Was Christ the eternal Son of God?

This question is not intended to query Christ's essential deity. All orthodox theologians confess the Christ pre-existed as the eternal Word who was God. But was he eternally the Son of God? We might also include the trinitarian dimensions of our subject. Does the divine name disclosed by Jesus; Father, Son and Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19), depict God as he is in himself (in se), or simply as he appeared to be for the sake of the economy of redemption (quoad nos)? The New Testament's teaching on Jesus' sonship takes place within the context of the economy of salvation. Scripture does not give us a direct disclosure of the nature of the imminent Trinity. It is as God with us that Jesus is revealed as the Son of the Father. That much is true. But while the imminent Trinity must not be entirely reduced to the economic Trinity, God as he is for us must be a true revelation of God as he is in himself. If God for us is Father, Son and Holy Spirit, it is because he is, ever was, and ever will be Father, Son and Holy Spirit. If this is not the case, we have to ask what, if any correspondence is there between the economic and imminent Trinity?

If we rule out the biblical material that has a bearing on Jesus' eternal sonship because of commitment to preserving the (valid!) distinction between God quoad nos and God in se, then where is our evangelical commitment to sola Scriptura? Surely biblical revelation should weigh more heavily with us than abstract theological reasoning.

What then of the Scriptures? I think that there is a strong biblical case for Jesus eternal sonship.

1) The self-consciousness of Christ

In John's Gospel, the enfleshed Word seemed to be conscious that his Father/Son relationship within the godhead was not simply the product of his incarnate life. Jesus' own sense of his Father/Son relationship with God seems to be elemental to his identity and self-consciousness (John 5:19-29). It is out of love for the Father that Jesus went to the cross (14:31). He referred to himself in relation to the Father in the most deeply personal and intimate way as "Your Son" (John 17:1). He was conscious of his pre-existent glory with God the Father (17:5). The Son hoped to return to the Father, not lay aside a way of relating to God that he assumed only for the purpose of salvation (13:1). Jesus is Son of the Father from eternity to eternity. I think that it would be difficult to argue from the data in John's Gospel that Jesus' sonship was not eternal. What right to we have to bypass the testimony of Jesus' self-consciousness and suggest that in the undisclosed depths of God, he was not in reality the beloved Son of the Father?

2) The mission of the Son

John 3:16 famously teaches that, "God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son...". Paul, using similar language tells us that, "In the fullness of time, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law" (Galatians 4:4). In both texts, it is as the Son that Jesus is sent into the world on a mission of redemption. He did not assume sonship at the incarnation, it was as Son that he was incarnated.

3) The triune name of God

God's key Old Testament name was YHWH - the self existent "I AM", the God of covenant faithfulness (Exodus 3:14, 6:2). This name was revealed in the context of the Old Testament economy of redemption, but who can doubt that YHWH is the revelation of who God is in himself. The New Testament revelation of God's name was announced by the risen Jesus. He commanded that disciples be baptised "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Matthew 28:19). This disclosure of God's name is no less a true revelation of God as he is in himself. He is eternally and unchangeably Father, Son and Holy Spirit, just as he is eternally and unchangeably YHWH. If the imminent Trinity is not in fact Father, Son and Holy Spirit, then we must conclude that the economic Trinity is not a fully reliable revelation of God as he is in se.

4) The testimony of Reformed theology

Reformed orthodoxy has almost uniformly insisted that Jesus was the eternal Son of God. Donald Macleod reflects,

"The economic trinity reveals a God if the deepest affection, eternally loving his Son and yet sacrificing his Son for the salvation of a world he made through his Son and which he loves in his Son. The imminent trinity, by contrast, remains undisclosed: a remote reality consisting of God, his Word and his Breath. Without eternal sonship we are left with a redemption which is not a revelation. We have lost the core of the doctrine of the Trinity, namely, that the one Lordship is disclosed as the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit." (The Person of Christ, IVP, p. 130-131).

John Murray points out the consequences of denying the eternal sonship of Christ,

"If we should deny that the Lord Jesus Christ was eternally the Son of God, then we should have to deny that the Father was eternally Father. For if the first person is eternal Father, it is necessary that there must be a Son of whom he is the eternal Father. And this means that the second person must be eternally Son of the first person. Again, it is in this way that the distinction between the Father and the Son is maintained. It is also very important that, if we deny that the Son was eternally the Son, then we do grave prejudice to the greatness of God's love in sending Christ into the world. The Scripture magnifies the love of God by showing us that it was none other than his own well-beloved and only-begotten Son that the Father sent. He must then have been sent as the Son and not simply to be the Son. It is the greatness of such a gift that advertises the greatness of the Father's love." (Collected Writings Volume 1, Banner of Truth, p. 31-32).

