# John Murray's contribution to Covenant Theology?



## jwright82

What were John Murray's contributions to covenant theology? If there are any online type papers by or about Murray I would really be thankful if someone could post those. I can't afford any books right now but I have always wanted to study him.


----------



## Peairtach

Well his little booklet on the Covenant of Grace (Pand R) can't cost too much and is probably online. 

Because Murray defined divine covenants as "a sovereign administration of grace and of promise" he was lothe to call the Covenant of Works "the Covenant of Works" so he called it "the Adamic Administration".

He defined biblical divine "covenant" too narrowly and thus couldn't call the Covenant of Works a covenant.

Here's an article by Dr McMahon critical of Murray on the Covenant of Grace.

http://www.apuritansmind.com/Baptism/McMahonMurraysReformulation.htm#Postscript

While reading this, it occured to me that the inner life of the Covenant is monergistic, while the outer administration is synergistic.

E.g. Abraham was in covenant with God by faith before he got himself and his sons circumcised.

The faith that Abraham had was monergistically produced by the Holy Spirit. 

The sign and seal, and badge and ceremony of the Covenant - circumcision - which is sometimes referred to as "the Covenant" itself (see Genesis 17), is synergistically produced by saved Man's (hopefully saved Man's) response to God's command, and then God the Holy Spirit makes use of that.

This is what Credo Baptists, don't get: that in the administration of the Covenant there is an inner spiritual reality and an outward sign and seal, that are not always found in the same person, and are not always meant to be found in the same person. 

The elect or even the regenerate cannot and should not be be identified to be baptised; that is beyond men's knowledge. 

But those who have a credible profession of the Christian faith and their children should be baptised.

There is always a relation and sometimes a tension between the inner and outer aspects of the Covenant the Bond (Outer) of Love (Inner). 

Even the Baptists can't escape this because they sometimes baptise people and later conclude they are unregenerate. 

So does their baptism (and maybe partaking of the Lord's Supper?) leave them more guilty or untouched, as their baptism wasn't a "real baptism", right? 

If their baptism and partaking of the Lord's Supper wasn't real because they appear not to have had the inner reality, then it shouldn't make any difference to their standing before God. But the Bible doesn't teach this. Baptism and the Lord's Supper are in important objective senses "the Keys of the Kingdom".


----------



## DMcFadden

*Pro Murray:*
Murray, J. (1954). The Covenant of Grace. London: Tyndale.

Ramsey, D. P. A Confessional Critique of Kline and Karlberg. WTJ 66:2 (Fall 2004). 

*For comparisons and evaluations of Murray vs. Kline:*
Jeon, J. K. (1999). Covenant Theology: John Murray's and Meredith G. Kline's Response to the Historical Development of Federal Theology in Reformed Thought. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

Jones, M. (2010, n.d. n.d.). In what sense? A Review Article. Retrieved June 23, 2010, from Ordained Servant Online: Ordained Servant Online

Robertson, O. P. (1977). "Current Reformed Thinking on the Nature of the Divine Covenants". Westminster Theological Journal , 40 (1), 62-76.

Trumper, T. J. (2002). Covenant Theology And Constructive Calvinism. Westminster Theological Journal , 64 (2), 386-404. A review of Jeon.

*If you want some opposite Murray (i.e., Kline oriented material):*
Bryan D. Estelle, J. F. (Ed.). (2009). The Law is Not of Faith: Essays on Works and Grace in the Mosaic Covenant. Phillipsburg, New Jersey: P&R Publishing.

Karlberg, M. W. (Spring 1992). Covenant Theology and the Westminster Tradition. Westiminster Theological Journal , 54 (1), 135-152.

Karlberg, M. W. (2000). Covenant Theology in Reformed Perspective. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers.


----------



## jwright82

Richard Tallach said:


> Well his little booklet on the Covenant of Grace (Pand R) can't cost too much and is probably online.
> 
> Because Murray defined divine covenants as "a sovereign administration of grace and of promise" he was lothe to call the Covenant of Works "the Covenant of Works" so he called it "the Adamic Administration".
> 
> He defined biblical divine "covenant" too narrowly and thus couldn't call the Covenant of Works a covenant.
> 
> Here's an article by Dr McMahon critical of Murray on the Covenant of Grace.
> 
> John Murray’s Reformulation of the Covenant of Grace
> 
> While reading this, it occured to me that the inner life of the Covenant is monergistic, while the outer administration is synergistic.
> 
> E.g. Abraham was in covenant with God by faith before he got himself and his sons circumcised.
> 
> The faith that Abraham had was monergistically produced by the Holy Spirit.
> 
> The sign and seal, and badge and ceremony of the Covenant - circumcision - which is sometimes referred to as "the Covenant" itself (see Genesis 17), is synergistically produced by saved Man's (hopefully saved Man's) response to God's command, and then God the Holy Spirit makes use of that.
> 
> This is what Credo Baptists, don't get: that in the administration of the Covenant there is an inner spiritual reality and an outward sign and seal, that are not always found in the same person, and are not always meant to be found in the same person.
> 
> The elect or even the regenerate cannot and should not be be identified to be baptised; that is beyond men's knowledge.
> 
> But those who have a credible profession of the Christian faith and their children should be baptised.
> 
> There is always a relation and sometimes a tension between the inner and outer aspects of the Covenant the Bond (Outer) of Love (Inner).
> 
> Even the Baptists can't escape this because they sometimes baptise people and later conclude they are unregenerate.
> 
> So does their baptism (and maybe partaking of the Lord's Supper?) leave them more guilty or untouched, as their baptism wasn't a "real baptism", right?
> 
> If their baptism and partaking of the Lord's Supper wasn't real because they appear not to have had the inner reality, then it shouldn't make any difference to their standing before God. But the Bible doesn't teach this. Baptism and the Lord's Supper are in important objective senses "the Keys of the Kingdom".



