John Murray and Covenant theology
- Thread starter jwright82
- Start date
- Status
Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
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.
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.
Shanny01
Puritan Board Freshman
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/
https://cbtseminary.org/john-murray-and-the-covenant-of-works-1-of-4/
Romans922
Puritan Board Professor
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.
J.L. Allen
Puritan Board Sophomore
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.
In part, this is because Murray was so instrumental in my wife and I accepting covenant baptism and becoming Presbyterian.
Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
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.
J.L. Allen
Puritan Board Sophomore
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.
Romans922
Puritan Board Professor
Yes, sorry. Just pointing out when we mess up on CoW, we mess up a lot of everything after that.
Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
No need to apologise, brother; your general point is a sound one.
Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
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.
User20004000
Puritan Board Sophomore
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?
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
Cancelled Commissioner
User20004000
Puritan Board Sophomore
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.
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.
greenbaggins
Puritan Board Doctor
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!).
Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
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.
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.
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.
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
Puritan Board Doctor
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.
User20004000
Puritan Board Sophomore
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
Puritan Board Sophomore
User20004000
Puritan Board Sophomore
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
Cancelled Commissioner
psycheives
Puritan Board Freshman
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.
[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.
Last edited:
psycheives
Puritan Board Freshman
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.
psycheives
Puritan Board Freshman
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.
psycheives
Puritan Board Freshman
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.
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."
psycheives
Puritan Board Freshman
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.
brandonadams
Puritan Board Sophomore
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.
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).
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.
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).
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
Last edited:
psycheives
Puritan Board Freshman
I like Brandon's work and if I ever revised my thesis, I would address some of Brandon's insights.
psycheives
Puritan Board Freshman
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
Puritan Board Sophomore
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.
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.
- Status
