The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Murray on "The Covenant of Grace"

Someone gave me this little pamphlet a while back written by John Murray called "The Covenant Of Grace." I read it before I totally understood covenant theology and was wondering what other people thought about it. I don't think I am in total agreement with what he wrote. If anyone has read it, please give your opinion.

I know that Meredith kline has wrote things against Murrays belief on the Covenant of Grace. I pretty sure Kline says Murray almost eliminates the Covenant of works. I have never personaly read anything from Kline. Any Comments on Kline?

Thankyou

Why don't you tell us what thing(s) you find you disagree with and we can then discuss them? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

FYI, if it makes it any easier to include quotes from Murray's booklet, you can take them from the online copy found here: The Covenant of Grace, by John Murray.

In His Grace,

Pilgrim, I have not read the pamphlet in a while and I may not understand what Murray was trying to convey. But I will try to show you why I think I disagree with him. I went to the article and searched "works" and only found the word once. Murray does not mention the covenant of works once in dealing with the covenant of grace. In order to explain the covenant of grace the covenant of works needs to be mentioned.
I believe that the relationship between Adam and God before the fall was a covenant relationship based on works, not grace. I am not saying it wasnt established because of Gods pleasure and his love.

I agree with what it says in The Westminster Confession of Faith Chapter 7 section 1 which says
"THE distance between God and the creature is so great, that although reasonable creatures do owe obedience unto him as their Creator, yet they could never have any fruition of him as their blessedness and reward, but by some voluntary condescension on God's part, which he has been pleased to express by way of covenant."

Before the fall the demerit of sin does not exist in the relationship between Adam and God, so niether does grace exist. There is two different covenants in scripture that Murray has made into one covenant(i think). This seems to take away from grace.

I hope this shows shows you where I am coming from a little bit and will help you see why I disagree with Murray on this issue.

It is true that John Murray rejected the terminology, "Covenant of Works" due to his observation that nowhere in Scripture is that pre-Fall relationship between God and man referred to as a "covenant". Yet he was in agreement with the essence of what those who hold re: "Covenant of Works" espoused. Secondly, and I do think his thoughts are deserving of consideration, he held that it would be wrong to not see God's relationship to Adam, pre-Fall, as not including "grace". It may be that some have overly restricted the use of the word "grace" to the matter of salvation. To me, agreeing with Murray on this point, the fact that God condescended to communicate with Adam not only in words, but with the bestowal of life itself was gracious on His part.

Give me a day or two and I'll provide you with an article that Murray wrote, entitled, "The Adamic Administration". After reading that, then perhaps you might better understand why he didn't mention a "Covenant of Works" in that booklet, The Covenant of Grace. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

In His Grace,

Thanks a lot Pilgrim.
I have heard that he calls the covenant of works "The Adamic Administration" but I think there is no need to do so. I may not totally understand what Murray believes but I hold to what I sated in my former post. I do respect Murray and like his commentary on Romans. I also think he understood the atonement well, but he is not as consistent in his Covenant Theology when he seems to cheapens grace.

I have it and love it. Especially in those places where he refutes the dispi-tendencies now held by Kline. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/ClapHands.gif" alt="" />

Ron

Ron D, please explain the dispi-tendencies that Kline holds.

I dont know much about Kline.

Would you say that I have dispi-tendencies from what I wrote in Post #45684?
Thanks

Murray held that the covenant under Moses was an administration of the one covenant of grace. Kline would argue that this economy included a recapitulation of the covenant of life (or "works", whichever you prefer) that Adam operated under prior to the fall. What this means I'll let you figure out. Below is a quote from Lee Irons and an excerpt from Kline.


I'd be happy to take a look at the post if you provide a link. I"m sure there's a way to access it by number alone, but I'm not that clever! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />

Blessings,

Ron

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."

Soli Deo Gloria,

Here is the article by John Murray to which I recommended you read in my previous reply to you.

Clicky here: The Adamic Administration

<font size="4"><script language="JavaScript" src="includes/ubbt_blink.js"></script><span id="blink"><blink>ENJOY!</blink></span><script language="JavaScript">blink();</script></font>

Thanks for posting that Pilgrim!
I read it and feel I need to do more reading before I come to any definite conclusions.