I like your explination of covenant theology Richard, that is what I believe as well. So he didn't like the phrase covenant of works? Did he make any differentation between the Adamic covenant and what we would call the covenant of grace?

---------- Post added at 08:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:07 PM ----------




DMcFadden said:


> *Pro Murray:*
> Murray, J. (1954). The Covenant of Grace. London: Tyndale.
> 
> Ramsey, D. P. A Confessional Critique of Kline and Karlberg. WTJ 66:2 (Fall 2004).
> 
> *For comparisons and evaluations of Murray vs. Kline:*
> Jeon, J. K. (1999). Covenant Theology: John Murray's and Meredith G. Kline's Response to the Historical Development of Federal Theology in Reformed Thought. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
> 
> Jones, M. (2010, n.d. n.d.). In what sense? A Review Article. Retrieved June 23, 2010, from Ordained Servant Online: Ordained Servant Online
> 
> Robertson, O. P. (1977). "Current Reformed Thinking on the Nature of the Divine Covenants". Westminster Theological Journal , 40 (1), 62-76.
> 
> Trumper, T. J. (2002). Covenant Theology And Constructive Calvinism. Westminster Theological Journal , 64 (2), 386-404. A review of Jeon.
> 
> *If you want some opposite Murray (i.e., Kline oriented material):*
> Bryan D. Estelle, J. F. (Ed.). (2009). The Law is Not of Faith: Essays on Works and Grace in the Mosaic Covenant. Phillipsburg, New Jersey: P&R Publishing.
> 
> Karlberg, M. W. (Spring 1992). Covenant Theology and the Westminster Tradition. Westiminster Theological Journal , 54 (1), 135-152.
> 
> Karlberg, M. W. (2000). Covenant Theology in Reformed Perspective. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers.


 
Thank you very much. Yeah I am broke right now but if the welding school pays off like I think it will than I will have money to invest in these books. I must say I havn't read Kline at all but everything I read about him sort of makes me not like him that much. I am familer with his critique of theonomy but not his work in covenant theology. What was the disagreement between him and Murray?


----------



## Peairtach

> Did he make any differentation between the Adamic covenant and what we would call the covenant of grace?



Yes, he didn't go down the heretical route some have gone of denying that Adam would have saved himself and his progeny by his merit, and turning the Covenant of Works/Adamic Administration into a Covenant of Grace.

He just didn't like the name _Covenant_ of Works, because he'd already decided that a Covenant was a soveeign administration of promise and grace.

Even great men like Murray don't get it all right.

The word grace should be reserved for God's goodness to sinners, and Adam wasn't a sinner at the relevant period.


----------



## DMcFadden

> Thank you very much. Yeah I am broke right now but if the welding school pays off like I think it will than I will have money to invest in these books. I must say I havn't read Kline at all but everything I read about him sort of makes me not like him that much. I am familer with his critique of theonomy but not his work in covenant theology. What was the disagreement between him and Murray?



Murray emphasized the role of God's grace in his dealings with mankind and was accused of monocovenantalism for his reluctance to accept the terminology of covenant of works. His supporters claim that he held to the traditional view despite his wariness of the terminology of covenant of works. In Jeon's doctoral dissertation on Murray and Kline, he concludes that Murray was orthodox in his theology, albeit a bit of a revisionist of the Reformed tradition, but because he still retained the antithesis between law and grace (i.e., because he still identified a law-grace polarity so essential to the "Protestant" view of justification, he continued to be orthodox and within the Reformed tradition, despite his "creative" revisions of it).

Kline saw the Mosaic law as a "republication" of the covenant of works "in some sense" (typological) under the covenant of grace. His detractors accused him of everything from being too "Lutheran" to being antinomian. In a recent 150 pg. blast against Klineans under the cover of an extended review article of _The Law is Not of Faith_, those holding to Klinesque views are even painted with the broad brush of Amyraldianism.

Vanilla Reformed federal/covenant theology speaks of a covenant of works (during Adam's probationary period) followed by a covenant of grace (running from the protoevangelium of Gen 3:15-16 through Rev. 22. Some add an intratrinitarian covenant of redemption (_pactum salutis_) in eternity binding the members of the Godhead to the plan of redemption.

The issue is a hot one in some denominations. For instance, the OPC has a high percentage of Westminster grads, many of the older ones actually had Murray as a teacher while many of the younger ones took some of their work under Kline. Shepherd attempted to clean up some of the loose ends in Murray's theology during his term at WTS, eventually being removed for reasons of a non-confessional view of justification (proto-FV in some respects). Kline was at both WTS and WSCal, where he was the implacable enemy of Murray-esque views on covenant theology. While Murray tended to take a tolerant view of the orthodoxy of those who disagreed with him, many of the followers of Kline have been known for their heated rhetoric in attacking those on Murray's side of the aisle. Anything by Mark Karlberg, for example, would be very valuable in this regard. He clearly admires Kline and tends to use theological shotguns to swat flies.

