by Sam Waldron | Feb 14, 2019 | Systematic Theology
Part 1 Part 2 Part 3
In this final post I want to say something else in defense of John Murray’s orthodoxy in spite of his hesitation over the terminology “Covenant of Works” and preference for the terminology “Adamic Administration.” So …
John Murray was not led into error or heterodox views of justification by his hesitations over the terminology, Covenant of Works. I have already pointed out that John Murray clearly taught in contradistinction to those with whom he is sometimes associated double imputation and the distinction between the active and passive obedience of Christ.[1] But perhaps no doctrine is more often undermined in the departures from justification sola fide in modern evangelicalism than the doctrine of the traditional meaning of faith alone. There is the constant tendency to define the exercise of justifying faith as including the faithfulness of obedience to God’s command and including this faithfulness in the quality by which it justifies. In Redemption: Accomplished and Applied Murray begins by affirming that “In faith we receive and rest upon Christ alone for salvation.”[2] He goes on to define such faith in a perfectly traditional way as knowledge (notitia), conviction (assensus), and trust (fiducia).[3] He concludes: “It is to be remembered that the efficacy of faith does not reside in itself. Faith is not something that merits the favour of God. All the efficacy of faith unto salvation resides in the Saviour. As one has aptly and truly stated the case, it is not faith that saves but faith in Jesus Christ; strictly speaking, it is not even faith in Christ that saves but Christ that saves through faith.”[4]
Let us not be guilty of what the Apostle Paul (1 Timothy 6:4) calls “logomachy” (fighting about words) in our defense of orthodox views of justification and the Covenant of Works. Let us rather judge by righteous judgment and not make John Murray a sinner, as the saying goes, ‘for a word.’ We run the risk of imbibing a prejudice which will steal from us the treasure which John Murray’s writings are to the church.
[1] I am thinking of the implications left by Mark Karlberg when he says that Murray’s hand-picked successor At Westminster was Norman Shepherd: Mark Karlberg, Gospel Grace: The Modern-day Controversy (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2003), 262.
[2] Murray, Redemption, 106.
[3] Murray, Redemption, 110-112.
[4] Murray, Redemption, 112.
Dr. Sam Waldron is the Academic Dean of CBTS and professor of Systematic Theology. He is also one of the pastors of Grace Reformed Baptist Church in Owensboro, KY. Dr. Waldron received a B.A. from Cornerstone University, an M.Div. from Trinity Ministerial Academy, a Th.M. from Grand Rapids Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. From 1977 to 2001 he was a pastor of the Reformed Baptist Church of Grand Rapids, MI. Dr. Waldron is the author of numerous books including A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, The End Times Made Simple, Baptist Roots in America, To Be Continued?, and MacArthur’s Millennial Manifesto: A Friendly Response.
by Sam Waldron | Feb 8, 2019 | Systematic Theology
In my last post I began to defend John Murray’s orthodoxy by saying that Murray’s concerns about the terminology, Covenant of Works, must be properly understood and not exaggerated. Now let me come to a second point in my defense of Murray. So …
Second, John Murray holds everything essential to what was called the Covenant of Works. Indeed, let me go further. I think he holds more than some defenders of the Covenant of Works hold of the things that are associated with the Covenant of Works. Further, I think he holds these things more consistently than such people.
It is, of course, indisputable that John Murray taught the representative headship of Adam. This is the master concept which was embodied in the historic Covenant of Works formulation. This involved a commitment to several crucial conceptions associated with the Covenant of Works.