Robert Reymond concludes his consideration of this subject with these words,

"We systematcians should give careful thought to this issue, but I would argue here that we should not discard cavalierly the eternal sonship of the Son in favour of simply affirming the eternal existence of the Logos. For with the rejection of the Son's eternal sonship also goes the Father's eternal fatherhood with tragic results. With what are we then left in regard to distinguishing the properties in the persons of the Godhead that will undergird classical trinitarianism? (Always Reforming, Apollos, p. 103-104.)

Confessing Christ as God's eternal Son in no way makes him subordinate to the Father in the imminent Trinity. As Calvin taught, in regard to his deity, the Son is autotheos, God in his own right, while he is the person of the Son in relation to the Father. We should continue to hold that Jesus was and is the eternal Son of the Father in truth and love.

The Life of John Murray

The Life of John Murray by Iain H. Murray, Banner of Truth Trust, 2007, 220 pp.

John Murray was born and raised in a croft in the Highalnds of Scotland. He became one of the foremost Reformed theologians of the 20th century. Murray studied and then taught at the Princeton Seminary in the USA just at the time that Princeton was drifting from its old Calvinistic theology. He left his teaching duties at Princeton to teach systematic theology at the newly founded Westminster Theological Seminary, where he served with distinction from 1930-1966. Murray worked alongside the likes of Gresham Machen, Cornelius Van Til and E. J. Young to make Westminster a centre of Reformed orthodoxy and scholarly excellence.

Murray was no ivory tower theologian. He was involved in the life of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church in America. He liked nothing better than to preach the Word to the people of God. The theologian had a real pastoral heart and many found him to be a wise and discriminating counsellor. He sought to encourage the Church to be active in evangelism and mission. At one point in the book, we are given Murray’s “Rules for the Open Air Meeting”. His gifts as a theologian and discerning Christian leader were deployed with great effect when he acted as Moderator of the Presbytery’s General Assembly. While Murray was no friend of liberal theology, he was also wary of Fundamentalism, which he saw as anti-intellectual and legalistic. Murray was champion of of distinctly Reformed confessional orthodoxy. He helped to guide the fledgling Reformed movement in the UK, acting as an advisor to the Banner of Truth Trust and speaking regularly at the Trust’s Minister’s Conference.

From Murray’s portrait, that adorns the front cover of his Collected Writings, it might be thought that he was a rather stern and forbidding figure. But he embodied the best of Scottish Highland piety, with a commitment to serious godliness wedded to heartfelt experimental Calvinism. Murray was as strict Sabbatarian. He loved to spend the Lord’s Day in uninterrupted worship, prayer and meditation. He once refused to enter into a conversation with Machen about soccer on the Lord's day, "I do not speak of such things on the Sabbath!" Ironically he was barred from entering the Scottish Free Presbyterian ministry because he sided with a minister who would not discipline a women for catching a bus to church on Sundays. (How sad is that?) Iain Murray brings the theologian’s humanity to the fore with examples of his humour and kindly generosity. The biographer also charts the course of Murray’s blossoming friendship with Valerie, whom he was to marry when in his early 60’s. The couple were blessed with two children.

In terms of his life’s work, John Murray was above all a theologian. Although reference is made to some of his key writings, this biography makes little attempt to assess the enduring value of Murray’s theological legacy. He did not write a complete systematic theology. But he made important contributions to the field of systematics. Murray’s theological method was exemplary. He believed that systematic theology should primarily arise from exegesis of the biblical text. He also argued that the discipline should be informed by the riches of past theological discovery and be able to face the challenges of the contemporary world. Murray published important work on ethics and the doctrines of justification by faith and sanctification. He was one of the top Calvin scholars of his day. His greatest scholarly achievement was probably his outstanding commentary on the Epistle to the Romans.

This edition of John Murray’s Life has a new appendix which contains some previously unpublished correspondence, but no index. I hope that the publication of this biography will lead to a fresh appreciation of Murray’s work, much of which is published in his four volume Collected Writings (Banner of Truth Trust).

See here for my discussion of Murray's approach to systematic theology.