If you are short on cash, get some of the Westminster Journal articles at a library. Robertson's piece is old (late 70s), but it sets the comparisons and contrasts fairly clearly. Trumper is also VERY good as a summary and critical review of the Jeon dissertation. 

If you want to bring the conversation up to date, the recent book _The Law is Not of Faith _is ESSENTIAL. The online review by Jones on the OPC site is fair and asks great questions (http://www.opc.org/os.html?article_id=199) about it that will help you get a flavor for the collection of essays, essentially reflecting a range from sympathy to identification with Kline's views. The book begins with a fictionalized account of an ordination examination where the candidate nearly fails for having espoused a Klinean view of the Mosaic law. The authors use that ecclesiastical reality of tension and debates among elders (Murrayites vs. Klineans) as one of the chief reasons for writing _The Law is Not of Faith_. If you get the book, there are three must-read chapters: the introduction laying out the issues of interpretation rather clearly, Ferry's chapter on taxonomy (a shortened form of his ThM at WTS earlier in this decade), and the exegetical chapter on the meaning of Galatians 3 (Gordon). It is the most expressly Klinean and the most candid in identifying the author's views on the subject.

Incidentally, stepping back from all of the inside baseball stuff (Hey, I'm just a Baptist and may have gotten some of the details wrong; help me Presbyterian brethren if any of this is inaccurate!), Jeon's dissertation places the issue in a more irenic context when he writes:



> Both Murray and Kline affirm justification by faith alone apart from good works or evangelical obedience, interpreting it in the light of the antithesis between Law and Gospel. Their consensus on forensic justification is integrated with the imputation of Christ’s righteousness and the instrumentality of faith. Both Murray and Kline correctly indicate that good works or evangelical obedience is the fruit of justifying faith. Murray argues that degrees of heavenly glory and reward will be assigned to believers according to their good works; this reflects both the overall view of Scripture and of covenant hermeneutics. Kline, however, does not permit the gradation of heavenly glory because the concept of gradation may obscure Christ’s meritorious work for our justification and salvation. (328)



Others, including some who have served on the faculty of Westminster Philadelphia (e.g., Trumper) have called the unending preoccupation with the Murray-Kline debate “myopic” and that it has “created unnecessarily a tension among those who really ought to be standing shoulder to shoulder in defense of federal theology.”


----------



## jwright82

DMcFadden said:


> Thank you very much. Yeah I am broke right now but if the welding school pays off like I think it will than I will have money to invest in these books. I must say I havn't read Kline at all but everything I read about him sort of makes me not like him that much. I am familer with his critique of theonomy but not his work in covenant theology. What was the disagreement between him and Murray?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Murray emphasized the role of God's grace in his dealings with mankind and was accused of monocovenantalism for his reluctance to accept the terminology of covenant of works. His supporters claim that he held to the traditional view despite his wariness of the terminology of covenant of works. In Jeon's doctoral dissertation on Murray and Kline, he concludes that Murray was orthodox in his theology, albeit a bit of a revisionist of the Reformed tradition, because he still retained the antithesis between law and grace (i.e., because he still identified a law-grace polarity so essential to the "Protestant" view of justification, he continued to be orthodox and within the Reformed tradition, despite his "creative" revisions of it).
> 
> Kline saw the Mosaic law as a "republication" of the covenant of works "in some sense" (typological) under the covenant of grace. His detractors accused him of everything from being too "Lutheran" to being antinomian.
> 
> Vanilla Reformed federal/covenant theology speaks of a covenant of works (during Adam's probationary period) followed by a covenant of grace (running from the protoevangelium of Gen 3:15-16 through Rev. 22. Some add an intratrinitarian covenant of redemption (_pactum salutis_) in eternity binding the members of the Godhead to the plan of redemption.
> 
> The issue is a hot one in some denominations. For instance, the OPC has a high percentage of Westminster grads, many of the older ones actually had Murray as a teacher while many of the younger ones took some of their work under Kline. Shepherd attempted to clean up some of the loose ends in Murray's theology during his term at WTS, eventually being removed for reasons of a non-confessional view of justification (proto-FV in some respects). Kline was at both WTS and WSCal, where he was the implacable enemy of Murray-esque views on covenant theology. While Murray tended to take a tolerant view of the orthodoxy of those who disagreed with him, many of the followers of Kline have been known for their heated rhetoric in attacking those on Murray's side of the aisle. Anything by Mark Karlberg, for example, would be very valuable in this regard. He clearly admires Kline and tends to use theological shotguns to swat flies.
> 
> If you are short on cash, get some of the Westminster Journal articles at a library. Robertson's piece is old (late 70s), but it sets the comparisons and contrasts fairly clearly. Trumper is also VERY good as a summary and critical review of the Jeon dissertation.
> 
> If you want to bring the conversation up to date, the recent book _The Law is Not of Faith _is ESSENTIAL. The online review by Jones on the OPC site is fair and asks great questions (Ordained Servant Online) about it that will help you get a flavor for the collection of essays, essentially reflecting a range from sympathy to identification with Kline's views. The book begins with a fictionalized account of an ordination examination where the candidate nearly fails for having espoused a Klinean view of the Mosaic law. The authors use that ecclesiastical reality of tension and debates among elders (Murrayites vs. Klineans) as one of the chief reasons for writing _The Law is Not of Faith_. If you get the book, there are three must-read chapters: the introduction laying out the issues of interpretation rather clearly, Ferry's chapter on taxonomy (a shortened form of his ThM at WTS earlier in this decade), and the exegetical chapter on the meaning of Galatians 3 (Gordon). It is the most expressly Klinean and the most candid in identifying the author's views on the subject.
> 
> Incidentally, stepping back from all of the inside baseball stuff (Hey, I'm just a Baptist and may have gotten some of the details wrong), Jeon's dissertation places the issue in a more irenic context when he writes:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Both Murray and Kline affirm justification by faith alone apart from good works or evangelical obedience, interpreting it in the light of the antithesis between Law and Gospel. Their consensus on forensic justification is integrated with the imputation of Christ’s righteousness and the instrumentality of faith. Both Murray and Kline correctly indicate that good works or evangelical obedience is the fruit of justifying faith. Murray argues that degrees of heavenly glory and reward will be assigned to believers according to their good works; this reflects both the overall view of Scripture and of covenant hermeneutics. Kline, however, does not permit the gradation of heavenly glory because the concept of gradation may obscure Christ’s meritorious work for our justification and salvation. (328)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Others, including some who have served on the faculty of Westminster Philadelphia (e.g., Jumper) have called the unending preoccupation with the Murray-Kline debate “myopic” and that it has “created unnecessarily a tension among those who really ought to be standing shoulder to shoulder in defense of federal theology.”
Click to expand...