- He taught (in contrast to modern heterodoxy exemplified in Daniel Fuller, Norman Shepherd, and the New Perspective on Paul) the imputation of Adam’s sin. No doubt can be entertained about this. His statements in “The Adamic Administration” make this clear,[1] but the entirety of his treatment of this subject in his masterful The Imputation of Adam’s Sin makes this irrefutable.[2]
- He taught (in contrast to modern heterodoxy exemplified in Daniel Fuller, Norman Shepherd, and the New Perspective on Paul) double imputation and the associated distinction between the active and passive obedience of Christ. Not only do his statements in “The Adamic Administration” exemplify this,[3] but the emphasis he lays on the obedience of Christ as the master category under which the work of Christ is to be understood in Redemption: Accomplished and Applied makes this irrefutably clear. There he asserts that this master category enables us to see clearly the distinction between the active and passive obedience of Christ.[4]
- He taught (in contrast to modern heterodoxy exemplified in Daniel Fuller, Norman Shepherd, and the New Perspective on Paul) the reward of life. Murray makes it indisputably clear in “The Adamic Administration” that the reward of life is more than the continuation of the life with which Adam was created. Murray says simply: “The tree of life represented everlasting life (Gen. 3:22). But it could not have this application unless there had been some provision connected with Eden which contemplated such life.”[5] In case this is not clear enough, Murray earlier argues that Adam had not partaken of the tree of life. This conclusion is necessary for Murray because he regard the rewarded of life as more than the life which Adam possessed in the Garden. He argues: “Although from Genesis 3:22 we infer that Adam had not partaken of the tree of life, and although it was not forbidden as the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (cf. Gen. 2:16), yet, apparently, by the arrangements of providence or of revelation, it was recognized as reserved for the issue of probationary obedience. This would explain Genesis 3:22, 24 (cf. Rev. 2:7; 22:2, 14, especially the expression “the right to the tree of life.”[6]
[1] Murray, Collected Writings, Volume Two, 50-51, 57-58.
[2] John Murray, The Imputation of Adam’s Sin (Nutley, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1977).
[3] Murray, Collected Writings, Volume Two, 58.
[4]John Murray, Redemption: Accomplished and Applied (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1961), 19-21.
[5]Murray, Collected Writings, Volume Two, 54.
[6] Murray, Collected Writings, Volume Two, 48.
Dr. Sam Waldron is the Academic Dean of CBTS and professor of Systematic Theology. He is also one of the pastors of Grace Reformed Baptist Church in Owensboro, KY. Dr. Waldron received a B.A. from Cornerstone University, an M.Div. from Trinity Ministerial Academy, a Th.M. from Grand Rapids Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. From 1977 to 2001 he was a pastor of the Reformed Baptist Church of Grand Rapids, MI. Dr. Waldron is the author of numerous books including A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, The End Times Made Simple, Baptist Roots in America, To Be Continued?, and MacArthur’s Millennial Manifesto: A Friendly Response.
by Sam Waldron | Feb 5, 2019 | Systematic Theology
Part 1
In my first post I noted the important connection between orthodox views of the Covenant of Works and the doctrine of justification. This brings me to John Murray. John Murray famously questioned the traditional terminology or verbal description of the relation between God and Adam as a Covenant of Works. Over the years I have come to believe that his caution regarding the traditional description of the relation between God and Adam as a Covenant of Works was unnecessary. I believe that the relation between God and Adam may be described as a “Covenant.” I believe that (properly understood and clarified) this relation may even be described as one of “Works.” At any rate, I am willing to acknowledge the historical momentum of this terminology, Covenant of Works and use it happily. Clearly, however, Murray’s hesitations about this terminology have misled some with regard to the true tendencies of his theological trajectory. I think—and always have thought—that for substance Murray holds everything essential to what was called the Covenant of Works. I certainly do not believe that his hesitations about the traditional terminology led to any error or heterodoxy regarding the doctrine of justification.
These two assertions require some defense. Let me now provide that.
First, Murray’s concerns about the terminology, Covenant of Works, must be properly understood and not exaggerated. We must not react to his hesitations without appreciating their nature. Murray expresses these hesitations in two major places. They are expressed in an article entitled, “Covenant Theology.”[1] This article may now be found in volume four of his Collected Writings. They are also and more briefly expressed in the introduction to his article entitled, “The Adamic Administration.”[2] This may now be found in volume two of his Collected Writings. Let me say several things about these hesitations.
- In “The Adamic Administration” the first thing that Murray says about the terminology, Covenant of Works, is that it is not “felicitous.”[3] No one perhaps has ever used the English language more carefully than Murray. Thus, his description of this terminology as not “felicitous” must be carefully noted. This is not a scathing or wholesale rejection of the terminology or what it represents. The terminology is in his view simply not “happy.”