John Murray on The Open Air Meeting

Busy day, yesterday. I conducted my first marriage service and then attended a church fellowship evening in nearby Saltford. The couple were a man from the church I pastor in West Lavington and a woman from the other church I serve in Westbury!

I sometimes preach the gospel in the open air. We hold open air events in our local High Street in the Spring and Summers months. This morning, I'm off to Bridport, Dorset to assist friends from the Baptist Church with their open air witness. The other day, I was struck to read these Rules for Open Air Meetings, drawn up by John Murray for the Orthodox Presbyterian Church in the 1930's. Aside from being excellent advice, they show that Murray was an evangelist at heart, as well as a being a theologian. They also tie in nicely with my new series on Preaching and the Power of the Spirit (here).

1. Go where the people are, not where you hope they will come...

2. Go in absolute confidence in the truth and power of the Gospel and in complete reliance on the Holy Spirit to bless. Only as the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit can we proclaim boldly, convincingly, and winsomely the everlasting gospel. Nothing can draw and hold so well and so surely in an open-air service as the preaching of the Word in the power of the Spirit.

From The Life of John Murray by Iain Murray, Banner of Truth Trust, 2007, p. 91.

That's me preaching at the Martyrs Memorial, Oxford last March.

John Murray on the task of Systematic Theology 7

Concluding Reflections

Biog by Iain Murray
(Updated from Life in Vol 3 of Collected Writings)

This is the last post in this series on John Murray's approach to systematic theology. I suggest that Murray's proposals have the potential to refresh contemporary Reformed Dogmatics. A more exegetical method that roots systematics in biblical theology will also make the discipline of greater benefit to pastors. Our task is to proclaim to Word of God to the people of God. To do that, we need a systematic theology that does not mainly consist of a restatement of Reformed orthodoxy appended by a string of proof texts. Pastors need to be helped to think theologically - to relate the witness of Scripture to contemporary concerns. Robert Reymond's A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith is an advance on Berkhof's Systematic Theology in this respect. Although I don't always agree with his exegetical decisions, Reymond does actually exegete key passages of Scripture. But his work fails to take into account recent theological developments and lacks generosity in disputed matters like church government and baptism. What we need is a contemporary Reformed Dogmatics that is modelled on Murray's careful methodology. Systematics should also take account of Kevin Vanhoozer's theodramatic proposals. One of the problems that I had with the latter's The Drama of Doctrine was that the work lacked exegetical rigour. A creative blend of the two approaches would be an interesting prospect.

Here is the complete series on John Murray and the task of Systematic Theology:

1. Systematic Theology & Natural Revelation
2. Systematic Theology & Biblical Revelation
3. Systematic & Historical Theology
4. Provisionality and Progress in Systematic Theology
5. Systematic & Biblical Theology
6. On Sanctification

Murray's four volume Collected Writings are available from the Banner of Truth Trust here.

John Murray on the task of Systematic Theology 6

Murray on Sanctification

John Murray did not write a complete systematic theology. But we can access his contribution to the discipline in his four volume Collected Writings, published by the Banner of Truth Trust (here). According to John Frame, who studied under Murray at the Westminster Theological Seminary, "His lectures were not, for the most part, reviews of Reformed traditions, but almost entirely exegetical". (Salvation Belongs to the Lord, P&R, 2006, p. 352).

An example of Murray's exegetical approach to theology can be seen in his treatment of the doctrine of sanctification in Collected Writings of John Murray Volume 2: Systematic Theology. In standard works of Reformed dogmatics, sanctification is defined as the progressive transformation of the believer (Systematic Theology by Louis Berkhof, Banner of Truth Trust, 1984, p. 532 and A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith by Robert Reymond, Thomas Nelson, 1998, p. 767). But Murray noted that,

"it is a fact too frequently overlooked that in the New Testament the most characteristic terms that refer to sanctification are used not of a process, but of a once-for-all definitive act." ( p. 277).

Murray then proceeds to exegete the key New Testament texts on sanctification. In Paul's epistles, sanctification is no less definitive than justification (1 Corinthians 6:11), Believers have been definitively sanctified by virtue of their union with Christ in his death and resurrection. The theologian devotes particular attention to Romans 6:1-7:6. Murray shows that this emphasis can also be found in the teaching of Peter and John.

