The release of the new book Merit and Moses, a critique of the republication doctrine (that the Mosaic covenant was “in some sense” a republication typologically of the covenant of works) got me thinking about a certain anomaly in contemporary Reformed circles regarding a certain Mr. Murray (his given name was John and he did not have the extra one of Courtney). The endorsements of this book show an arresting feature of the Westminster Seminary tradition and reception of Geerhardus Vos.
After Vos, his successors broke into two camps, one represented by Murray, the other by Meredith Kline, who took markedly different views of covenant theology. After Murray and Kline, came Norman Shepherd, Richard Gaffin, and Bob Strimple. They pretty much all sided with Murray against Kline on matters of moment. And then came VanDrunen, Horton, and Fesko. They followed Kline and have been taking their lumps ever since.
Generally speaking, the anti-republicationists are anti-Kline and pro-Murray. Here’s a sampling:
For the past thirty years, a shift in Reformed covenant theology has been percolating under the hot Southern California sun in Escondido. Atop the bluff of a former orange grove, a quiet redefinition of the Sinaitic covenant administration as a typological covenant of works, complete with meritorious obedience and meritorious reward has been ripening. The architect of this paradigm shift was the late Meredith G. Kline, who taught at Westminster Escondido (WSCal) for more than 20 years. Many of Kline’s colleagues, former students (several now teaching in Escondido) and admirers (Mark Karlberg, T. David Gordon, etc.) have canonized his novel reconstruction of the Mosaic covenant—it is “not of faith”, but of works and meritorious works at that, albeit ‘typological’. What may now be labeled the “Escondido Hermeneutic” or “Kline Works-Merit Paradigm” has succeeded in cornering an increasing share of the Reformed covenant market in spite of its revisionism and heterodoxy. This newfangled paradigm has managed to fly beneath the radar of most Reformed observers, in part because of the aggressively militant demeanor and rhetoric of its advocates and defenders. Especially vitriolic have been attacks by the Kline acolytes upon Norman Shepherd and Richard Gaffin. . . . (1)
While it is certainly true that Murray clearly and self-consciously broke with the majority of the Reformed tradition on several points of doctrine, his teaching on the nature of the obedience required in the Mosaic covenant was not one of them. In fact, a strong case can be made that his position on the essential nature of the obedience required in the Mosaic covenant represented the mainstream consensus of Reformed theologians. Furthermore, some of Murray’s key exegetical observations (which, incidentally, these authors simply pass over rather than critically engage) lend his thesis strong support. (63)
Now the endorsements for the anti-republicationist book:
“The doctrine of Republication has a Reformed pedigree. But in what sense? Recent understandings of Republication sometimes depart significantly from what one finds among Reformed theologians in the Post-Reformation periods. It is to the merit of these authors for dealing with this thorny issue by offering some important insights into the precise nature of the debate, such as discussions on merit and justice and the nature of typology. I hope all involved in the debate will give this book a careful and sympathetic reading—at least more careful and sympathetic than those who have publicly opposed Professor John Murray on this issue.”
—Mark Jones, Senior Minister, Faith Vancouver Presbyterian Church (PCA), Vancouver, BC“I strongly recommend that everyone interested in the notion of Republication read the important book, Merit and Moses. By focusing on the guilt of every child of Adam and the only merit recognized by a holy God, the authors cut to the heart of Republication’s error. They show that to be the case by an insightful study of the Scriptures, of our most revered theologians—for example, John Murray, too often misunderstood and maligned by Republicationists—and of the Reformed confessions, showing that the doctrine of Republication cannot be harmonized with the teaching of the Westminster Standards.”
—Robert B. Strimple, President emeritus and Professor emeritus of Systematic Theology, Westminster Seminary California, Escondido, CA“In recent years, a number of Reformed writers have advanced the claim that the Mosaic covenant or economy was in some sense a republication of the covenant of works. According to these writers, the Republication doctrine was a common emphasis in the history of Reformed theology, and even forms an important part of the basis for the biblical doctrine of justification. The authors of this volume present a clear and compelling case against this claim. Rather than a reaffirmation of a forgotten, integral feature of Reformed theology, the authors argue that the modern republication doctrine seems inconsistent with the historic Reformed understanding of the covenant of works and the covenant of grace. A helpful contribution.”