- The reason for the unhappiness of this terminology is that for Murray “the elements of grace entering into the administration are not properly provided for by the term ‘works’.”[4] For Murray, ‘works’ connotes the idea that the reward promised in the Adamic Administration was strictly merited or earned. Murray is of the opinion, and I think that he is right in this opinion, that the reward of life would have been in no way strictly earned by the obedience of Adam. In “Covenant Theology” Murray remarks: “The promise was that of the greatest felicity in heaven. The obligation which God assumed in this promise was wholly gratuitous. God had no debt, strictly speaking, from which a right could belong to man. The only debt was that of his own faithfulness to the promise. And as for man, he could not, strictly and properly, obtain merit from his obedience, and could not seek the reward as a right. The worthiness of works could bear no proportion to the reward of life eternal.”[5] I think that Murray’s reasoning is irrefutable. Further, it appears to be seconded by the Westminster Confession (and the 1689 in almost the same language) when in chapter 7, paragraph 1 the Westminster says: “The distance between God and the creature is so great, that although reasonable creatures do owe obedience to him as their Creator, yet they could never have attained the reward of life but by some voluntary condescension on God’s part, which he hath been pleased to express by way of covenant.” The only question about this is whether the term ‘works’ needs to imply such a strict idea of meriting the reward of life.
- Murray goes on to say in “The Adamic Administration” that this administration is not designated a covenant in Scripture. Murray may perhaps be strictly speaking correct about this (depending on your interpretation of Hosea 6:7). His deeper concern is that the Adamic Administration does not meet what he regards as the proper definition of covenant. For Murray “Covenant in Scripture denotes the oath-bound confirmation of promise and involves a security which the Adamic economy did not bestow.”[6] I am not carried by Murray’s argument here. I question his definition of covenant in Scripture. I also think it is possible for there to be a covenant properly defined where the exact terminology of covenant is not used.[7]
- Murray is correct, however, to note that the terminology of Covenant of Works is a somewhat later development in Reformed theology. While the major ideas later summarized under this rubric date back with good evidence to Calvin himself, the actual terminology—Murray thinks—cannot be found until the last decade of the 16th Even then various ways of describing this covenant may be found. It is variously called the covenant of life, favor, and nature.[8]
The fundamental lesson to be drawn from all this is that Murray’s rejection of this terminology must not be turned into something it was not. Even such a stern critic of John Murray as Mark Karlberg in Covenant Theology in Reformed Perspective freely admits and concludes: “This recognition that the law-principle does characterize the state of nature, man’s natural relationship with God … safeguards his formulation of the doctrine of justification by faith and the doctrine of the atonement of Christ. …. As a result, Murray’s theological system is essentially compatible with the Westminster Standards …”[9]
[1] John Murray, Collected Writings, Volume Four: Studies in Theology (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 192), 216-240.
[2] Murray, Collected Writings, Volume Two, 47-59.
[3] Murray, Collected Writings, Volume Two, 49.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Murray, Collected Writings, Volume Four, 222.
[6] Murray, Collected Writings, Volume Two, 49.
[7] Gonzales, Robert R., Jr. “The Covenantal Context of the Fall: Did God Make a Primeval Covenant with Adam?” Reformed Baptist Theological Review IV:2 (2007): 5-32.
[8] Murray, Collected Writings, Volume Four, 217-221.
[9] Mark W. Karlberg, Covenant Theology in Reformed Perspective (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2000), 45.
Dr. Sam Waldron is the Academic Dean of CBTS and professor of Systematic Theology. He is also one of the pastors of Grace Reformed Baptist Church in Owensboro, KY. Dr. Waldron received a B.A. from Cornerstone University, an M.Div. from Trinity Ministerial Academy, a Th.M. from Grand Rapids Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. From 1977 to 2001 he was a pastor of the Reformed Baptist Church of Grand Rapids, MI. Dr. Waldron is the author of numerous books including A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, The End Times Made Simple, Baptist Roots in America, To Be Continued?, and MacArthur’s Millennial Manifesto: A Friendly Response.
by Sam Waldron | Jan 30, 2019 | Systematic Theology
[Recently, I submitted an essay for an upcoming book in memory Dr. Robert Paul Martin entitled: A Contemporary Treatment of the Covenant of Works in the Tradition of John Murray. I do not intend to reproduce the entirety of that essay in these blog posts. I introduced my treatment of the Covenant of Works with some Preliminary Thoughts on John Murray and the Covenant of Works. I did so because John Murray’s treatment of this subject (which he entitled, “The Adamic Administration”) has caused many rumors and suspicions about his orthodoxy among some Reformed folks. I have always felt that these suspicions were unfair. In these Preliminary Thoughts I explain why.]