 
Great post and great article link! They were both very informative. 

I did notice from some Klinians that I have met that they tend to view opposing parties as worse than wrong. I am still a little uncorfatable with Kline's views, although I know next to nothing about republicationism (your article link introduced me to it so thanks). The more historical view of the mosaic covenant is what that it is a certian dispensation of the covenant of grace that is fully realized and revealed in the new covenant? I sortive of think that but if what your saying about Kline and republicationism is that they view it as a more covenant of works over and against the covenant of grace, then the disagreement seems to be possibly one of emphasizing certian elements of the mosaic covenant more than others, do I have thatright? I am just trying to learn here so I am not trying to seem argumentetive but inquisative.

---------- Post added at 09:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:27 PM ----------




Richard Tallach said:


> Did he make any differentation between the Adamic covenant and what we would call the covenant of grace?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, he didn't go down the heretical route some have gone of denying that Adam would have saved himself and his progeny by his merit, and turning the Covenant of Works/Adamic Administration into a Covenant of Grace.
> 
> He just didn't like the name _Covenant_ of Works, because he'd already decided that a Covenant was a soveeign administration of promise and grace.
> 
> Even great men like Murray don't get it all right.
> 
> The word grace should be reserved for God's goodness to sinners, and Adam wasn't a sinner at the relevant period.
Click to expand...

 
Nice point Richard! So he had a problem with the term covenant of works because of his preinterpretive view of what a covenant was, if I understand you and him right. What was so different about his take on the adamic covenant other than a linguistic disagreement over names (covenant of works vs. whatever he wanted to call it)?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

DMcFadden said:


> *If you want some opposite Murray (i.e., Kline oriented material):*
> Bryan D. Estelle, J. F. (Ed.). (2009). The Law is Not of Faith: Essays on Works and Grace in the Mosaic Covenant. Phillipsburg, New Jersey: P&R Publishing.


 

Be forewarned that the book edited by Estelle is not very kind (not that they are required to be) to Murray and has one of the writers calling John Murray the "drunk Uncle" of Reformed Theology.


----------



## DMcFadden

> Be forewarned that the book edited by Estelle is not very kind (not that they are required to be) to Murray and has one of the writers calling John Murray the "drunk Uncle" of Reformed Theology.



More specifically, Dennison accuses one of the authors of mocking Murray in *ANOTHER* work, there likening Murray to an “uncle who gets drunk every Thanksgiving and makes passes at the women-folk." [This is a footnote that I did not have a chance to track down as to its accuracy.] As I indicated, the Murray-Kline debate is ANYthing but gentle or genteel. The partisans on both sides seem to conduct their theological discussions with black jacks, chains, and brandishing broken bottles.  BTW - the one bringing up the charge of mockery towards Murray engages in some florid prose himself in attacking the authors of _The Law is Not of Faith_. When have you ever seen a review that ran 150 pages and full of vitriolic personal attacks? It probably doesn't help that on the first page of the review, the three authors offer up Norman Shepherd as one of the guys they feel got a raw deal at the hands of the Klineans! If I were attempting to argue for my own orthodoxy over against the acolytes of Kline, it would not be by dredging up the name of someone removed from his post for theological reasons.

And, the contribution by the author who was accused of mocking Murray in another piece, has even been hailed by critics of Kline. "[That] chapter is in one respect the most satisfying of all the chapters for the simple reason that, agree or disagree with him, you are left in no doubt as to what precisely he is arguing."


