# John Murray and Covenant theology



## jwright82 (May 4, 2019)

I keep reading that John Murray "recast" covenant theology, in what way?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## jwright82 (May 5, 2019)

I know he may have had problems with the covenant of works. Is that true?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (May 5, 2019)

The best thing to do is begin by reading his booklet _The Covenant of Grace_ and see what you make of it. Personally, I believe that John Murray gets too much of a free pass from the Reformed antiquarians on account of his advocacy of exclusive psalmody and other, more traditional opinions. Subsequent history has shown that his rejection of the covenant of works has proved disastrous for the Reformed church as demonstrated by the Federal Vision movement.

Others will argue that he merely dissented from the traditional terminology or was just reacting against crass formulations of the covenant of works. Moreover, they would assert that I am engaging in a _post hoc ergo propter hoc_ fallacy. Given these conflicting opinions, the best thing you can do is to go to the source.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Shanny01 (May 5, 2019)

I think it all comes down to whether Murray affirmed a works principle (covenantal merit). Some will say he did and some will say he didn't. Here are two sources one arguing he held the Covenant of Works in substance (if not formally) and one arguing he departed from the substance of truth and lent some creedence to Federal Visionists. https://contrast2.wordpress.com/201...did-john-murray-reject-the-covenant-of-works/
https://cbtseminary.org/john-murray-and-the-covenant-of-works-1-of-4/


----------



## Romans922 (May 5, 2019)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Subsequent history has shown that his rejection of the covenant of works has proved disastrous for the Reformed church as demonstrated by the Federal Vision movement.



I’d also say a misunderstanding generally of the CoW leads to disaster. Kline and followers went to the other extreme from Norm Shepherd (who followed Murray) on the CoW, and their view (Klineans) is leading to disaster in the reformed camp.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## J.L. Allen (May 5, 2019)

I definitely am interested in this debate between Kline and Murray. 

In part, this is because Murray was so instrumental in my wife and I accepting covenant baptism and becoming Presbyterian.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (May 5, 2019)

Johnathan Lee Allen said:


> I definitely am interested in this debate between Kline and Murray.



The debate is not really between Meredith Kline and John Murray, but between John Murray and Reformed orthodoxy. To that end, I think it would be helpful to the discussion to leave the issue of Klineanism out of this debate, as it is tangential to the main point raised in the opening post. (And, for what it is worth, I am no Klinean, though Meredith Kline was right to warn about the moralism that would arise out of denying the covenant of works.)

The Westminster Standards require one to confess the covenant of works as a doctrine founded on and agreeable to the word of God. Those who do not believe that the covenant of nature is founded on and agreeable to the word of God should not be ordained as office bearers in confessionally Reformed churches, much less recognised as professors at Reformed seminaries.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## J.L. Allen (May 5, 2019)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> The debate is not really between Meredith Kline and John Murray, but between John Murray and Reformed orthodoxy. To that end, I think it would be helpful to the discussion to leave the issue of Klineanism out of this debate, as it is tangential to the main point raised in the opening post. (And, for what it is worth, I am no Klinean, though Meredith Kline was right to warn about the moralism that would arise out of denying the covenant of works.)
> 
> The Westminster Standards require one to confess the covenant of works as a doctrine founded on and agreeable to the word of God. Those who do not believe that the covenant of nature is founded on and agreeable to the word of God should not be ordained as office bearers in confessionally Reformed churches, much less recognised as professors at Reformed seminaries.


Oh yes. My apologies; Not trying to derail anything. I guess I’ve understood them to be at opposite ends but maybe this isn’t so?

This is the first time I’ve heard that there is a conclusion leading to FV that could be made by way of interpreting Murray’s interaction with CoW.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Romans922 (May 5, 2019)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> To that end, I think it would be helpful to the discussion to leave the issue of Klineanism out of this debate, as it is tangential to the main point raised in the opening post.



Yes, sorry. Just pointing out when we mess up on CoW, we mess up a lot of everything after that.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (May 5, 2019)

Romans922 said:


> Yes, sorry. Just pointing out when we mess up on CoW, we mess up a lot of everything after that.



No need to apologise, brother; your general point is a sound one.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (May 5, 2019)

Johnathan Lee Allen said:


> Oh yes. My apologies; Not trying to derail anything. I guess I’ve understood them to be at opposite ends but maybe this isn’t so?
> 
> This is the first time I’ve heard that there is a conclusion leading to FV that could be made by way of interpreting Murray’s interaction with CoW.



Again, there is no need to apologise. What you have to remember about the FV is that it is a mono-covenantalist movement that denies a prelapsarian covenant of works distinct from the covenant of grace. It then uses this erroneous starting point to reject or redefine traditional Reformed doctrines such as imputed righteousness and justification by faith alone. 