Those in the mainstream of the Reformed tradition have become increasingly sensitive to the importance of holding proper views of the Covenant of Works if one is to hold and defend the traditional Protestant and Reformed doctrine of justification. The modern voices calling for a revision of this article of faith (which has been called the article of the standing or falling of the church) have one after another made clear their opposition to the notion of the Covenant of Works as it has been held and defended in the Reformed tradition. The proponents of the New Perspective on Paul, the advocates of the Federal Vision, and those allied with John Piper’s mentor Daniel Fuller have generally denied the Covenant of Works and universally revised the Protestant and Reformed doctrine of justification.[1]
There is, indeed, in my view an important and logical connection between right views of the Covenant of Works and the Protestant doctrine of justification. It is not surprising, then, that inadequate views of the Covenant of Works have increasingly been recognized as dangerous, suspicious, and tantamount to a denial of the traditional doctrine of justification. While such suspicions are understandable and may even be proper, they are not always well-grounded. Innocent people have sometimes been caught in the crossfire over the Covenant of Works and been accused of views which they have not taught. Those whose views of justification are mostly or entirely traditionally Protestant have been accused of heterodoxy and associated with the New Perspective on Paul or the Federal Vision because their views of the Covenant of Works have not come up to the standards of their critics. While we do well to understand that proper views of the Covenant of Works are the final and firm foundations of the traditional Protestant doctrine of justification, we must not accuse those who fail to dot our I’s or cross our T’s with heterodoxy. We must allow people to be logically inconsistent with their basically orthodox views of justification in their inadequate views of the Covenant of Works. Of course, we must point out to them the danger in their inconsistent views of the Covenant of Works, but we must not accuse them of actually holding views which we think their errors logically lead to. People are inconsistent.
[1] Sam Waldron, Faith, Obedience, and Justification: Current Evangelical Departures from Sola Fide (Palmdale, CA: Reformed Baptist Academic Press, 2006), 127-223.
Dr. Sam Waldron is the Academic Dean of CBTS and professor of Systematic Theology. He is also one of the pastors of Grace Reformed Baptist Church in Owensboro, KY. Dr. Waldron received a B.A. from Cornerstone University, an M.Div. from Trinity Ministerial Academy, a Th.M. from Grand Rapids Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. From 1977 to 2001 he was a pastor of the Reformed Baptist Church of Grand Rapids, MI. Dr. Waldron is the author of numerous books including A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, The End Times Made Simple, Baptist Roots in America, To Be Continued?, and MacArthur’s Millennial Manifesto: A Friendly Response.
by Sam Waldron | Feb 20, 2013 | Historical Theology, Systematic Theology
Central to the theology of the Reformation is the contrast between the covenant of works and the covenant of grace. The two concepts or structures go together, and it is in the light of them that the Reformed doctrine of justification and salvation as a whole is to be understood. But the covenant of works has fallen on bad days and is widely denied even among evangelicals. That is why it is crucial for us to have a clear understanding of the covenant of works and its biblical basis. And that is why I asked the question in this message, Whatever Happened to the Covenant of Works?
Dr. Sam Waldron is the Academic Dean of CBTS and professor of Systematic Theology. He is also one of the pastors of Grace Reformed Baptist Church in Owensboro, KY. Dr. Waldron received a B.A. from Cornerstone University, an M.Div. from Trinity Ministerial Academy, a Th.M. from Grand Rapids Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. From 1977 to 2001 he was a pastor of the Reformed Baptist Church of Grand Rapids, MI. Dr. Waldron is the author of numerous books including A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, The End Times Made Simple, Baptist Roots in America, To Be Continued?, and MacArthur’s Millennial Manifesto: A Friendly Response.