In a second article on The Agency in Definitive Sanctification, (p. 285ff), Murray again devotes careful attention to Biblical exegesis before drawing his insightful dogmatic conclusions,

"We see, therefore, that the decisive and definitive breach with sin that occurs at the inception of the Christian life is one necessitated by the fact that the death of Christ was decisive and definitive. It is just because we cannot allow for any reversal of repetition of Christ's death on the tree that we cannot allow for any compromise on the doctrine that every believer has died to sin and no longer lives under its dominion. Sin no longer lords it over him. To equivocate here is to assail the definitiveness of Christ's death. Likewise the decisive and definitive entrance upon newness of life in the case of every believer is required by the fact that the resurrection of Christ was decisive and definitive. As we cannot allow for any reversal or repetition of the resurrection, so we cannot allow for any compromise on the doctrine, that the body of sin has been destroyed, and that as a new man in Christ Jesus, he serves God in the newness which is none other than that of the Holy Spirit of whom he has become the habitation and his body the temple." (p. 293)

Murray's account of sanctification has been refreshed and reinvigorated by his exegetical approach. He was not content simply to restate the traditional Reformed emphasis that focuses almost exclusively on progressive sanctification. He captured the New Testament's teaching that sanctification is rooted in the believer's union with the crucified and risen Christ. Murray also discussed Progressive Sanctification, The Pattern of Sanctification and The Goal of Sanctification (p. 294-317). The theologian made an important and and fresh contribution to the Reformed understanding of sanctification. Future dogmatics should take his insights into account and build upon them to develop a more Scriptural, Christ-centred doctrine of sanctification. This post is obviously a very brief summary of Murray's teaching, but I hope I have done enough to whet reader's appetites. David Peterson was influenced by John Murray's articles in his Possessed by God: A New Testament theology of sanctification and holiness, Apollos, 1995, 191pp.

Page references to Collected Writings of John Murray Volume 2: Systematic Theology, Banner of Truth Trust, 1977.

John Murray on the task of Systematic Theology 5

Systematic & Biblical Theology

The relationship between systematic and Biblical theology is one of the defining issues that faces Reformed dogmatics at the moment. Some say that to breath new life into the discipline, systematics needs to integrate more closely with Biblical theology (ie. Don Carson & Kevin Vanhoozer). Others claim that such a reorientation would rob dogmatics of its distinctive value (ie. Paul Helm). John Murray was deeply influenced by Geerhardus Vos, the father of modern Reformed biblical theology. He has some very interesting things to say about this subject. Murray makes a careful distinction between the disciplines. Biblical theology deals with the process of the self-revelation of God in Scripture. Its task is to trace the progressive, historical development of revelation. Systematic theology reflects on Scripture as a finished product. Systematics is structured logically, while Biblical theology is structured historically. But, argues Murray "systematic theology must be concerned to be biblical not one whit less than biblical theology." (p. 9).

Murray discusses developments within the field of biblical theology. He insists that the discipline must focus on the revelatory acts and words of God. Attention given to the epochal character of revelation in biblical theology makes it "indispensable to the systematic theology that is faithful to the Bible." (p. 15). The professor was aware that, "Systematic theologies have too often betrayed a cold formalism that has been prejudicial to their proper aim and have not for that reason and to that extent promoted encounter with the living Word of the living God." (p. 15). Murray acknowledged that systematics sometimes has to deal with somewhat abstract subjects that can seem as dry as dust. But, he points out, "dust has its place, especially when it is gold dust." (p. 16). He also reminds us that Biblical studies is not exactly a dust free zone.

Kevin Vanhoozer voices a common complaint about the exegetical weakness of some systematic theology,

"One typically begins with a doctrinal confession and then sets off trawling through the Scriptures. One's exegetical 'catch' is then dumped indiscriminately into the parentheses irrespective of where these parts were found". (Scottish Bulletin of Evangelical Theology 12 (1994). p. 104, cited in The Gagging of God by D.A. Carson, Zondervan/Apollos, 1996, p. 543.)

That sounds familiar! There must be more to systematics than a summary of Reformed doctrine followed by a string of proof texts. Murray's emphasis on the indispensability of biblical theology to the task of dogmatics helps to avoid this tendency.

"In biblical theology deals with the history of revelation it must follow the progression which this history dictates. This is to say it must study the data of revelation given in each period in terms of the stage to which God's self-revelation progressed at that particular time. To be concrete, we may not import into one period of the data of revelation which belong to a later period....Thus biblical theology is regulative of exegesis". (p. 19).