—Cornelis P. Venema, President and Professor of Doctrinal Studies, Mid-America Reformed Seminary, Dyer, IN“This volume addresses a relatively recent appearance of the view that the Mosaic covenant embodies a republication of the covenant of works, a view that in its distinctive emphasis is arguably without precedent in the history of Reformed theology—namely, that during the Mosaic era of the covenant of grace, in pointed antithesis to grace and saving faith in the promised Messiah, the law given to Israel at Sinai was to function pedagogically as a typological overlay of the covenant of works made with Adam, by which Israel’s retention of the land and temporal blessings were made dependent on maintaining a level of meritorious obedience (works), reduced in its demand to accommodate their sinfulness. A particular strength in my judgment is their showing that the abiding demands of God’s holiness preclude meritorious obedience that is anything less than perfect, and so the impossibility of a well-meant offer to sinners of the covenant of works in any sense.”
—Richard B. Gaffin Jr., Professor of Biblical and Systematic Theology emeritus, Westminster Theological Seminary, Glenside, PA
Let the reader decide.
But also consider this. Mr. Murray was a strong proponent of exclusive psalmody, arguably the lone holdout of prominence in the OPC. And yet those who follow Murray on covenant theology are willing to argue quite decidedly against singing psalms only or even singing the imprecatory psalms (about which Murray had no qualms). Dick Gaffin recently wrote:
Among my continuing reservations about the Psalter-Hymnal project (March issue), here I’m only able to raise one concern about its commitment to total psalmody. The imprecations in Psalm 137, among others, have in view the Old Testament situation, when God’s covenant people were one nation, a single geopolitical entity (Israel), and their enemies were likewise ethnically and geopolitically defined (Babylon and Edom here). But now, after Christ’s finished work, that spiritual enmity, inseparably national, has ceased. Now the realization of God’s eternal saving purpose, anticipated throughout the Old Testament, is universal. His elect are no longer found only within Israel, but within every nation. Under the new covenant, the church is “in Babylon” (1 Peter 5:13) in a way it was not under the old: no longer are Jews in holy hostility towards non-Jews; now, in Christ, they are reconciled to each other (Eph. 2:11–22).
I recognize that the ethnic references like those in Psalm 137 are not only literal but also typological. Akin to the symbolic references to Babylon in Revelation, they point forward to the final destruction of the enemies of God’s people. Still, singing explicitly genocidal curses in public worship, without a whole lot of preparatory explanation (and perhaps even with that), risks leaving the impression that the congregation is calling on God for the large-scale destruction of people with Gentile ethnicity like most of us in the New Testament church. (20-21)
(Could there be some kind of ambivalence at work here with typological readings of the OT?)
So what I am wondering is what would happen to this argument against total psalmody if Orthodoxy Presbyterians knew it departed from Mr. Murray. I mean, if it is fair game to raise concerns about views that do not follow Murray’s reading of creation or the Mosaic covenant, why is that okay when it comes to Murray’s singing of David? Maybe the OPC needs to kick away the crutches, prepare for sacred cows to be wounded, and through delegated assemblies let word and Spirit do their work.
Old Life 
Psalms question aside, I am not sure myself why the discussion seems to be so centered on Murray. It seems like Vos should have come much more into the fore. He’s someone both sides agree on as much more solid than Murray on all these questions. Not to mention his systematic theology has finally been translated and released on logos (http://feedingonchrist.com/geerhardus-vos-mosaic-covenant-covenant-grace/). Not that the question should settle on any person (except maybe Moses!). I don’t think I get the “gold star” for trying to be vossian but he is much better on the covenant of works than Murray and much better on the covenant of redemption than O. Palmer Robertson and much better and nuanced on Moses than Kline. Don’t get me wrong I like Kline and thoroughly enjoy reading him, but I just I don’t his view on Moses because he critiques Murray or his students are meany-heads, I disagree because I think his interpretation is wrong. And why all this talk and complaining about how Murray has been handled, I have heard much more straight-up slander against Kline than Murray, and much nastier names. I once heard a reformed professor refer to Dr.Kline as “the manure from which two kingdoms theology grows.” But that’s beside the point and it doesn’t ruffle my feathers and still quoted kline in my appears to that professor regardless. Let’s just talk about the issues and wait for this OPC study committee report to come out and evaluate the merits 😉 of its arguments.