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Who brought up Dennison? I'll have to get the book off my shelf but I was fairly certain T. David Gordon repeats the charge in this book.


----------



## DMcFadden

I brought up Dennison because he makes the charge against Gordon in the _Kerux_ review of _The Law is Not of Faith_, p. 64, fn 58. There he references _By Faith Alone_ by Johnson and Winters where he says the original comment was made.

Dennison's line is: "But Gordon's mockery of Murray doesn't end there. In another work he likens Murray and his biblical theology to . . . " (Kerux review, pg. 64.

I have great respect for Murray, Kline, and the more standard schema of covenant theology and neither defend nor support either Gordon's language NOR the "National Enquirer" type lines in the _Kerux_ article. As indicated in one of my earlier posts, Trumper seems to have gotten it right when he observes that it is incredibly "myopic" to squabble so acrimoniously between the Murray and Kline camps when their partisans should be standing shoulder to shoulder against the attacks on justification _sola fide_ that are threatening to undermine the Reformation (and Reformed) teaching on this crucial doctrine.

For conservative Reformed _sola fide_ upholders to treat each other as if the other side had one foot inside hell and one on a slippery slope is more than myopic (in my opinion). It is just plain stupid! With the ECT, NPP, FV, Wright, and other challenges to justification being promulgated out there . . . maybe Rodney King had it right: "Can't we just get along?" 

[Ben, I just don't have my copy of _The Law is not of Faith_ with me and cannot check if Gordon makes the charge in that book as well. Judging by Dennison's claim, I doubt that he would have gone to the trouble of referencing another work if he had an offending line at hand in _TLNF_.]


----------



## Willem van Oranje

Richard Tallach said:


> Well his little booklet on the Covenant of Grace (Pand R) can't cost too much and is probably online.
> 
> Because Murray defined divine covenants as "a sovereign administration of grace and of promise" he was lothe to call the Covenant of Works "the Covenant of Works" so he called it "the Adamic Administration".
> 
> He defined biblical divine "covenant" too narrowly and thus couldn't call the Covenant of Works a covenant.
> 
> Here's an article by Dr McMahon critical of Murray on the Covenant of Grace.
> 
> John Murray’s Reformulation of the Covenant of Grace
> 
> While reading this, it occured to me that the inner life of the Covenant is monergistic, while the outer administration is synergistic.
> 
> E.g. Abraham was in covenant with God by faith before he got himself and his sons circumcised.
> 
> The faith that Abraham had was monergistically produced by the Holy Spirit.
> 
> The sign and seal, and badge and ceremony of the Covenant - circumcision - which is sometimes referred to as "the Covenant" itself (see Genesis 17), is synergistically produced by saved Man's (hopefully saved Man's) response to God's command, and then God the Holy Spirit makes use of that.
> 
> This is what Credo Baptists, don't get: that in the administration of the Covenant there is an inner spiritual reality and an outward sign and seal, that are not always found in the same person, and are not always meant to be found in the same person.
> 
> The elect or even the regenerate cannot and should not be be identified to be baptised; that is beyond men's knowledge.
> 
> But those who have a credible profession of the Christian faith and their children should be baptised.
> 
> There is always a relation and sometimes a tension between the inner and outer aspects of the Covenant the Bond (Outer) of Love (Inner).
> 
> Even the Baptists can't escape this because they sometimes baptise people and later conclude they are unregenerate.
> 
> So does their baptism (and maybe partaking of the Lord's Supper?) leave them more guilty or untouched, as their baptism wasn't a "real baptism", right?
> 
> If their baptism and partaking of the Lord's Supper wasn't real because they appear not to have had the inner reality, then it shouldn't make any difference to their standing before God. But the Bible doesn't teach this. Baptism and the Lord's Supper are in important objective senses "the Keys of the Kingdom".


 
Even under Murray's definition of "covenant", the "Adamic Administration" should qualify as a covenant, since it was very gracious (Adam and Eve had more gifts and blessings than they could ever, need, had only one specific prohibition, and possessed everything that should have helped them to keep that one commandment; ) and contained a promise of eternal life with God (symbolized by the tree of life.)

---------- Post added at 01:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:14 PM ----------




Richard Tallach said:


> Did he make any differentation between the Adamic covenant and what we would call the covenant of grace?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, he didn't go down the heretical route some have gone of denying that Adam would have saved himself and his progeny by his merit, and turning the Covenant of Works/Adamic Administration into a Covenant of Grace.
> 
> He just didn't like the name _Covenant_ of Works, because he'd already decided that a Covenant was a soveeign administration of promise and grace.
> 
> Even great men like Murray don't get it all right.
> 
> The word grace should be reserved for God's goodness to sinners, and Adam wasn't a sinner at the relevant period.
Click to expand...

 
If Adam had won eternal life for all of us instead of sinning, we would not be sinners; yet we would see the covenant as grace. We would marvel at God's grace to us underving creatures that he had given us so many blessings upon such a small condition. How much more then is that covenant which we enjoy to be attributed to grace, for in this covenant we have contributed absolutely nothing, not even one little abstension which was required of Adam.