I tend to disagree with him when he says:
"Whether or not the administration is designated covenant, the uniqueness and singularity must be recognized. It should never be confused with what Scripture calls the old covenant or first covenant (cf. Jer. 31:31-34; 2 Cor. 3:14; Heb. 8:7, 13). The first or old covenant is the Sinaitic. And not only must this confusion in denotation be avoided, but also any attempt to interpret the Mosaic covenant in terms of the Adamic institution. The latter could apply only to the state of innocence, and to Adam alone as representative head. The view that in the Mosaic covenant there was a repetition of the so-called covenant of works, current among covenant theologians, is a grave misconception and involves an erroneous construction of the Mosaic covenant, as well as fails to assess the uniqueness of the Adamic administration."

and perhaps when he said:
"In Adam’s expulsion we should find, therefore, a signal manifestation of preventive grace, not only the grace of preventing an aggravation of Adam’s sin, as noted already, but of preventing confirmation in sin, misery, and death, of preventing a sin that would have sealed his doom. God shielded Adam from the sin that would have put him outside the sphere of redemption."

and definitely when he said:
"We are liable to regard the Adamic administration as abstract, unrelated to our situation and practical interest, and so far removed from us that it has little or no relevance. If we are inclined to think so, it is because we do not have a biblically conditioned way of thinking. The Adamic institution is intensely relevant if our thought is regulated by the biblical revelation."

I see no reason to stop calling the covenant of works the covenant of works. His reasons were for calling it The Adamic Administration were not adequate.

SDG,

What I reject is the notion that God acts under a quid pro quo arrangement. There may be necessary conditions that God requires before granting peculiar blessings, but these necessary conditions are always a matter of God's effectual grace and blessing. In other words, when God's people obey God may be pleased to bless the obedience. This obedience of God's people is always done through God's gift of faith and hope and, therefore, must be considered in and of itself a blessing from God and not some human work that receives something for something. In other words, I would argue that the blessings that God may choose to bestow upon obedience is the blessing that he bestows upon his initial blessing obedience, which he grants. This is what I believe Kline and the professors at Westminster in California do not grasp. For instance, when I hear students and professors from Westminster west say that prior to the fall Adam received no grace from God, I am just astonished.

Blessings,

Ron

Thanks Ron D, that is a good way of looking at it. I would agree that the God was gracious in the covenant of works in the sense that it was out of his goodness and love, if thats what you mean by grace. The reason i believe the covenant of works was not by grace is because sin has not entered the picture yet. The pre-fall covenant relationship between God and adam was not by grace because their was no demerit to overcome. Adam definitely did not deserve this relationship or earn it. We do not see grace until Gen 3:15.

Do you agree with that?


I am not sure if there is a lack of understanding on my part or yours, or if we really do disagree. Or would you say I belong in california?

Ron D, do you agree with your main man Edwards when he said "... if we speak of the covenant God has made with man stating the condition of eternal life, God never made but one with man, to wit, the covenant of works; which never yet was abrogated... The covenant of grace is not another covenant made with man... but a covenant made with Christ to fulfill it"

Hey SDG,

I believe that grace is unmerited favor. We often think of this applying to sinners only, but I see unmerited favor being bestowed upon Adam in creation. As soon as God created Adam and Eve he "blessed them." Moreover, whatever good Adam did or would have done had God decreed something else would have been according to God's grace since Adam was not autonomous. So I see grace in the garden, apart from sin.

My wife is from CA. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/cloud9.gif" alt="" />

Blessings,

Ron

I believe that it is speculative to think that Adam could have attained unto a glorified nature had he continued in obedience. However, even if this was in the contract from the beginning, had Adam attained unto eternal life it still would have been by God's unmerited favor.

Adam obviously needed something extra in order not to have fallen. Had Adam not fallen, then God would have given Adam that extra umph <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/heavy.gif" alt="" /> through the providential ordering of circumstances if not the internal working of the Spirit. In either case, God would have been gracious in doing so. Yes?

In his grace,

Ron

Ron D, you have to realize that I am talking about biblical soteriological grace, not this unmerited favor we often apply to the gospel and then to creation. In the gospel there is demerit present so there is grace. The covenant of works is based on a works/justice system.
The covenant of works is necessary to understand the gospel; we should preach adam as mankinds representative, and preach Christ, representing a great multitude, as the second adam who succeeded where adam failed.Rom 5:18
The covenant of redemption was a covenant of works when related strictly to Christ, as was the covenant of works to adam. You talked about God not acting under a "quid pro quo" relationship yet Jesus Bought us.
I hope we are not playing a word game here, but I think it is important to understand the covenant of works.
I understand that it can be difficult to talk about a covenant where grace is not, but I think many of the great covenant theologians rightfuly did so.

Pilgrim, whats your say on this...i know in another post you said you were liking John Owen as of late. Do you include his covenant theology?

I'm not ignoring you. I thought you asked Pilgrim a question, which he can answer at least as well as I!
<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/applause.gif" alt="" />
Ron