LikeLike
“Come forward and state your name for the record”. “Oh, that’s too bad. We do have a nice parting gift for you, an all expense paid trip to Marfa, Texas. Thanks for playing.” “You know that annuity you’ve been protecting for 30 years? Not so much”
LikeLike
No doubt, Sean-brother, you put the “scru” in inscrutable.
LikeLike
CW, I’m jus sayin’. I’m willing to take down names and count noses, too. Cuz I’m jus that way.
LikeLike
Wait, it gets worse.
If Murray and Young’s OPC Minority Report on Worship Song is fair game, what of Young’s OPC Minority Report on (Murray’s version of) the Free Offer? Both are here.
Supposedly God has an archetypal desire for the salvation of the reprobate.
But if archetypal theology is unknowable, what gives?
Only that modern moderate calvinism is confused and given to taking refuge in paradoxes rather than entering into the previous labors of reformed theologians.
At the very least, Murray’s exegesis, beginning with 2 Pet. 3:9, does not seem to be quite in line with the reformed trajectory (Muller’s term) vis a vis the FOG proof texts.
Nobody, other than the hyper cals, denies that God freely offers salvation to all who repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. Full stop. The archetypal, if not amyrauldian speculation is uncalled for.
But for all the talk of Calvin and calvinism, how many reformed churches these days would affirm Calvin on eternal predestination or the secret providence of God?
He says re. Ezek. 18:32, 32:11 “But if these two members of the sentence be read in conjunction, as they ever ought to be– ” I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked;” and, ” But that the wicked turn from his way and live “– read these two propositions in connection with each other, and the calumny is washed off at once (pp.99,100)”.
As well maybe the unfulfilled desires of God in the the Free Offer Maj. Report; that apart from the repentance of the wicked, God has no archetypal desire for their salvation.
Republication? Always thought Turretin put it well. The Mosaic covenant was a legal administration of the covenant of grace, while the WCF says the ten commandments is a republication of the moral law given Adam in the garden.
Kline, dunno.
But Shepard? Nyet.
Strimple? Beats me, but his sermon on 2 Pet. 3:9 at a Sunday evening Reformation Day service for the larger Seattle metropolitan area in the late ’80’s, did not follow Murray.
Sacred cows, golden calves and stalking horses? Yup, the reformed church – that’s us, folks – has got plenty.
LikeLike
Call me naive but this sounds a hell of a lot better than angry screeds from theonomists and FV sympathizers and John Frame. Venema’s endorsement of both books is also classy.
LikeLike
Interestingly enough I believe it was Mark Jones (and he seems to allude to it in his endorsement) that said that “some form” of Republication was held almost unanimously by the Westminster Divines. I can’t find the precise quote again, but it was in right around the publication of the Puritan Theology that he mentioned it, maybe in the CtC podcast. Certainly Perkins and the Marrow Men held to a “some form” republication. I think you can certainly make the case that what Kline did had some novelty to it, but it’s pretty difficult to argue that republication doesn’t have a long, storied history in Reformed thought.
LikeLike
Chris,
Mark did say that, and yes “some form” of republication of the CoW in the Mosaic covenant was nearly unanimous. But it is the “some form” that this debate is about. The debate is about not whether it is but in what SENSE is it a republication of the covenant of work. Vos certainly believed it was a republication of the covenant of works but it was a republishing of the content (moral law) which recollected its demands but Vos was clear that retention of the land for Israel was not based off of meritorious works of the law but the same type of covenantal response required of Abraham (Gen 1:1-3). He said in no less words that for Israel “law observing is not the meritorious ground of blessedness.” Not that Vos said it so that settles it, but his exegesis is a bit better than Klines at this point.
So to Bob’s point yes Turretin did teach a form of republication and yes the WCF does say the moral law delivered at Sinai recalls the CoW, but that’s just it, all it says is a republication of content. it was “revived” materially not covenantally. As someone who has read a lot of Kline (everything but a couple articles) he definitively taught the latter, that there were was a meritorious works principle at play different in substance from that required of Abraham, or anyone in the cov. of grace, even if typological. As much as I love Kline and love reading Horton I don’t think “in by grace stay in works” is what was happening with Israel and I think Vos and and many of the older divines who believed in republication in some sense would agree.