For John Murray, biblical exegesis is not incidental to dogmatics,

"Systematics becomes lifeless and fails in its mandate just to the extent to which it has become detached from exegesis. And the guarantee against at stereotyped dogmatics is that systematic theology be constantly enriched, deepened and expanded by the treasures increasingly drawn from the Word of God. Exegesis keeps systematics not only in direct contact with the Word but it ever imparts to systematics the power which is derived from the Word. The Word is living and powerful". (p. 17)

Furthermore,

"Systematic theology is tied to exegesis. It coordinates and synthesizes the whole witness of Scripture on the various topics with which it deals. But systematic theology will fail of its task to the extent to which it discards its rootage in biblical theology as properly conceived and developed." (p. 19)

John Murray concurs with Vanhoozer's strictures on proof texting in systematics. Rooting systematics in Biblical theology will help to avoid this stultifying tendency,

"Revelation is seen to be an organism and the discrete parts, or preferably phases, are perceived to be not sporadic, unrelated and disjointed oracles, far less heterogeneous and contradictory elements, but the multiform aspects of God's intervention and self-disclosure, organically knit together and compacted, expressive not only of his marvellous grace but of the order which supreme wisdom designed. Thus the various passages drawn from the whole compass of Scripture and woven into the texture of systematic theology are not cited as mere proof texts or wrested from the scriptural and historical context to which they belong, but, understood in a way appropriate to the place they occupy in the unfolding process, are applied with that particular relevance to the topic under consideration." (p. 21)

It is only when systematic theology is based on the exegesis of Scripture and informed by biblical theology that it can truly fulfil its task. The aim in systematics is not simply to abstract and isolate the propositional content of Scripture. Murray proposed a much richer, almost theodramatic theological vision,

"Since the Bible us the principal source of revelation and since the Bible is the Word of God, systematics is the discipline which more than any other aims to confront us men with God's own witness so that in its totality it may make that impact upon our hearts and minds by which we shall be conformed to his image in knowledge, righteousness, and holiness of the truth". (p. 21)

Unless otherwise stated, page references are to Collected Writings of John Murray Volume 4: Studies in Theology, Banner of Truth Trust, 1982.

John Murray on the task of Systematic Theology 4

Provisionality and Progress

According to John Murray, "we may not suppose that theological construction ever reaches definitive finality." Systematic theology is an ongoing project and we need to beware of "stagnant traditionalism". (p. 7). Murray commends John Calvin's innovatory teaching on the Person of Christ. The Reformer did not allow his deference for tradition to stifle fresh thinking on Christology. He was unhappy with the creedal formula that Christ was "very God of very God". To Calvin, this suggested that the Son derived his deity from the Father. This notion is unacceptable. According to Calvin, the Son is autotheos. With respect to his deity he is self-existent. With this improvisation, Calvin challenged the subordinationism that is latent in Nicence Christology. The creed's insight that the Son is homoousion with the Father is brought to full expression in Calvin's trinitarian teaching.

This suggests that even the Church's revered ancient creeds are not beyond revision in the light of Scripture. "As it is true that ecclesia reformata reformanda est so also it is true that theologia reformata reformanda est". Reformed theology must not simply live on the riches of the past. Theological traditionalism will not guarantee faithfulness to the truth. Indeed such stagnation will lead only to a decline into heresy.

"When any generation is itself content to rely on its theological heritage and refuses to explore for itself the riches of divine revelation, then declension is already under way and heterodoxy will be the lot of the succeeding generation. The powers of darkness are never idle and in combating error each generation must fight its own battle in exposing and correcting the same. It is light that dispels darkness and in this sphere light consists in the enrichment which each generation contributes to the stores of theological knowledge." (p. 8).

Here, Murray rallies Reformed Dogmatics to face the challenge of the contemporary world. Issues such as postmodernism, religious pluralism, Open Theism and the new perspective on Paul must be faced in works of Reformed systematic theology. Robert Reymond's New Systematic Theology was first published in 1998, yet his discussion of justification by faith does not interact at all with "new perspective" thinking. When that kind of thing happens, the argument is lost by default and theological darkness begins to encroach upon the church. In the previous post in this series, I reflected on Murray's emphasis on the value of historical theology. But he was no "head-in-the-sand" traditionalist,

"A theology that does not build upon the past ignores our debt to history and naively overlooks the fact that the present is conditioned by the past. A theology that relies upon the past evades the demands of the present." (p. 9).