If the first Adam was not the covenant head of the human race who had the potentiality to "merit" eternal life as the gracious reward for perfect obedience to the moral law, then neither did the second Adam merit eternal life for the elect on account of perfect obedience to the moral law. If Christ did not merit eternal life for us by keeping the covenant of works, then we must be justified by something other than the imputed righteousness of Christ (both active and passive obedience). The Federal Visionists argue that this "something other" is our own covenantal faithfulness. In other words, according to them, we are justified by faith and works.

Obviously, John Murray was not a Federal Visionist, but it is argued that his rejection of the covenant of works opened the door for this sort of error to emerge. As Wilhelmus a Brakel noted in the _Christian's Reasonable Service_, and subsequent experience has borne out, whenever someone goes wrong with the covenant of works, they will (if logically consistent) soon go wrong with the covenant of grace.

Reactions: Like 3 | Informative 1


----------



## User20004000 (May 6, 2019)

Aside from finding the term CoW a misnomer, what did Murray object to? 

Surely the CoL (to use the Catechism’s nomenclature) wasn’t one of condign merit, was it? It was one of pactum merit, was it not? Is there reason to believe Murray denied such a compact?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (May 6, 2019)

RWD said:


> Aside from finding the term CoW a misnomer, what did Murray object to?



From what I recall, he did not like the notion of there being a covenantal arrangement with Adam. I think that he preferred the term "Adamic Administration" or something to that effect.


----------



## User20004000 (May 6, 2019)

Yes, that’s pretty much my understanding too. And although not ideal perhaps, I can’t find that he denied anything essential to what _covenant_ contemplates - mutually binding; sovereignly transacted; promise made; need for trust; sanctions (ie blessings and curses).

He, also, saw the federal aspect and how it relates to Romans 5, which I think only makes sense in covenantal terms. 

Lastly, Murray saw the condescension aspect of the CoW, which I believe some overlook (if not deny) today, and _that_ is what I think has caused Murray to fall out of favor in certain circles.

Reactions: Like 1 | Rejoicing 1


----------



## greenbaggins (May 7, 2019)

Murray disliked the term "works" because he saw grace in the Adamic administration. However, he clearly affirmed that Adam's own righteousness would have justified him. He says, "In this righteousness he would be justified, that is, approved and accepted by God, and he would have life." He defines life a short bit later as being something better than a contingent situation (fallible), and the presence of full-orbed communion with God. See his Collected Works, volume 2, p. 47ff. He also clearly affirms the hypothetical transition from _posse peccare et posse non peccare_ (Adam's state) to _non posse peccare_ (the glorified state) so essential to all Augustinian systems as the result of Adam's works justification. His objections to the term are based on the presence of elements of grace, and on his opinion that Hosea 6:7 does not call the Adamic Administration a covenant (he obviously disagrees with Warfield on this point. Warfield is a good bit more convincing!).

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (May 7, 2019)

Did John Murray not take an exception to the Westminster Confession on this question? 

I recall R. Scott Clark saying that affirming the Confession while taking an exception to its covenant theology makes about as much sense as swearing to uphold the U.S. Constitution while rejecting the Bill of Rights. 



greenbaggins said:


> Murray disliked the term "works" because he saw grace in the Adamic administration.



The Westminster Confession is pretty clear that the covenant of works came about as the result of "voluntary condescension on God's part" (7.1). And when Reformed divines spoke of "merit" in the covenant with Adam, they used it in an improper sense of a gracious reward for perfect obedience, not in the strict sense of man holding God as his debtor. 

I think that John Murray was trying to be too smart for his own good on this subject. Subsequent history with Norman Shepherd and the Federal Vision has shown us the disastrous consequences of not holding fast to the form of sound words on the covenant of works. May God deliver us from the itching ears of innovation.


----------



## greenbaggins (May 7, 2019)

Yes, Daniel, you are right. However, it is always salutary to remember that we cannot judge Murray on the basis of information we have today concerning theological trajectories. Nor can we really judge him for the directions some of his ostensible students took. Yes, I could wish he would have seen where it could have (and in fact did) go. But his students, as so often happens, went further than the master. It is not always fair to blame the master for the students' lack of propriety and restraint, a restraint that Murray himself clearly had.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## User20004000 (May 7, 2019)

And when Reformed divines spoke of "merit" in the covenant with Adam, they used it in an improper sense of a gracious reward for perfect obedience, not in the strict sense of man holding God as his debtor.​
Can you clarify? 

The latter appears to be condign merit. The former, pactum merit.


----------



## User20004000 (May 7, 2019)

RWD said:


> And when Reformed divines spoke of "merit" in the covenant with Adam, they used it in an improper sense of a gracious reward for perfect obedience, not in the strict sense of man holding God as his debtor.​
> Can you clarify?
> 
> The latter appears to be condign merit. The former, pactum merit.



Daniel, in other words, with respect to the CoW, the Divines had built into their view of “merit” both condescension and the disproportionate reward for obedience?