---------- Post added at 01:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:18 PM ----------

"Kline was at both WTS and WSCal,"

Plus Gordon-Conwell, don't forget.


----------



## DMcFadden

> "Kline was at both WTS and WSCal,"
> 
> Plus Gordon-Conwell, don't forget.



Yes, but my friends from that era say that he was constantly complaining to his students at GC that they were not as capable and did not work as hard as his WTS students.

But, hey, what do I know. My seminary was in Pasadena where the palm trees and continual sunshine put us all into an academic haze. And, I will allow that the GC M.Div. grads are typically MUCH sharper than the Pasadena M.Div. grads (even though many of the Pasadena folks went on to get PhDs and make major contributions).


----------



## Willem van Oranje

DMcFadden said:


> "Kline was at both WTS and WSCal,"
> 
> Plus Gordon-Conwell, don't forget.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but my friends from that era say that he was constantly complaining to his students at GC that they were not as capable and did not work as hard as his WTS students.
Click to expand...

 
Somehow I don't find that entirely surprising, yet Gordon-Conwell is still #4 on the OPC's list of seminaries that have trained her ministers.


----------



## DMcFadden

Riley, one of the members of my board is a pastor in a nearby town and a Gordon-Conwell grad from the early 80s. He loved Kline but complained that Kline was often found grousing at the failure of his GC students to live up to the standards of his WTS students.


----------



## Willem van Oranje

DMcFadden said:


> Riley, one of the members of my board is a pastor in a nearby town and a Gordon-Conwell grad from the early 80s. He loved Kline but complained that Kline was often found grousing at the failure of his GC students to live up to the standards of his WTS students.


 
OK, I got the point the first time! GCTS gathers from much broader spectrum of incoming students than the WTSs: mainliners, charismatics, emergents etc. And in my judgment they graduate much better (sounder) than they came. I think the school is doing a lot of good.


----------



## Peairtach

*Quote from Riley*


> Even under Murray's definition of "covenant", the "Adamic Administration" should qualify as a covenant, since it was very gracious (Adam and Eve had more gifts and blessings than they could ever, need, had only one specific prohibition, and possessed everything that should have helped them to keep that one commandment; ) and contained a promise of eternal life with God (symbolized by the tree of life.)



Yes but it is better to say that it was good, righteous, wise, holy, etc, rasther than gracious, because Adam and Eve hadn't sinned, and the word grace is usually reserved for the unmerited or demerited favour or goodness of God to sinners.

E.g. for God to curse Adam's body with the seeds of death, curse his world and cast Adam and Eve out of the Garden, before they had sinned, and not have an otherwise good reason for doing so, would be immoral.

For God to immerse the unfallen angels or Adam and Eve, before they fell, in Hell, would be against His just character. So before the Fall, God in a sense owed Adam His goodness. Therefore to talk of _grace_, even in the arrangements of the CoW is at best misleading and confusing.

We have a God Whom we can trust in not to dispense arbitrary or even rough "justice."


----------



## Willem van Oranje

Richard Tallach said:


> *Quote from Riley*
> 
> 
> 
> Even under Murray's definition of "covenant", the "Adamic Administration" should qualify as a covenant, since it was very gracious (Adam and Eve had more gifts and blessings than they could ever, need, had only one specific prohibition, and possessed everything that should have helped them to keep that one commandment; ) and contained a promise of eternal life with God (symbolized by the tree of life.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes but it is better to say that it was good, righteous, wise, holy, etc, rasther than gracious, because Adam and Eve hadn't sinned, and the word grace is usually reserved for the unmerited or demerited favour or goodness of God to sinners.
> 
> E.g. for God to curse Adam's body with the seeds of death, curse his world and cast Adam and Eve out of the Garden, before they had sinned, and not have an otherwise good reason for doing so, would be immoral.
> 
> For God to immerse the unfallen angels or Adam and Eve, before they fell, in Hell, would be against His just character. So before the Fall, God in a sense owed Adam His goodness. Therefore to talk of _grace_, even in the arrangements of the CoW is at best misleading and confusing.
> 
> We have a God Whom we can trust in not to dispense arbitrary or even rough "justice."
Click to expand...

 
First of all, it is oxymoronic to speak of hypothetical acts of God as being potentially "immoral." Second of all, if Adam hadn't sinned, he would not only not have died. He/we would have been translated to a full communion with the triune God in a glorified heavenly state. This was symbolized to Adam by the tree of life. This certainly would qualify as gracious on God's part. 

As far as grace, I prefer to distinguish it from mercy. Mercy is only for sinners. Grace is always undeserved, but can also be applied to pre-sin Adam and Eve or the sinless angels as well as fallen humanity.


----------



## Peairtach

> As far as grace, I prefer to distinguish it from mercy. Mercy is only for sinners. Grace is always undeserved, but can also be applied to pre-sin Adam and Eve or the sinless angels as well as fallen humanity.



I prefer a clearer distinction between the realms of grace and mercy to sinners and the realm of God's bountiful goodness to His creatures that haven't sinned e.g. unfallen Man and angels, especially when there is this danger of confusing things and turning the Covenant of Works into a Covenant of Grace.

Christians and Reformed Christians in particular are used to talking about God's grace in the context of Man's sin, before they come to the subject of the pre-Fall Covenant, and the use of the word grace in that context might at best lead to confusion, if not downright erroneousness.

