Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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 definitely am interested in this debate between Kline and Murray.
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?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.
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.
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.
Aside from finding the term CoW a misnomer, what did Murray object to?
Murray disliked the term "works" because he saw grace in the Adamic administration.
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.
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.
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?
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 keep reading that John Murray "recast" covenant theology, in what way?
I know he may have had problems with the covenant of works. Is that true?
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.
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.
I keep reading that John Murray "recast" covenant theology, in what way?
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
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.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)
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 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.
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.