----------



## User20004000 (May 7, 2019)

greenbaggins said:


> Yes, Daniel, you are right. However, it is always salutary to remember that we cannot judge Murray on the basis of information we have today concerning theological trajectories. Nor can we really judge him for the directions some of his ostensible students took. Yes, I could wish he would have seen where it could have (and in fact did) go. But his students, as so often happens, went further than the master. It is not always fair to blame the master for the students' lack of propriety and restraint, a restraint that Murray himself clearly had.



If I may add, this is another reminder not to deviate from Systematic Taxonomy. That said, I also agree, the FV crowd didn’t so much exploit Murray but rather deceivingly collapsed soteriology into ecclesiology, confounded (a) justification with sanctification and (b) common operations of the Spirit with regeneration.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (May 7, 2019)

RWD said:


> Daniel, in other words, with respect to the CoW, the Divines had built into their view of “merit” both condescension and the disproportionate reward for obedience?



From what I have read of Reformed orthodox theologians, yes.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## psycheives (May 7, 2019)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Did John Murray not take an exception to the Westminster Confession on this question?
> I recall R. Scott Clark saying that affirming the Confession while taking an exception to its covenant theology makes about as much sense as swearing to uphold the U.S. Constitution while rejecting the Bill of Rights.



I wrote my HT Master's thesis at Westminster Seminary CA on Murray's CT, so I hope to be able to help with a few questions.

John Murray was super serious about his vows to the WStandards. He said anyone who no longer held to the teachings needed to step forward and declare their differences and offer to resign. It was not up to the church to catch you teaching an error and ask you to remove yourself. It was your duty before God to offer to remove yourself.

I understand it is the practice of the OPC to keep no list of exceptions taken by is ministers. Murray's presbytery's minutes do not comment on exceptions. Thus, those who have claimed "John Murray took an exception to the WStandards" are absolutely incorrect if it is meant to be a historical fact. This claim is really simply their _opinion _and _an expression of their belief that his beliefs did not match the WStandards _-- this statement is NOT a reflection of historical fact.

That said, Murray did not see himself as having any real difference with the WStandards. He conducted an interview where he says the only difference is a *terminological preference *(that would help prevent future confusion) and no disagreement with the actual teachings of the confessions.

As a Scotsman, Murray would have been very familiar with subscription debates and the many attempts made to weaken the church's confessional standing.[1] His father, Alexander Murray, had been apart of the Free Presbyterian Church split from the Free Church over subscription and his concerns had undoubtedly been passed to his son. As R. Scott Clark details, Professor Murray followed the Princeton theologians in holding that "system subscription is the Old School approach" and not "the 'every proposition' or strict view," sometimes called the full subscription view.[2] He was intimately familiar with the history, the Minutes, and the many versions of the Westminster Standards, even doing textual comparisons on word and punctuation changes over time.[3] He saw terminological imprecision, errors and contradictions in some of the words but considered such analysis, criticism and sharpening of words not to be a rejection of the system of doctrine in the Standards, "...the doctrine that is set forth here [WSC Q.12] is perfectly correct... It's not a matter of difference of doctrine. It's simply a matter of the difference of the use of that word."[4] Murray actively sought to promote and defend the Westminster Standards, while firmly declaring anyone who disagreed with the Confession was under oath to resign prior to any attempting to amend the Confession.[5] As the Chairman appointed to make recommendations regarding the Confession for the OPC in the 1950s, he did not advocate any change to any of the Confession's terminology or to the doctrine of the covenants.[6] With in-depth knowledge of variant readings and terminological issues among the Confessions, he did not believe he was departing from the doctrine when considering more accurate and felicitous terminology, "...there always remains the need for correction [toward] a more faithful transcript or reflection of the heavenly exemplar."[7]​
[3] Zorn, "Westminster Confession Distinctives," 199–202; John Murray, "The Theology of the Westminster Confession of Faith," in _Collected Writings of John Murray _(1976; repr., Edinburgh; Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, 2001), 4:241–63. Murray compared the texts of different versions of the Westminster Standards and analyzed and criticized specific words as imprecise, inaccurate and even contradictory. He taught from his own Tercentenary Edition, based on the original manuscript written by Cornelius Burges in 1646.

[5] Murray taught a class on the Westminster Confession of Faith and wrote about a dozen articles promoting and defending it. He strongly contended that anyone who disagreed with the creed which they vowed to uphold, must first resign and then pursue to get the erroneous creed altered.​

Reactions: Informative 7 | Amen 1


----------



## psycheives (May 7, 2019)

jwright82 said:


> I keep reading that John Murray "recast" covenant theology, in what way?



Today, most theologians are at a disadvantage because it is hard to understand the history and the debates/issues of Murray's time. Divorced from the historical issues, they very easily misread Murray. I believe one of the main reasons is Meredith Kline has poisoned the reading of John Murray to a great extent with his "hit piece" on Murray. Even though his editor refused to publish the attacking article as it was originally written, Kline passed the unedited version out to all his students basically blaming Murray for Federal Vision/Shepherd and WSC continued this when I was a student. So now, people tend to read FV into Murray and fail to actually see what Murray was teaching.