LikeLike
o yikes that reference for abrahams obedience was supposed to be Gen 17:1-3.
and for what its worth Bavinck (who also held to a form of repiblication):
“Just as Abraham, when God allied himself with, was obligated to “walk before his face,” so Israel as a people was similarly admonished by God’s covenant to a new obedience…it is an explication of the one statement to Abraham: Walk before me and be blameless’ (gen 17:1) and therefore no more a cancellation of the covenant of works than this word spoken to Abraham.” (vol III p. 222)
I know major shock, Vos and Bavinck agreeing…
LikeLike
Brian:
I agree that the sense is up for debate. I’ve never even read Kline on the subject so I can’t speak beyond what I’ve heard second hand on his distinctive views. Vos and the Westminster Divines are good enough for me. However, some of those on the “Murray” side, including some of those above, in their invective speak often as if republication in any form is a novelty. I know they can’t be so estranged from the history of Reformed theology to actually believe that, but they do seem to talk that way a lot in their zeal to paint Kline’s disciples as outside the pale of the Reformed tradition.
LikeLike
Don’t give up on reading Kline! As much as I disagree on that point he is still very much worth reading. I agree with you though like I said on my first post I wish they wouldn’t get hung up on Murray, frankly he just isnt that great on covenant theology, and even most anti-klinians would largely agree on that. I wish they would stick to Vos (not because he is the be all end all) but Kline always claimed to be a follower of his and i think here he departed. Plus who doesnt like Vos!!!!! These are probably the same people who think Two Kingdoms is a novelty in the reformed world. Personally I know Mark Jones is a historical theologian but I wish those who disagreed instead whos the reformedester games would just say and show biblically its wrong. None of this Murray this and Lutherans that stuff. Plenty of people thought weird stuff about the mosaic covenant, perhaps the only person more confusing on Moses than Kline is Owen!
LikeLike
I mean, if it is fair game to raise concerns about views that do not follow Murray’s reading of creation or the Mosaic covenant, why is that okay when it comes to Murray’s singing of David? Maybe the OPC needs to kick away the crutches, prepare for sacred cows to be wounded, and through delegated assemblies let word and Spirit do their work.
Let the games begin…
LikeLike
I’m looking forward to reading the Van Kooten/Berquist/Elam volume – especially since the word on the street is that they say that the Klineans may have the exegetical argument, but the Murray/Gaffinites have the Confessional argument.
I am particularly amused by Gaffin’s (uncharacteristically vitriolic and hyperbolic) comment that Kline’s view of the Mosaic economy is “a view that in its distinctive emphasis is arguably without precedent in the history of Reformed theology” – especially when Mark Jones sounds so soft and gentle in comparison.
Consider this from pages 224-229ff. of John Owen’s “A Continuation of the Exposition of St. Paul to the Hebrews” (1680):
“These things being observed [about what the Scripture says about the Old and New covenants], we may consider that the Scripture doth plainly and expressly make mention of two Testaments or Covenants, and distinguish between them in such a way, as what is spoken can hardly be accommodated unto a twofold Administration of the same Covenant. …Wherefore we must grant two distinct Covenants, rather than a twofold Administration of the same Covenant merely to be intended.”
Anyone who reads the unabridged version of Owen’s commentary will see that in these pages, he unequivocally describes the Mosaic covenant as a covenant of works – not just “in some sense,” but in typological, meritorious terms (“Now this is no other than the Covenant of Works revived.” p. 229).
This is going to be fun. Owen (and others) will be excommunicated posthumously, the same hermeneutic which owes more to Kline than to Murray will be used to argue against exclusive psalmody, and while Klineans will be excoriated for being unconfessional at some point, Murray will be given a free pass for completely snipping WCF 7.2, 19.1, 19.6, WSC 12, WLC 20, 30, and 97 out of the Westminster Standards.
LikeLike
The debate is about not whether it is but in what SENSE is it a republication of the covenant of work.
Agreed Brian, but that’s not always the way it comes across from the anti-Klineans as below:
However, some of those on the “Murray” side, including some of those above, in their invective speak often as if republication in any form is a novelty. I know they can’t be so estranged from the history of Reformed theology to actually believe that, but they do seem to talk that way a lot in their zeal to paint Kline’s disciples as outside the pale of the Reformed tradition.
