# Reformed theologians and mono-covenantalism



## arapahoepark (Jun 28, 2013)

This is not about the FV but, rather people like Hoekema and John Murray and maybe others. I am wondering why they opted for a sort of 'mono-covenantalism'? Did they at least have a view of works in the Adamic covenant?


----------



## Peairtach (Jun 28, 2013)

John Murray defined "covenant" in such a way as to make it always something gracious. Therefore he had to call the pre-Fall arrangement the Adamic Administration.

He still taught that life was conditional on Adam's behaviour.

O.Palmer Robertson says it's best not to define "covenant" too intricately.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Jun 28, 2013)

This is a huge topic, but I think that it's not quite accurate to call Murray's position, for instance, "mono-covenantalism." I know that such has been done in more recent times, but the earlier use of that term did not have in view a position like Murray's (no covenant until after the Fall; thus the covenant of grace being the first to be announced to man). 

The more proper usage of mono-covenantalism would be that God has only one covenant with man, pre and post fall, a gracious covenant, and that God has never dealt with man in anything like a covenant of works (clearly Murray's Adamic Administration has covenant of work features). This position is held by a rather wide range of theologians, from someone like Hoeksema on the PR side of things to Barth on the other side. Murray is not in the same boat with Barth on this and it's a bit confusing to denominate his position as "mono-covenantalism." 

Peace,
Alan


----------



## Peairtach (Jun 28, 2013)

arap said:


> This is not about the FV but, rather people like Hoekema and John Murray and maybe others. I am wondering why they opted for a sort of 'mono-covenantalism'? Did they at least have a view of works in the Adamic covenant?



Some theologians seem to forget that although the CoW was God's gracious provision for Man, it wasn't God's goodness towards Man who had demerited it, and it still was conditional on Man not eating from the Tree. Thus confusion is introduced by calling the CoW "gracious". It should be called God's superabundant goodness to unfallen Man to prevent confusion.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## arapahoepark (Jul 3, 2013)

Alan D. Strange said:


> This is a huge topic, but I think that it's not quite accurate to call Murray's position, for instance, "mono-covenantalism." I know that such has been done in more recent times, but the earlier use of that term did not have in view a position like Murray's (no covenant until after the Fall; thus the covenant of grace being the first to be announced to man).
> 
> The more proper usage of mono-covenantalism would be that God has only one covenant with man, pre and post fall, a gracious covenant, and that God has never dealt with man in anything like a covenant of works (clearly Murray's Adamic Administration has covenant of work features). This position is held by a rather wide range of theologians, from someone like Hoeksema on the PR side of things to Barth on the other side. Murray is not in the same boat with Barth on this and it's a bit confusing to denominate his position as "mono-covenantalism."
> 
> ...


What else about Hoekesma?
I was reading this thread and Dr. Duncan seems to compare him to Barth (post 18): http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/what-did-karl-barth-teach-10420/


----------