I believe a historical analysis reveals that Murray's "recasting" was not something shocking during his time. His work feeds directly off Vos' work on "the best definition of covenant" in his green book: Redemptive History - Vos addresses this in two chapters in his book. Silly thing is, Murray even mentions Vos on pg 1 of "The Covenant of Grace" and footnotes Vos throughout his work. Not sure how Murray's critics missed the sources Murray himself provided except that they had a pre-determined presupposition coming into reading Murray that was influenced by Meredith Kline's article blaming Murray for FV. So they miss what Murray is saying and simply look for FV and "a rejection of the COW."

But Murray's mentor, Vos, "recast" the definition before Murray did. In fact, debating what "covenant" definition was "the best" was nothing new in the history of Reformed theology. The best definition of "covenant" had LONG been disputed among the Reformed. Some definitions had long been considered confusing and even to tending toward the promotion of error. Murray's "recasting" was simply stating which of the definitions he believed was the best and his definition matches the beliefs or concerns of many Reformed theologians of his time.

Reactions: Informative 4


----------



## psycheives (May 7, 2019)

jwright82 said:


> I know he may have had problems with the covenant of works. Is that true?



Not really. Murray maintained the main elements of the COW. His issue wasn't an Adamic Covenant or COW so much as the terminology used. His own writings expressed his concern that a less felicitous covenant definition (terminology issue) would result in the COW being republished into Moses to do harm to the Mosaic Covenant as a Covenant of Grace.

Critics of Klinean CT accuse Klinean CT of doing this very thing - republishing the COW in a way that damages Moses and the COG.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## psycheives (May 7, 2019)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> I think it would be helpful to the discussion to leave the issue of Klineanism out of this debate, as it is tangential to the main point raised in the opening post.



I do think that Klineanism is relevant because Kline is largely responsible for most modern misunderstandings of Murray. Readers should be aware of Kline's reaction to FV which led him swing to an extreme in another direction and led to a hyper-sensitivity that tends to see FV in places it is not.



Reformed Covenanter said:


> The Westminster Standards require one to confess the covenant of works as a doctrine founded on and agreeable to the word of God. Those who do not believe that the covenant of nature is founded on and agreeable to the word of God should not be ordained as office bearers in confessionally Reformed churches, much less recognised as professors at Reformed seminaries.



Strong language, brother. Would you apply this criticism to Murray when he said:

"This formulation that is given in the Westminster Shorter Catechism, and also in the Larger Catechism and in the Confession of Faith .... Well, if you want me to express my own opinion, my own judgment... the doctrine that is set forth here is perfectly correct, "But when God created man, he entered into a certain relationship with him upon condition of perfect obedience forbidding him to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil upon pain of death."​
He goes on to express his concern with terminology. The issue was with what he saw as harmful consequences of certain terminology. Yet, at times, he could still use "covenant of life" and "Adamic administration" and if memory serves me, "creation covenant." Mark Karlberg rightly describe this as a preference, "Although Murray's preference is to restrict the term 'covenant' to the provisions of redemption, he is not wholly adverse to speak of the second stage, the Adamic administration, as a covenant."

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## psycheives (May 7, 2019)

Johnathan Lee Allen said:


> Oh yes. My apologies; Not trying to derail anything. I guess I’ve understood them to be at opposite ends but maybe this isn’t so?
> 
> This is the first time I’ve heard that there is a conclusion leading to FV that could be made by way of interpreting Murray’s interaction with CoW.



Yes, that was Meredith Kline's claim. The claim I heard the most went something like this: "Since Shepherd said he appreciated Murray's CT and Shepherd came up with FV, we think/blame Murray for having caused Shepherd." Yeah, that logic doesn't work at all. Or "Murray rejected the COW and taught 'monocovenantalism' and Shepherd copied his CT." See Jeong Koo Jeon's book showing how VERY far apart FV and Murray's theology really was. Since years of strongly "Murray caused FV" articles from Klineans, more recent works have shown the deep holes in this claimed connection. See Merit and Moses: A Critique of the Klinean Doctrine of Republication.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## brandonadams (May 7, 2019)

jwright82 said:


> I keep reading that John Murray "recast" covenant theology, in what way?



Murray was a gifted systematician. I believe he was attempting to resolve what he saw as tension in a Westminster's formulation of covenant theology (or tensions in a popular understanding of Westminster's formulation of covenant theology, if you prefer). If the Mosaic Covenant was the Covenant of Grace, operating upon the same principle as the New Covenant, then how could Lev 18:5, as quoted in Gal 3:12 and Rom 10:5 be proof of the CoW? He argued that Lev 18:5, in its original context, stated a condition of the Covenant of Grace (note that WCF 7.2 cites Gal 3:12 and Rom 10:5, but not Lev 18:5). In Appendix B on Lev 18:5 in his Romans commentary, Murray says Rom 8:13 is the proper parallel to Lev 18:5. "Hence the words 'which if a man do, he shall live in them' (vs. 5) refers not to the life accruing from doing in a legalistic framework but to the blessing attendant upon obedience in a redemptive and covenant relationship to God." In line with this interpretation, as the head of a committee appointed in 1940 to revise the proof texts of the standards, Murray added Lev 18:5 to WCF 19.6 (Lev 18:5 was not cited anywhere in the original WCF).

