The Law is not of Faith on Office Hours
The latest Office Hours is out and Bryan Estelle, David VanDrunen and John Fesko speak with R. Scott Clark on The Law is not of Faith: Essays on Works and Grace in the Mosaic Covenant. The discussion was engaging. This is a very difficult subject and the participants gave a great overview of many of the issues in the discussion.
I hope I’m not reading too much into this episode, but I had the sense there were several thinly veiled references to John Murray. For one, I think it is unfortunate Murray rejected the covenant of works. It’s something that continues to baffle me, though I still gather throughout his writings that he affirmed the substance of the covenant of works. I believe his treatment of the imputation of Adam’s sin is first rate, but for some reason, Murray had a problem with the traditional language.
Again, I don’t want to overly speculate, but it seems Murray may have been at least partially in mind around 18 minutes into the episode when Fesko spoke about “theologians of the previous generation” not engaging with the tradition as much as earlier generations. There seemed to be some latent desire to connect Murray’s CoW anomaly with soteriology. Now that would have been quite a discussion, but of course would have strayed from the immediate subject. Perhaps we can trace out more of these threads in a future Christ the Center. At any rate, download the mp3 and listen to Office Hours. If you enjoy covenant theology, you will certainly enjoy this episode.
Thanks Camden.
Camden
Read the book, especially T David Gordon’s article, and you will find more than a thinly veiled dig at John Murray. Murray was not right for sure, on the Covenant of Works, but Gordon’s slanderous attack on Murray, (and his comments on the Mosaic covenant generally) were unacceptable. A man of his standing should know better. I would have thought the editors of the book would also have seen fit to excise such comments from the work.
Murray in some circles,is grossly undervalued. It is the in thing to “have it in” for Murray, which is unfortunate and perhaps ungodly. Much has been set at Murray’s door (Federal Vision etc) from which he would have recoiled. Pure nonsense, some of it. Murray was wrong on the covenant of works, but was then “inconsistent” in his soteriology, which he got right. The crux of the anti-Murray feeling is a) the covnenat of works, and then consequently b) the Covenant at Sinai. Compare Murray’s teaching on Sinai and T David Gordon’s on the same, and you will find that Murray stands closer to the Reformed tradition than Gordon. I have not yet found a Reformed Presbyterian, past or present, who would hold to Gordon’s position on Sinai (caveat – I’ve not read everyone!).
Blessings
Matt
[...] sanctification simply by appealing to the doctrines of regeneration or effectual calling? One theologian of the previous generation addresses the question himself. While regeneration is an all-important factor in definitive [...]