And it's true that before the Fall, God in His goodness _owed by His own nature_ Adam and Eve _something_. Maybe not all they received and were offered for their continued obedience, which was far more than the something He owed them.

It may be difficult to define what that _something_ was that God owed them as innocent creatures made in His Image but that was part of what He gave them at the beginning and it wasn't gracious or merciful. 

It was just what they deserved as sinless creatures made in His Image and because God is good and just He treated them in such a way. Because He is bountiful in goodness He delighted to give and offer them far more than He needed to in strict goodness and justice.


*Quotes from Riley*


> Even under Murray's definition of "covenant", the "Adamic Administration" should qualify as a covenant, since it was very gracious (Adam and Eve had more gifts and blessings than they could ever, need, had only one specific prohibition, and possessed everything that should have helped them to keep that one commandment; ) and contained a promise of eternal life with God (symbolized by the tree of life.)





> If Adam had won eternal life for all of us instead of sinning, we would not be sinners; yet we would see the covenant as grace. We would marvel at God's grace to us underving creatures that he had given us so many blessings upon such a small condition. How much more then is that covenant which we enjoy to be attributed to grace, for in this covenant we have contributed absolutely nothing, not even one little abstension which was required of Adam.



I agree with these points, Riley. I just don't like using the word "grace" in connection with the Covenant of Works in case the Covenant of Grace gets confused with the Covenant of Works, which has already happened.

If we talk of grace in connection with the Covenant of Works we have to make clear distinctions and qualifications lest people think that the Covenant of Works was _all of grace_. 

Then the main theological point that is taught by the Covenant of Works is vitiated or overthrown.


----------



## Willem van Oranje

Richard Tallach said:


> As far as grace, I prefer to distinguish it from mercy. Mercy is only for sinners. Grace is always undeserved, but can also be applied to pre-sin Adam and Eve or the sinless angels as well as fallen humanity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I prefer a clearer distinction between the realms of grace and mercy to sinners and the realm of God's bountiful goodness to His creatures that haven't sinned e.g. unfallen Man and angels, especially when there is this danger of confusing things and turning the Covenant of Works into a Covenant of Grace.
> 
> Christians and Reformed Christians in particular are used to talking about God's grace in the context of Man's sin, before they come to the subject of the pre-Fall Covenant, and the use of the word grace in that context might at best lead to confusion, if not downright erroneousness.
> 
> And it's true that before the Fall, God in His goodness _owed by His own nature_ Adam and Eve _something_. Maybe not all they received and were offered for their continued obedience, which was far more than the something He owed them.
> 
> It may be difficult to define what that _something_ was that God owed them as innocent creatures made in His Image but that was part of what He gave them at the beginning and it wasn't gracious or merciful.
> 
> It was just what they deserved as sinless creatures made in His Image and because God is good and just He treated them in such a way. Because He is bountiful in goodness He delighted to give and offer them far more than He needed to in strict goodness and justice.
> 
> 
> *Quotes from Riley*
> 
> 
> 
> Even under Murray's definition of "covenant", the "Adamic Administration" should qualify as a covenant, since it was very gracious (Adam and Eve had more gifts and blessings than they could ever, need, had only one specific prohibition, and possessed everything that should have helped them to keep that one commandment; ) and contained a promise of eternal life with God (symbolized by the tree of life.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If Adam had won eternal life for all of us instead of sinning, we would not be sinners; yet we would see the covenant as grace. We would marvel at God's grace to us underving creatures that he had given us so many blessings upon such a small condition. How much more then is that covenant which we enjoy to be attributed to grace, for in this covenant we have contributed absolutely nothing, not even one little abstension which was required of Adam.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree with these points, Riley. I just don't like using the word "grace" in connection with the Covenant of Works in case the Covenant of Grace gets confused with the Covenant of Works, which has already happened.
> 
> If we talk of grace in connection with the Covenant of Works we have to make clear distinctions and qualifications lest people think that the Covenant of Works was _all of grace_.
> 
> Then the main theological point that is taught by the Covenant of Works is vitiated or overthrown.
Click to expand...

 
I would say that the "covenant of works", or, as the Shorter Catechism terms it (emphasizing the promised reward of obedience,) the "covenant of life", was in fact very gracious, although I would never mix it up with what we call the "covenant of grace." That is where we keep the terms clear.


----------



## Peairtach

VG. 

Things have to be kept especially clear now, with Shepherdism, NPP, FV, etc, floating around in Reformed and evangelical theological circles.


----------



## Willem van Oranje

Richard Tallach said:


> VG.
> 
> Things have to be kept especially clear now, with Shepherdism, NPP, FV, etc, floating around in Reformed and evangelical theological circles.


 
This is one reason why I don't appreciate Murray's muddling with the historic Reformed confessional terms.


----------



## Dearly Bought

The previously mentioned comment by T. David Gordon is found in his essay "Reflections on Auburn Theology" on page 118 of the volume _By Faith Alone_ edited by Gary Johnson and Guy Waters. Here is the comment in its greater context,


> I am staggered by the lack of discussion of John Murray's biblical theology. Many families have a dark secret that they prefer not to talk about: the uncle who gets drunk every Thanksgiving and makes passes at the womenfolk, the eccentric nephew who can't hold a job, etc. Such family secrets are well-known but rarely discussed. The Reformed version of this is John Murray's biblical theology.


