Ron D, I read the article you quoted Lee Irons from, "Works in the Mosaic Covenant: A Survey of Major Covenant Theologians." I am still not quite sure exactly where I stand on this issue but it seems to be with John Owen who I think differs with Murray. Pilgrim thinks I will have a better understanding of Murray after I read "The Adamic Administration".
Ron D, correct me if I am wrong, I take it you do not agree with Lee Irons who you quoted, when he says, "The modern view, so prevalent in conservative Reformed churches today, that the Mosaic Covenant is to be understood as nothing but an administration of the covenant of grace fails to take account of this works element. One of the great dangers of this view is that it erases the Law-Gospel contrast by equating the dual sanctions of the Mosaic Covenant (blessing and curse) conditioned on faithfulness or unfaithfulness to the Law, with the requirement of the New Covenant that believers bring forth evidence of faith by good works. But the distinct roles played by works in the Mosaic Covenant and in the New Covenant are diametrically opposed. In the Mosaic Covenant, works were the legal condition for obtaining the blessings of long life in the land, and Israel's covenant breaking was the basis for her eventual exile from the land under the divine curse. Under the New Covenant, by contrast, the believer's good works do not function as the legal ground for blessing, but, quite the contrary, are the necessary concomitant of the inheritance guaranteed to all who believe, on the legal ground of Christ's obedience."