It is specifically with this interpretation in mind that Murray argued against the concept of the Covenant of Works.



> In connection with the promise of life it does not appear justifiable to appeal, as frequently has been done, to the principle enunciated in certain texts (cf. Lev. 18:5; Rom. 10:5; Gal. 3:12), ‘This do and thou shalt live’. The principle asserted in these texts is the principle of equity, that righteousness is always followed by the corresponding award. From the promise of the Adamic administration we must dissociate all notions of meritorious reward. The promise of confirmed integrity and blessedness was one annexed to an obedience that Adam owed and, therefore, was a promise of grace. All that Adam could have claimed on the basis of equity was justification and life as long as he perfectly obeyed, but not confirmation so as to insure indefectibility.
> http://www.the-highway.com/adamic-admin_Murray.html



That is, Murray argued that Lev 18:5 expressed a concept of "equity" - people get what they are due. This equity applies within the covenant of grace and it also applied to Adam's created state _prior to any offer of eternal life_. If Adam obeyed, then Adam was "due" ongoing life as a matter of equity - he did not deserve to die. But, according to Murray, any reward of eternal life for that obedience was wholly gracious, not something due - not something _of works_. This, however, is not what WCF 7.1 teaches. 7.1 teaches that the _offer_ of eternal life, by means of a covenant, was not due to Adam but was by God's voluntary condescension. But once that covenant was established, if Adam obeyed then he would be _due_ eternal life. Here is how Nehemiah Coxe put it (the same point made by others above).


> If the covenant be of works, the restipulation must be by doing the things required in it, even by fulfilling its condition in a perfect obedience to its law. Suitably, the reward is of debt according to the terms of such a covenant. (Do not understand it of debt absolutely but of debt by compact.) (39)


It is precisely the idea of "debt by compact" that Murray rejected. He said the reward of eternal life was "a promise of grace" not "of works" and thus he rejected not merely the terminology of _Covenant_, but the concept behind the terminology of the Covenant _of Works_.



psycheives said:


> Murray did not see himself as having any real difference with the WStandards. He conducted an interview where he says the only difference is a *terminological preference *(that would help prevent future confusion) and no disagreement with the actual teachings of the confessions.



That is very interesting to hear. If someone believes that that the WCF does teach that in the Covenant of Works God promised Adam eternal life as a just reward for his covenantal obedience, and sees Gal 3:12 and Rom 10:5 (cited by the Confession) as evidence of that, then they would believe Murray was, in fact, unconfessional on this point. Murray believed that Rom 10:5 stated a principle that applied to Adam prior to and apart from any covenantal arrangement or promise of eternal life. However, he believes the statement itself was used by Paul in an ad hominem argument (adopting the view of his opponents to show their error). In other words Paul adopted the Judaizers interpretation of "The man that doeth the righteousness of the law shall live thereby" in order to argue against it. Likewise in Gal 3:12. (Thus neither Rom 10:5 nor Gal 3:12 positively teach a covenant "of works" operative with Adam).



psycheives said:


> As the Chairman appointed to make recommendations regarding the Confession for the OPC in the 1950s, he did not advocate any change to any of the Confession's terminology or to the doctrine of the covenants.



As noted above, he added Lev 18:5 as a proof text for 19.6(s)"The promises of it, in like manner, show them God’s approbation of obedience, and what blessings they may expect upon the performance thereof;" That is clearly a change in the Confession's doctrine.

In sum, I would make sure anyone interested carefully understand Murray's understanding of Lev 18:5 and how he integrated that into his system of theology and his interpretation of other relevant texts, including Rom 2:6. Murray's interpretation of Rom 2:6 was specifically appealed to by Gaffin during his testimony in the Kinnaird trial. Following Murray's example, in 2001 the OPC added Romans 2:6,7,13,16 as proof-texts for WLC90. On that basis John Kinnaird (a Shepherd-ite) was exonerated at the General Assembly. I do not want to endorse all that Klineans have written about Murray, but I think what I have shown above demonstrates there is a real issue to be considered, and not simply dismissed as a preference about words.

Here are two articles that go over the above in more detail:
Murray on Lev. 18:5 – Why Did John Murray Reject the Covenant of Works?

OPC Report on Republication – Background

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## psycheives (May 7, 2019)

brandonadams said:


> As noted above, he added Lev 18:5 as a proof text for 19.6(s)"The promises of it, in like manner, show them God’s approbation of obedience, and what blessings they may expect upon the performance thereof;" That is clearly a change in the Confession's doctrine.