Well, I don’t know, Chris. IOW nothing would surprise me at this point. Think Frame on the Second Commandment. Never mind the RPW, pictures? Really. What is Frame doing? Channeling John of Damascus?
Or Frame’s doctrine of God. Murray might have his problems, but at least he was a lot more sober than Frame’s biblicist enthusiasm.
Owen? That’s another can of worms.
LikeLike
Chris, ding ding on the “contrast” between the Gaffin and Jones blurbs. Makes you wonder how the Murray/Gaffin tribe can have the confessional argument. Even if they do, though, is Westminster our pope? Murray?
LikeLike
Jones: “Recent understandings of Republication sometimes depart significantly from what one finds among Reformed theologians in the Post-Reformation periods.”
Gaffin: “This volume addresses a relatively recent appearance of the view…a view that in its distinctive emphasis is arguably without precedent in the history of Reformed theology.”
Recent understandings (Jones) = relatively recent…a view in its distinctive emphasis (Gaffin)
Depart significantly (Jones) = arguably without precedent (Gaffin)
Gaffin and Jones seem to be saying the same thing.
LikeLike
Reformed folk often treat historical theology the same way they treat divine revelation: We study it, but we also believe that it ended. Thus the canon was closed at such and such a time and theology was closed at such and such time (c. 1650–the rest is commentary). But covenant theology did not have the lengthy pedigree in the mid-17th century that, say, Christology had. And as all sides acknowledge, there were varying theologies of the OC among the Westminster divines. One wonders: Why did a committee vote at the assembly close the matter of the function of the OC once and for all?
LikeLike
Patrick, come on. Don’t be selective. Does Gaffin say anything close to this? “The doctrine of Republication has a Reformed pedigree.”
Does Gaffin say this? I don’t think so: “a view that in its distinctive emphasis is arguably without precedent in the history of Reformed theology.”
I wonder if this same affliction affects the way we read Paul?
LikeLike
Daryl,
Don’t read something that is not there.
Gaffin writes, “This volume addresses a relatively recent appearance of the view that the Mosaic covenant embodies a republication of the covenant of works, a view that in its distinctive emphasis is arguably without precedent in the history of Reformed theology…”
Notice that he refers to a “recent appearance of the view…” This in no way denies that the view that the MC embodies a republication of the CW is new. If anything it implies it. A recent appearance of the view implies that the view is old. Gaffin is saying the the “distinctive emphasis” of the recent appearance of this view is new. And that is what Jones is saying.
Gaffin’s statement is careful and nuanced.
What affliction is causing people here to misread Gaffin?
LikeLike
Patrick, Shepherd and lingering justified suspicions. Reordering the ordo around Union. Effectively having the ontological eclipse the forensic. Not comfortable with L/G distinctions. Endorsing the Call of Grace and then signing off on OPC Justification study. That’s just off the top of my head
LikeLike
Patrick, Kinnaird. I’m waking up, I can keep it coming. Final justification.
LikeLike
Patrick, why is Gaffin a sacred cow but not VanDrunen?
Nuanced? This?
This was a view held during the Mosaic era?
A view that is in fact trying to preserve “grace and saving faith in the promised Messiah” even when the law is threatening with curses that lead either to banishment from the garden or exile from the land (along with destruction of the temple)?
Or this?
The critics of republication show that God demands holiness that is not meritorious but is “anything less than perfect”? Or does the holiness demanded always “anything less than perfect.”
And the critics of Republication show that republicationists are arguing for a “well-meant offer to sinners of the covenant of works” when the republicationists are the ones arguing not for the simultaneity of justification and sanctification but for the priority of justification to sanctification?
Huh?
LikeLike
I was more comfortable debating the merits/demerits of Mad Men…
LikeLike
Scott, Moses, David, and Paul all got mad. The water is warm.
LikeLike
Again a relevant quote from Vos on the “impossibility of a well-meant offer to sinners of the covenant of works in any sense.” (Gaffin)
Even after the fall, the law retains something of its covenantal form. The law was not included in the federal relationship without having been affected by it. Even today the call of the law sounds in our ears: such a life I would give you, if only you could fulfill me! God could have wholly eradicated that relation and have taken away the last traces of it from our minds, after the covenant of works was broken….However, He kept its memory alive in us. He has repeated that promise hypothetically and consequently has held up before us constantly the ideal of eternal life to be obtained by keeping the law, a lost ideal though it be.”