While the illustration is ill-advised and unnecessarily provocative, Dennison presents Gordon as stating something more offensive than he does in reality. Gordon presents Murray's biblical theology as the Reformed "drunk uncle" that is "well-known but rarely discussed." He does not state that Murray himself is a "drunk uncle." Critics of Gordon's covenant theology do not benefit from such inaccurate presentations.

P.S. That being said, I'd like to make it clear that I'm not a huge fan of T. David Gordon's covenant theology. My objection is simply that his rejection of the Covenant of Grace (same essay, pg. 121) should be the primary object of discussion, not an out-of-context quotation.


----------



## py3ak

Richard Tallach said:


> And it's true that before the Fall, God in His goodness _owed by His own nature_ Adam and Eve _something_. Maybe not all they received and were offered for their continued obedience, which was far more than the something He owed them.
> 
> It may be difficult to define what that _something_ was that God owed them as innocent creatures made in His Image but that was part of what He gave them at the beginning and it wasn't gracious or merciful.
> 
> It was just what they deserved as sinless creatures made in His Image and because God is good and just He treated them in such a way. Because He is bountiful in goodness He delighted to give and offer them far more than He needed to in strict goodness and justice.


 
Richard, I also prefer to keep the word "grace" in theological usage for speaking of God's favor to the guilty.

However, I am quite concerned by these statements you have made, though perhaps I am misunderstanding. Do you really mean to assert that Adam had a claim on God while in the period of probation? That God was indebted and obligated to give Adam something? To me that seems clean contrary to Romans 11:35.


----------



## jwright82

> Richard, I also prefer to keep the word "grace" in theological usage for speaking of God's favor to the guilty.



Would a better word, and I'm just speculating here, be blessing? This word seams to keep the focus of the covenant of works but also displays God's love through His covenant. It seems a nice balence to me.

---------- Post added at 07:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:27 PM ----------




> This is one reason why I don't appreciate Murray's muddling with the historic Reformed confessional terms.



I knew the connection to FV existed informally you could say between Murray and FV but the reports on FV when they mention Murray exonerate him from any actual FV offense, I know it didn't exist back then as an idea but you know I mean like he beleived the same sort of things. Since I trust the reports and their comments on Murray without actually reading him I wanted to learn about his theology apart from the controversy.


----------



## py3ak

jwright82 said:


> Richard, I also prefer to keep the word "grace" in theological usage for speaking of God's favor to the guilty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would a better word, and I'm just speculating here, be blessing? This word seams to keep the focus of the covenant of works but also displays God's love through His covenant. It seems a nice balence to me.
Click to expand...


I think the Assembly's "voluntary condescension" does just fine.


----------



## Peairtach

God would have been acting inconsistently with His own just character to treat unfallen angels and unfallen Adam and Eve, or Christ Himself once He had completed His work, unjustly.

God is always true to His own nature and will never do anything unjust or otherwise sinful. 

God "owed" this to Himself first of all rather than Adam, because all that Adam was and had was from God.



> Do you really mean to assert that Adam had a claim on God while in the period of probation?



If the innocent Adam had been immersed in Hell by God, would he not have been able to appeal to God's just character as to why he should not have been put there by God.

In that sense Adam had a claim on God's character. Of course the issue never arose because God is a just God, and not only that, He delighted in being superabundantly good to Adam and Eve.

As it was God treated the unfallen Adam justly, and on top of that with "grace", "voluntary condescension", "bountiful, superabundant goodness". Take your pick.


----------



## jwright82

> I think the Assembly's "voluntary condescension" does just fine.



Quite correct, I almost forgot about that part, thanks!


----------



## py3ak

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.


----------



## Willem van Oranje

py3ak said:


> Richard Tallach said:
> 
> 
> 
> And it's true that before the Fall, God in His goodness _owed by His own nature_ Adam and Eve _something_. Maybe not all they received and were offered for their continued obedience, which was far more than the something He owed them.
> 
> It may be difficult to define what that _something_ was that God owed them as innocent creatures made in His Image but that was part of what He gave them at the beginning and it wasn't gracious or merciful.
> 
> It was just what they deserved as sinless creatures made in His Image and because God is good and just He treated them in such a way. Because He is bountiful in goodness He delighted to give and offer them far more than He needed to in strict goodness and justice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Richard, I also prefer to keep the word "grace" in theological usage for speaking of God's favor to the guilty.
> 
> However, I am quite concerned by these statements you have made, though perhaps I am misunderstanding. Do you really mean to assert that Adam had a claim on God while in the period of probation? That God was indebted and obligated to give Adam something? To me that seems clean contrary to Romans 11:35.
Click to expand...

 
I define grace as unmerited favor.


----------



## 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

Richard Tallach said:


> 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 ----------




jwright82 said:


> 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

Richard Tallach said:


> 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."



Richard Tallach said:


> 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.
Click to expand...


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

Joshua said:


> 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

Joshua said:


> Richard Tallach said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

 
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

Richard Tallach said:


> 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

Christusregnat said:


> 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.


----------