I like Brandon's work and if I ever revised my thesis, I would address some of Brandon's insights.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## psycheives (May 7, 2019)

greenbaggins said:


> Yes, Daniel, you are right. However, it is always salutary to remember that we cannot judge Murray on the basis of information we have today concerning theological trajectories. Nor can we really judge him for the directions some of his ostensible students took. Yes, I could wish he would have seen where it could have (and in fact did) go. But his students, as so often happens, went further than the master. It is not always fair to blame the master for the students' lack of propriety and restraint, a restraint that Murray himself clearly had.



Lane, where does the idea that Shepherd followed Murray come from in your opinion?

And what are your thoughts on the claim that Shepherd didn't really follow Murray but was really following Berkhouwer and influenced by his student Gaffin?


----------



## User20004000 (May 8, 2019)

Gents,

As I noted above, FV collapses the doctrine of salvation into the doctrine of the church. What I chose not to point out is Murray was _accused_ of the same. Murray did no such thing, however. Murray strenuously argued that we’re to locate the converted in the confines of the visible church, a nuanced Reformed position, which is nothing near to this other blunt error of FV. (I just thought I’d preempt the charge.)

As for Kinnaird, the problems were many. Not the least of which was an already not yet view justification that went beyond a cosmic republication of our justification through faith, or a _vindication_ on the last day. He was rightly deemed a confusing teacher. His view of sinners in the glorified state was also troubling - that we’d be no different than the Son in righteousness without reference to our imputed righteousness or union with Christ.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## User20004000 (May 8, 2019)

brandonadams said:


> Murray was a gifted systematician. I believe he was attempting to resolve what he saw as tension in a Westminster's formulation of covenant theology (or tensions in a popular understanding of Westminster's formulation of covenant theology, if you prefer). If the Mosaic Covenant was the Covenant of Grace, operating upon the same principle as the New Covenant, then how could Lev 18:5, as quoted in Gal 3:12 and Rom 10:5 be proof of the CoW? He argued that Lev 18:5, in its original context, stated a condition of the Covenant of Grace (note that WCF 7.2 cites Gal 3:12 and Rom 10:5, but not Lev 18:5). In Appendix B on Lev 18:5 in his Romans commentary, Murray says Rom 8:13 is the proper parallel to Lev 18:5. "Hence the words 'which if a man do, he shall live in them' (vs. 5) refers not to the life accruing from doing in a legalistic framework but to the blessing attendant upon obedience in a redemptive and covenant relationship to God." In line with this interpretation, as the head of a committee appointed in 1940 to revise the proof texts of the standards, Murray added Lev 18:5 to WCF 19.6 (Lev 18:5 was not cited anywhere in the original WCF).
> 
> It is specifically with this interpretation in mind that Murray argued against the concept of the Covenant of Works.
> 
> ...



I’m having a tough time tracking the progression of your argument. Can you use concise syllogistic reasoning to show how Murray opposed himself or the Confession?

Reactions: Like 1 | Rejoicing 1


----------



## brandonadams (May 8, 2019)

RWD said:


> I’m having a tough time tracking the progression of your argument. Can you use concise syllogistic reasoning to show how Murray opposed himself or the Confession?



I would recommend reading the link at the end, as it spells it out more step by step if you're having a hard time following the concise summary. If you want it in a syllogism:

P1 The doctrine of the Covenant of Works teaches that, according to the terms of the Covenant God made with Adam, if Adam perfectly obeyed, he was due eternal life as a matter of justice.

P2 Murray denied that if Adam perfectly obeyed he would be due eternal life as a matter of justice. Instead, any eternal life given to Adam would be an entirely gracious gift (not his due).

C Murray rejected the doctrine of the Covenant of Works.


----------



## User20004000 (May 8, 2019)

I was acquainted with the links. I wanted to make sure I was following you given your appeal to Gaffin and Kinnaird, which doesn’t bring clarity to Murray. It only muddies the waters.

Murray found merit to be a misnomer given condescension and Adam’s creaturely duty to the Creator. In doing so, he denied strict justice and affirmed justice according to the terms of God’s administration of the Covenant of Life.

If anyone agrees that God was due Adam’s obedience simply because God is God, or denies that Adam could merit something before God condignly as opposed to in a pactum sense, then he agrees with Murray. This is not a denial of the Confession. 

In the spirit of recommending others, Letham addresses Kline and Murray in his book on the theology of the Divines.


----------



## Ed Walsh (May 8, 2019)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> May God deliver us from the itching ears of innovation.



What a tremendous and vital statement. These are words that modern theologians should live by.
Thanks.

Reactions: Like 2 | Rejoicing 1


----------



## greenbaggins (May 8, 2019)

psycheives said:


> Lane, where does the idea that Shepherd followed Murray come from in your opinion?
> 
> And what are your thoughts on the claim that Shepherd didn't really follow Murray but was really following Berkhouwer and influenced by his student Gaffin?



Shepherd claimed he was following John Murray. I think this was not a legitimate claim, myself, but that is what Shepherd claimed. He also quite literally followed Murray at WTS as professor of ST. 

