anyway whether or not He entered this blessed Covenant of Works with Him or not.

The voluntary condescension of placing him in Eden and covenanting with him that certain blessings would accrue if he continued without eating from the Tree was on top of this basic duty God owed to unfallen Man by virtue of God's own character.

The same could be said of the unfallen angels. E.g. All I'm saying - as a rather extreme example - is that it would be unjust of God to send the unfallen angels to Hell forever, and therefore He would never do it, because He is freely God.

Yes, but then you make God a debtor to man on the very grounds on which He is man's benefactor - because of creation. On the contrary, I hold that as we could have no knowledge of God if He did not reveal Himself to us, so we can have no claim on Him, unless He is pleased to bind Himself to us by covenant.

James, yes, I assert that God's will is absolutely free, and that no cause can be assigned for it. But by His great oath, "As I live", He has been pleased to make His purposes of mercy as certain to us as His own existence.

 

[Peairtach]

I don't think I 'm saying anything controversial by saying that God is just and therefore He would treat both unfallen and fallen Man justly, and His standards of justice are perfect.

If God's being just includes sending unfallen angels and Adam and Eve to Hell forever (to take an extreme example) you can argue that if you want.

God is radically free, but because His will is Thrice Holy he would never want to do anything unjust.

The question of annihilation is more difficult, since it is hardly a negative sanction, at least in the experience of it.

God has revealed in His Word what is right and wrong for His analogical creatures, Human Beings, so to some extent at least He has revealed His Law what He is like and what is right and wrong for Him as well as us.

 

[Peairtach]

Yes, there is no law over Him, but He has revealed His own good, holy, just, wise, powerful and true nature in His moral law.

 

[Peairtach]

God owes it to Himself and to His own attributes and glory to do nothing that is sinful or immoral.


Quote from Josh

Originally Posted by Richard Tallach
Yes, there is no law over Him, but He has revealed His own good, holy, just, wise, powerful and true nature in His moral law.

And yet none of those things apply to Him since when He kills, takes something, etc. it is not murder, stealing, etc. for everything is His, which is the whole point. The term wrong can never apply to Him, not even in theory.

You'd be saying that the moral law isn't a revelation of God's moral attributes then?

It's not e.g. murder for God to take the life of a sinner, because sinners have forfeited the right to life by their sin and it is only by grace we are given some time in this world and God is the judge.

If God became Man, His moral law would apply to Him because it is a revelation of God's moral nature, and Man was made to be God's Image.

 

[Peairtach]

Q. 93. What is the moral law?
A. The moral law is the declaration of the will of God to mankind, directing and binding every one to personal, perfect, and perpetual conformity and obedience thereunto, in the frame and disposition of the whole man, soul, and body, and in performance of all those duties of holiness and righteousness which he oweth to God and man: promising life upon the fulfilling, and threatening death upon the breach of it.

Is the moral law a revelation of God's nature?

Larger Catechism

Question 95: Of what use is the moral law to all men?

Answer: The moral law is of use to all men, to inform them of the holy nature and will of God, and of their duty, binding them to walk accordingly;to convince them of their disability to keep it, and of the sinful pollution of their nature, hearts, and lives; to humble them in the sense of their sin and misery, and thereby help them to a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ, and of the perfection of his obedience.

 

[jwright82]

James, yes, I assert that God's will is absolutely free, and that no cause can be assigned for it. But by His great oath, "As I live", He has been pleased to make His purposes of mercy as certain to us as His own existence

That is one of the things I love about covenant theology!

 

[Christusregnat]

My point is that God is not bound by His Law, we are. God may not be put in the dock.

Josh,

Why does God "put himself in the dock"? If you say that man cannot call God to account, you are right. I don't think that is Richard's point. His point appears to be that God puts Himself on trial. "Try me now, and see." "Taste and see that the Lord is good."

Moreover, though God may not be externally bound to His Law, as mankind is, yet He is not therefore not bound by law. He is bound internally rather than externally. Hence Richard's quotation from WLC 95 above.

Cheers,

 

[ChristianTrader]

Q. 93. What is the moral law?
A. The moral law is the declaration of the will of God to mankind, directing and binding every one to personal, perfect, and perpetual conformity and obedience thereunto, in the frame and disposition of the whole man, soul, and body, and in performance of all those duties of holiness and righteousness which he oweth to God and man: promising life upon the fulfilling, and threatening death upon the breach of it.

Is the moral law a revelation of God's nature?

The moral law is the declaration of the will of God to mankind. We're going back and forth to no avail. My point is that God is not bound by His Law, we are. God may not be put in the dock. Whatever God does, despite our finite understanding thereof, is right, holy, and good. It's not that He will not sin as much as it is He cannot sin, because whatever He does is righteous. If He has the Israelites kill women, children, and "innocents," God is not guilty of murder. If He takes away from a man, He's not stealing, for the man's "stuff" is already the Lord's. God can't have any other gods before Himself, because He worships no one. So on, so forth, etc.