Vos, Geerhardus. The Doctrine of the Covenant in Reformed Theology
Again, why this talk about Murray? Why Gaffin (who is New testament not Old)? Much more helpful to consider Vos and just consider the exegetical evidence which opponents of the merit principle of republication (even though they agree with repub) have been woefully slow to print BT and exegetical arguments against it besides half argument here, half a verse here, a comment in a book review here.
LikeLike
Patrick:
Gaffin is not being careful and nuanced. A careful and nuanced statement is one that aims at avoiding any potential misunderstanding (Turretin’s writings, for instance). Gaffin, rather, is speaking somewhat vaguely to score rhetorical points. As I said above, I have to believe he understands that “some sort” republicationism is extensively witnessed to in the historical corpus of Reformed theology. Historical theology isn’t Gaffin’s strong suit (and I don’t mean that prejoratively, I wish he’d spend a little more time with the tradition but it’s not his chosen field), but, if nothing else, I’m sure he’s heard it from Jones.
His statement leaves enough wiggle room that if you work at it you can make room for Jones’ admission, but the thrust is still to paint republicationism per se as a novelty. His very first phrase makes it clear: “This volume addresses a relatively recent appearance of the view that the Mosaic covenant embodies a republication of the covenant of works,”. He narrows his emphasis towards the Klinean distinctives as he writes, but here he starts in a very general tone (note especially the definite “the view” rather than an indefinite). Obviously interacting with Kline’s view as a variation of a view that has a long and storied Reformed history is a much less rhetorically effective way to discredit it than to treat it as an ex nihilo novelty, but it seems to me to be much more charitable and allow for more open dialog if we’re clear about that from the start.
I can’t fathom how someone could claim that “the recent appearance” implies something is old (i.e. not recent). If he had said “reappearance”, sure, but the way he did it doesn’t imply that anymore than speaking of the recent appearance of D.G. Hart’s “Calvinism: A History” on shelves means it had been there since 1563.
LikeLike
Thank you, sean.
You will be awarded the flat cap from CW after he sends it to the drycleaners.
LikeLike
Oops, left out the (all about him) tag after name dropping DGH’s book.
LikeLike
Actually, Chris, I think Patrick might be right on this point. Gaffin says “a relatively recent appearance” rather than “the relatively recent appearance”. The use of “a” implies other appearances; the use of “the” would imply this is the only one.
LikeLike
Hey look, Gaffin might be saying a few things, kinda. Soprise, soprise
LikeLike
Alexander: You may be right there. Even so, there is still a definite “the” before the view which leaves things a bit muddled. Let’s assume “a relatively recent appearance” of “the view” implies preexistance. If “the view” has preexisted and appeared once again, then how could that view in “it’s distinctive emphasis” (i.e. characterizing “the view”) be even arguably without historical precedent.
Regardless, if Gaffin was being careful and nuanced there wouldn’t be the question over what he was saying. Mark Jones said what Patrick would have Gaffin to have said and yet there is no disagreement about his meaning.
LikeLike
Chris, you’re tightening my jaws.
LikeLike
thanks, Bob S, for raising the concern about the shibboleth/sacred cow which is “God’s desire to save the non-elect”. Is God’s law “God desire that nobody sin so that God is then disappointed when sin God has foreordained happens”. The confusion of command and gospel promise has been by now built into the the exegesis of texts like II Peter 3:9 and also other texts which really have nothing to do with the topic (rains on both the just and unjust…)
But how many opc folks have read the minority report on the “offer” or even know it exists? The “amyraldian” (Marrow, dead for you) approach seems to have triumphed for all practical purposes. The very word “offer” by now seems inherently related to the notion that God wishes to happen what God has not foreordained to happen. And the newer use of “offer” gets read back into Calvin and into Dordt and other confessions…
Posted July 18, 2014 at 6:21 pm | Permalink
Wait, it gets worse. If Murray and Young’s OPC Minority Report on Worship Song is fair game, what of Young’s OPC Minority Report . http://opc.org/GA/free_offer.html/
Bob S—Supposedly God has an archetypal desire for the salvation of the reprobate. But if archetypal theology is unknowable, what gives? Only that modern moderate calvinism is confused and given to taking refuge in paradoxes rather than entering into the previous labors of reformed theologians. At the very least, Murray’s exegesis, beginning with 2 Pet. 3:9, does not seem to be quite in line with the reformed trajectory (Muller’s term) vis a vis the FOG proof texts…. The archetypal, if not amyrauldian speculation is uncalled for. But for all the talk of Calvin and calvinism, how many reformed churches these days would affirm Calvin on eternal predestination or the secret providence of God?
