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