I think the primary influences of Shepherd were Klaas Schilder on the covenant (many would disagree with me on this, but I think Shepherd's doctrine of the covenant bears a close resemblance to Schilder's, though perhaps ONLY on that point). I do not think Gaffin is a primary influence on Shepherd. Although Gaffin defended Shepherd at first, he distanced himself from Shepherd over time. Gaffin never taught Shepherd's view of justification, to my knowledge. Can't speak to Berkouwer, but I wouldn't be surprised if there was some significant influence there.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## brandonadams (May 8, 2019)

RWD said:


> Murray found merit to be a misnomer given condescension and Adam’s creaturely duty to the Creator. In doing so, he denied strict justice and affirmed justice according to the terms of God’s administration of the Covenant of Life.
> 
> If anyone agrees that God was due Adam’s obedience simply because God is God, or denies that Adam could merit something before God condignly as opposed to in a pactum sense, then he agrees with Murray. This is not a denial of the Confession.



Brother, I'm sorry, but you have missed Murray's point. Murray rejected "pactum" merit, not simply "strict justice." Murray did not affirm "justice according to the terms of God's administration of the Covenant of Life."



RWD said:


> I was acquainted with the links. I wanted to make sure I was following you given your appeal to Gaffin and Kinnaird, which doesn’t bring clarity to Murray. It only muddies the waters.



I do not believe it muddies the waters at all. It provides the specific logical connection between the two. Psyche said she has only heard vague attempts to connect the two, so I mention that Gaffin specifically appeals to Murray's exegesis of Romans 2, which is tied directly to his exegesis of Lev 18:5, Gal 3:12, and Rom 10:5. Again, details and quotes provided in the second link. (Of course, Murray should be evaluated on his own terms, not simply by pointing to where others took his view. Murray was firm on sola fide, though perhaps not consistently).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (May 8, 2019)

For those interested, here is a PDF of John Murray's Tyndale pamphlet on _The Covenant of Grace_.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## User20004000 (May 8, 2019)

brandonadams said:


> Brother, I'm sorry, but you have missed Murray's point. Murray rejected "pactum" merit, not simply "strict justice." Murray did not affirm "justice according to the terms of God's administration of the Covenant of Life."
> 
> 
> 
> I do not believe it muddies the waters at all. It provides the specific logical connection between the two. Psyche said she has only heard vague attempts to connect the two, so I mention that Gaffin specifically appeals to Murray's exegesis of Romans 2, which is tied directly to his exegesis of Lev 18:5, Gal 3:12, and Rom 10:5. Again, details and quotes provided in the second link. (Of course, Murray should be evaluated on his own terms, not simply by pointing to where others took his view. Murray was firm on sola fide, though perhaps not consistently).



It would seem that impasse is a common occurrence when you’ve debated this issue. Accordingly, my response isn’t something you haven’t heard before. “I suppose it’s clear by now that I don’t share your understanding of the WCF’s view.” And, “it is difficult to imagine a more grotesque distortion of the views of...the WCF.”

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## User20004000 (May 8, 2019)

Johnathan Lee Allen said:


> I definitely am interested in this debate between Kline and Murray.
> 
> In part, this is because Murray was so instrumental in my wife and I accepting covenant baptism and becoming Presbyterian.



Let me offer this, not on Kline but his protégé. 

Essentially, what some have done in very tight esoteric-circles is try to define merit only in terms of a sovereignly imposed covenant. Merit becomes covenant merit. Period. By doing so, the meaning of both _condign_ merit and _pactum_ merit, along with their relative distinctions, are removed from discussion. They’re disallowed, no longer to be considered as paradigms or concepts within which to interpret or define the actual _meaning_ of covenant-merit within the context of the CoW. Once that is done, we may no longer consider whether God’s reward, as contemplated by compact, exceeds works performed. Nor may we entertain notions of strict merit (eg condign merit) vs pactum merit. Something seems fishy. What we are left with is covenant-merit, a term without meaning. 

“The measure of merit is defined by the terms of the covenant, which itself is the only possible revelation and definition of divine justice.” (Irons)

We know what the reward is. What we don’t know is the _sense_ in which it is meritorious! Indeed, the terms of the covenant define the _reward_. No doubt, they also define the measure of meritorious obedience required. However, neither of those things imply that we aren’t in a position to assess whether the offer is altogether gracious and disproportionate or not! 

“Rather than an ontological state intellectually registered in the divine mind, merit is constituted only by fulfillment of the stipulations of a divinely-sanctioned covenant.” (Irons)

Wonderful, but *in the context of covenant*, is it intrinsically meritorious or is it meritorious in some non-intrinsic way? 

That “neither merit nor justice exists apart from covenant” (Irons) is not very interesting in this regard. Does it mean that the merit or justice in view is neither proportional nor disproportional; neither strict nor gracious; neither intrinsic nor according to pactum? Surely we can do better. In fact, we have. 

After some serious question begging, finally this: 

“Once we have a proper definition of merit, it becomes clear that the arguments raised against the doctrine that Adam could have earned the reward of the covenant of works through a meritorious obedience are seen to be deprived of their force.” (Irons)

_A proper definition of merit?_ How so? 