If we are to be able to understand and stand on God's word does not that imply that we have to be able to put God in the dock? For example, after Noah's flood, God said that He would never again destroy the world with water. I am not concerned that the world could be destroyed by water again, because God has put himself in the dock. If we push too hard on the radical freedom of God, I think we would lose the ability to trust His words, because His words mean whatever He says they mean because he is beyond all constraints.

CT

 

[Dieter Schneider]

Check my blog - click blog - entry (scroll for John Murray)

 

[jwright82]

I for one prefer the convenental aspect of this discussion. God freely condescends to us in His covenents. He freely binds Himself by the conditions of His covenents, the Noahic promise of never flooding the world again. His revealed charector is in a sense analogical. I do not believe that we have any direct one to one knowledge about His inner being, only analogies He has chosen to use to reveal what His nature is like (not what it actually is in itself). So language about Him being bound by His nature and charector and language about His freedom make sense from one point of view but the analogical nature of language must always be kept in mind. I'm not being critical of anyone's views here just throwing this in and it seems to satisfy what both Richard and Joshua are getting at. You both, and Adam and Hermonta, appear to just be emphasising different aspects of the total revealation of God about Himself. So in short you are both right. I'm just always a little cautious about metaphysical discussions about God's nature.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Two issues going on here Joshua,

1) God's character: God though free is also holy. The law is an expression of his righteous nature, showing us how moral creatures must live in order to be compatible with him. He cannot sin because he is holy not because he can do whatever he wants. He is free to accomplish his "holy" will. He is "limited" by his character and nature.

2) God's covenant: When God obligates himself to his creatures, we can in fact make demands of him. We can demand of him whatever he tells us to demand of him. That's why we can go boldly to the throne of grace. That's why we may ask, seek, and knock with the assurance that we will be heard. That's why God invites us to "taste and see". That's why God does so much to prop up our weak faith, to show us that he will keep his promises and continually invites us to take hold of his promsies. That's why we call the sacraments "seals", God will give us what he has promised. God obligated himself to us by oath and sealed it with the blood of his Son.

 

[py3ak]

I don't think I 'm saying anything controversial by saying that God is just and therefore He would treat both unfallen and fallen Man justly, and His standards of justice are perfect.

No, that isn't controversial. Using the language of debt and obligation with reference to God towards man antecedent to the covenant of works is, because it appears to deny the statements of Scripture. Using the language of debt with regard to God Himself also strikes me as unfortunate.

It is controversial to maintain that we can know right and wrong without reference to God's will. But again, the fundamental point is what drives the language of subjection and constraint? To put it bluntly, why is the thought of God's nature more comforting than the thought of His will? I don't mean to impose on your words a burden they won't bear, but it rather sounds like you think of God's nature as limiting His will: in the light of His simplicity, in view of the fact that His essence is His existence, I simply don't see any coherence in that concept. It seems like reasoning from human psychology back to divine.

 

[Christusregnat]

Does God pay anyone wages?

 

[py3ak]

Does God pay anyone wages?

Yes, the wages He's freely covenanted to give them: "in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."

 

[Christusregnat]

But God was in Adam's debt, correct?

 

[py3ak]

No: Adam never fulfilled the condition.

 

[Peairtach]

I wasn't wanting to get into any serious controversy here.

In the light of e.g. Romans 11:35 and applying it to Man pre-Fall, as well as post-Fall, it may be better to say that God was not in debt to unfallen Adam and is not in debt to the unfallen angels, because at the end of the day all that they are and have is from Him, and they cannot add anything to Him, but that in creating the angels and Man, God knew that He would treat them in accordance with His just nature, appropriately to what they did or did not do, He sovereignly ordaining all that they freely did or did not do.

In entering a blessed Covenant with Adam by which he could merit salvation for himself and all his, and giving him a wife, Eden, etc, this was grace to Adam on top of justice, but I prefer "voluntary condescension" or "bountiful goodness" to "grace". In our sin context, and in theology "grace" is usually thought of as "demerited favour" (demerited by sin) rather than "unmerited favour"

God didn't owe Adam justice, nor is it even strictly correct to say God owed it to Himself to treat Adam with justice, but because of His holy character He would always glorify Himself in treating Adam with justice because of Who He Is, Unchangeably Holy, anyway.

Then in this situation of God's goodness based on His just treatment of the Man He had called into being + God's bountiful goodness (or voluntary condescension) to Adam, Adam had to merit salvation for him and Eve and his offspring by obedience.

 

[py3ak]

Richard, I think that's a better way of stating it. I think it's always good to clarify that you can't call "holy character" or "just nature" a cause for God's will.

The whole language of owing, even with regard to the covenant of works, is somewhat imprecise, because of course God never received anything from man. Though God obligated Himself by covenant, I think the language of debt might be best avoided for that reason, because though God sticks to His bargains yet He is never the beneficiary.

 

[Peairtach]

I think some of us think that we know God's good and just and truthful character well enough from the revelation of Himself in His Word, that we wouldn't expect Him to place innocent Adam and Eve or His innocent angels in Hell forever because it would be unjust.

Then again it could be argued that it was just, and therefore God could do this.

I'm good with whatever God does as well. I just don't expect Him to do certain things e.g. break His Word.