He says re. Ezek. 18:32, 32:11 “But if these two members of the sentence be read in conjunction, as they ever ought to be– ” I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked;” and, ” But that the wicked turn from his way and live “– read these two propositions in connection with each other, and the calumny is washed off at once (pp.99,100)”.
LikeLike
Mark-
You’re perhaps thinking about this too abstractly. The minister preaching the sermon doesn’t know who the elect and the reprobate are. What he does know is that there are commands in Scripture for all men to obey the Gospel. The Bible also tells us to make our calling then our election sure, not the other way around. So the minister can offer the salvation of the gospel freely- without respect to person, status, morality &c.- and leave it to God to work out who will be effectually called and who won’t. And, also, it’s not the people in the street who are being offered the gospel but those in the church, under the preaching.
LikeLike
Alex, while the ProtRefChurches may deny the confessional version of the free offer at the same time they deny John Murray’s hijack of it, I don’t know that McM is doing that or even denying the public promiscuous preaching of the gospel in the park or on the sidewalk outside of a church.
LikeLike
I think it’s a mistake to categorize this debate as one between Klineans and Murrayites (and thus the issue of psalmody is irrelevant). My impression rather is that those opposed to Klinean covenant theology and its analysis of Moses are so because they believe it entails a reformulation of historic covenant theology that is less than helpful. The reason for their concern (ironically enough) is that they think the Klinean language about merit in the old covenant blurs the historic Reformed distinction between the covenant of works and the covenant of grace (i.e., the distinction between law and gospel, which in spite of some of the rhetoric is agreed on by all parties) rather than clarifying it. In their view, strict merit is impossible due to the Creator/creature divide, but God condescended and pactum merit became a reality in the state of innocence. But after the fall? In the state of sin, no creature can merit anything before God (except condemnation), not in any sense, and if you think the Bible teaches otherwise, you’d better blink and look again, because there is a better explanation.
On the other hand, the “Klinean side” believes that some of the old categories need some tweaking in the interests of more accurately reflecting Scripture and better preserving law and gospel. They hold that Kline is more than compatible with historic Reformed orthodoxy and that the diverse explanations given by Reformed stalwarts for precisely how the covenant of works was “renewed” or “revived” or “promulgated” or “delivered” proves their case. And since Turretin even spoke of the Mosaic covenant as “clothed with the form of the covenant of works, so how can anyone say that their view is outside the pale? But for them, Kline has come up with the best understanding of Moses thus far, and they see no problem with following him on this particular issue rather than Turretin, Bavinck or Vos.
A big problem that prevents the debate from being fruitful is that the two sides have not been able to agree on common categories for the sake of discussion. In the seventeenth century, when diverse views of Moses were discussed, all parties agreed about merit before God, they all agreed on what constituted the substance and accidents of covenants, they all defined covenants in terms of parties, promises and conditions, and they all spoke in terms of form, matter and essence. I don’t know if we need to be locked into scholastic categories, but it does help when everyone speaks the same language and it may be better to speak the old one if there isn’t a new one to replace it. So the “anti-Kline side” of the debate (I think) would like it if their opponents would explain their view using language that both sides can clearly understand. The “pro-Kline side” is reluctant to do so however because they feel (I think) that we’ve moved beyond those old scholastic debates and frankly, they don’t really see the point. From their perspective, Kline is really not so difficult, and since we all agree that salvation is by grace alone, why do people get so miffed when they insist that an upper typological stratum of the old covenant operated according to a principle of works (especially when the old theologians also connected the covenant of works to Moses)? After all, this is what “classic covenant theology” teaches and it is only due to Murray’s influence that contemporary Reformed theologians have become blind to it.