What is the quality of that meritorious obedience, after all? Well, it seems like condign merit to me: 

“No longer is it possible to argue that the reward offered was out of all proportion to the work rendered, and that therefore Adam’s work would have been accepted according to grace rather than the strict merit of works.” (Irons)

Let’s make no mistake about it. The covenant-merit being proffered is according to strict justice or else it’s vacuous. It’s also hiding behind covenantal nomenclature that would disallow any evaluation and the obvious _merits_ of pactum merit.

Reactions: Rejoicing 1


----------



## psycheives (May 8, 2019)

greenbaggins said:


> Shepherd claimed he was following John Murray. I think this was not a legitimate claim, myself, but that is what Shepherd claimed. He also quite literally followed Murray at WTS as professor of ST.
> 
> I think the primary influences of Shepherd were Klaas Schilder on the covenant (many would disagree with me on this, but I think Shepherd's doctrine of the covenant bears a close resemblance to Schilder's, though perhaps ONLY on that point). I do not think Gaffin is a primary influence on Shepherd. Although Gaffin defended Shepherd at first, he distanced himself from Shepherd over time. Gaffin never taught Shepherd's view of justification, to my knowledge. Can't speak to Berkouwer, but I wouldn't be surprised if there was some significant influence there.



I also agree with you and the PRCA view that Shepherd followed that Dutch CT view in the CRC and Schilder. PRCA has long warned Schilder's CT would lead here because historically it did time and time again; and now it has once again in Shepherd.

Just because some guy took over the ST job after Murray cannot of itself lead to anyone rightly blaming John Murray for the guy hired after him. Are any of us responsible for the poor work of the guy hired after us? That would be attrocious logic and scholarship. And just because Shepherd claimed to follow Murray, doesn't mean much considering he countered Murray on so much. Also, if my source is not mistaken, I read Shepherd studied under Berkhouwer not Murray (correct me if wrong). And according to Klineans, Gaffin studied under Shepherd and supposedly produced a controversial "FV justifying/defending" work.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (May 8, 2019)

If you take a look at John Murray's chapter on "The Adamic Administration" in volume 2 of his _Collected Writings_ there is no question that he was much closer to the Westminster Standards than Norman Shepherd, the Federal Visionists, and other innovators. Granting that Professor Murray was not a Federal Visionist does not mean that he is beyond critique on this subject, and it is reasonable to conclude that his position on the Adamic arrangement contributed to the rise of something that he would no doubt have abhorred. Even the best of men, of which John Murray was undoubtedly one, can make mistakes that have serious repercussions further on down the line.

In the above-mentioned essay, Professor Murray argues that "the term [covenant of works] is not felicitous" and then goes on to say "It is not designated a covenant in Scripture. ... Besides, Scripture always uses the term covenant, when applied to God's administration to men, in reference to a provision that is redemptive or closely related to redemptive design. Covenant in Scripture denotes the oath-bound confirmation of promise and involves a security which the Adamic economy did not bestow." (p. 49)

The bottom line is that whereas the Westminster Standards see the arrangement with Adam as a covenantal arrangement, John Murray did not regard it as a covenantal arrangement. Consequently, Professor Murray's position is contrary to that of the Westminster Standards. Claims that it was only a difference of terminology will not work because words mean something. For instance, if someone were to claim that they rejected the Confession's terminology in relation to justification by faith alone or with respect to the Holy Trinity, we would think twice before dismissing it as a mere matter of semantics. Instead, we would rightly be concerned that, even if the person's intentions were good, the form of sound words was being put in unnecessary danger. Remember that the words of the Westminster Standards were carefully chosen by a body of learned divines. For a minister in a confessional church to take it upon himself to improve the terminology of the standards is at best highly presumptuous.

Am I being too harsh on Professor Murray? No, the apostle James tells us that those who teach are to be judged more strictly. If that applies to ministers of the word in general, how much more to influential seminary professors? Besides, Professor Murray's position, for all his biblicism, is blatantly unscriptural. Paul tells us that there are two covenants in biblical history, one of which does not lead to the salvation of fallen sinners but only to bondage (Galatians 4:21-31). Paul's remark cannot be a reference to the covenant of grace, which does lead to the salvation of God's elect, but only to the broken covenant of works, which, subsequent to the Fall, is incapable of bestowing life.

While we can still appreciate Professor Murray's personal godliness, his gifts as a systematic theologian, and his unpopular positions on the regulative principle, images of Christ, psalmody, and the Sabbath, we must part company with him on this question and cling to scripture and the Westminster Standards.


----------



## jwright82 (May 21, 2019)

I appreciate the posts, very and well thought out. I remember, can't tell where, that Murray only considered the COW, or Adamic administration ( as he prefered) to be gracious because any and all covenants start with divine condescension (which is always gracious) to be gracious in the act of God but a works based covenant in its stipulations. Is this correct? If so that gets him "off the hook" for FV.


----------