But the anti-Kline side thinks they see problems, and specifically they think that a works principle in the old covenant is incoherent and incompatible with historic Reformed (and Scriptural) ways of speaking. And so we’re at an impasse….
LikeLike
David R, unfortunately, this is going to amount to little more than yet another unfounded, unjustified fear of antinomianism. Which, for some of these participants, is little more than yet another way to push shepherdian constructions consistent with Murray’s monocovenantalism. There isn’t the consensus on L/G that you might think there is. This is the Galatians 3 fight, again.
LikeLike
Bob S- Who mentioned the ProtRefChurches? Mark’s post seemed to suggest that it was Amyraldian to believe that the Gospel is sincerely offered to all people and that God has a love for the Reprobate.
LikeLike
David R., if the pro-Kline side has moved beyond the old categories, why are they the ones defending the priority of justification while the anti-Kline side is more new-fangled?
LikeLike
Dr. Hart, “priority of justification” is an opinion, not a category. The categories would be “priority” and “justification,” which are pretty well agreed on….
LikeLike
thx David R, I found that helpful.
So “strict merit” v “pactum merit” is that a distinction between whether certain works have intrinsic (essential?) value, vs contingent value “because God said so”? If so, I think that is a critical category that is often missed. I was just recently reading in Vos about the “arbitrary” nature of God’s probationary command to Adam; is it not the same with Israel and the land? God said “if you disobey, I will kick you out”; Israel disobeyed; Israel was (therefore, right?) kicked out. If Israel had not disobeyed, God would not have kicked them out. Thus, because God set up the rules of the game that way, the cash value (merit) of obedience is staying in the land. Yes?
If there is not a principle of works in operation in Moses, on what basis did God evict Israel from the land?
It is interesting though, that while Kline is being accused (by Gaffin) of diminishing God’s requirement of perfection for Israel’s land-keeping (and most emphatically NOT for justification), what about FV (Lusk et al) and their diminishing of God’s requirement of perfection for our final justification, based on our “entire life lived”?
LikeLike
DGH,
Another relationship question vs. content:
Would it follow that if the OPC agrees with Murray in one instance, but not another instance, that the OPC is not following Murray at all but seeking to follow the Word of God?
I may have been misreading the post, but my sense was that the concern of sacred cows was null by the reference to Murray’s view on exclusive Psalmody vs. the OPC’s position today.
Thank you again for your time,
B
LikeLike
David, what is material principle of the Reformation? Union?
LikeLike
Dr. Hart, You are missing my point.
LikeLike
David, well, I think you’re missing what’s going on. This is a debate among Vossians — which includes both Murray and his defenders and Kline and his. There’s not a lot of Protestant scholasticism going on there, especially not one in the bunch (except for Horton in a way) has attempted a systematic, let alone dogmatic, theology. You think that one side is actually following 17th century scholastics? No one in PTS or WTS circles did that once Hodge published his ST.
LikeLike
RubeRad,
Thanks. You’re right about strict merit entailing intrinsic worth. Turretin has a helpful discussion of merit in volume 3, p. 712. He gives five conditions for a strictly meritorious work: (1) It must be undue, (2) ours, (3) perfect, (4) proportioned to the reward, and (5) the reward must be due from justice. Hence, no strict merit is possible for the creature (since already by nature he owes God obedience), but in the covenant of works God condescends and provides a way for innocent Adam to merit by virtue of God’s promise. By contrast, Christ’s merit (in accomplishing redemption) is strict, as it meets all the above conditions of intrinsic worth.
I am not sure what you are getting at in comparing the probation command to the Mosaic stipulations. Regarding your question, “If there is not a principle of works in operation in Moses, on what basis did God evict Israel from the land?” I don’t share your assumption that there must be a works principle to explain Israel getting kicked out. Since you are reading Vos (I am too, btw), why don’t you check out his discussion of this question beginning on page 126? I’d be interested in your thoughts. As for Lusk, I haven’t read him, but that does sound problematic….
LikeLike
Dr. Hart, but that’s just it. A little scholasticism would help, wouldn’t it?
LikeLike
David, sure it would. But you claim that one side is scholastic and the other isn’t. No one has been scholastic in Protestant circles since Descartes.
LikeLike
Dr. Hart, I haven’t read this book, but the Kerux review utilized scholastic categories.
LikeLike