John Murray made a number of key contributions to the field of systematic theology. For now I will focus on his refinement of the doctrine of justification. In Protestant teaching, justification is defined as as a God's forensic declaration that he accepts the believing sinner as righteous in his sight on the basis of Christ's finished work. Murray proposed that justification is not merely declarative, it is also constitutive. God "constitutes what he declares to be". (Collected Writings of John Murray Volume 2: Systematic Theology, Banner of Truth Trust, 1977). God effects what he declares. The constitutive aspect of justification is carefully defined,

"It is to be noted, however, that the constitutive act that must be posited in this case is the constituting of a new judicial relation. In other words, it must be a constitutive act that will be consonant with the forensic character of justification, a constitutive act that will supply a proper and adequate ground for the pronouncement which justification involves, namely, the pronouncement or declaration that the person concerned is reckoned in God's sight as free from guilt and sustains to law and justice a relation or status whereby he is accepted as righteous." (Writings Vol 2, p. 207).

Further,

"It is, in a word, the constituting of the judicial relation which is declared to be and is such by the imputation to us of the righteousness and obedience of Christ". (Writings Vol 2, p. 215)

Murray's reformulation of justification as a constitutive declaration, may be helpful to Reformed theologians as they grapple with Roman Catholic and new perspective critiques of the older Protestant teaching. Justification is no legal fiction. When God declares a person justified, he also constitutes a new relationship with the believing sinner. This is just one example of the theologian's helpful contribution to Reformed systematics.

John Murray's proposals on provisionality and progress help to keep us from thinking that our theological systems have fully plumbed the depths of Scriptural revelation. There is no room for theological complacency or arrogance. Although we benefit from the wisdom of the past, much work still remains to be done,

"In the orthodox tradition me may never forget that there is yet much land to be possessed, and this is both the encouragement and challenge to students of the wonderful works of God and particularly of his inscripturated Word to understand that all should address themselves to a deeper understanding of these unsearchable treasures of revelation to the ends that God's glory may be made more fully manifest and his praises declared to all the earth". (p. 9)

Unless otherwise stated, page references are to Collected Writings of John Murray Volume 4: Studies in Theology, Banner of Truth Trust, 1982.

John Murray on the task of Systematic Theology 3

Systematic & Historical Theology

Systematic theology is not itself revelation. Dogmatic theology developed as the church reflected on the manifold revelation of God in Scripture. The motivation for this task was an attempt to systematically apply the teaching of the Bible to the thinking and conduct of the people of God. Individual theologians like Athanasius, Augustine and Calvin exerted huge influence on the development of Christian dogma. But the church's growing understanding of the revelation of God is above all, a result of the work of the Holy Spirit.

"[The Spirit] has been present in the church in all generations of the church's history, endowing the church in its organic unity as the body of Christ with gifts of understanding and expression. It is this ceaseless activity of the Holy Spirit development throughout the centuries of what we call Christian doctrine. Individual theologians are but the spokesmen of this accumulated understanding which the Spirit of truth has been granting to the church. Christ as Head of the church must not be thought of apart from the Spirit nor the Spirit apart from Christ". (p. 6)

This does not mean progress in understanding has been uniform. There have been decadent periods of church history when vital truths were overlooked and neglected. In those times, there was little in the way of advance. But there have also been periods of epochal contribution to the church's theological task. Heresy has often had the effect of forcing the church to look afresh at Biblical doctrine and to state her understanding of that teaching with greater force and clarity. The Arian controversy of the fourth century is a case in point. In the light of that disputation, the church declared that the Son is homoousion (same essence) with the Father. In doing so, the church safeguarded her witness to the full deity of Christ. As Murray puts it,

"The church's confession had been in the balance but the Head of the church guarded the interests of his honour." (p. 7)

For Murray, the Reformation was the golden age of creedal precision and formulation. He has Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion particularly in mind. The Protestant teaching of that period built on the earlier creeds of the church and expressed with great clarity the Biblical teaching on salvation. Murray's writings on John Calvin and the Westminster Confession of Faith bear eloquent testimony to his esteem for the theological wisdom of the Reformation and Puritan periods. (See Collected Writings 4: Studies in Theology for Murray's work in historical theology).

Systematic theology must be contemporary, but not at the expense of the dogmatic advances of the past. Turning our backs upon the great doctrinal achievements of the church in order to reinvent the the theological wheel in every generation,

"dishonours the Holy Spirit by whose endowments and grace epochal strides in understanding and precision have been taken." (p. 7)

Murray's emphasis on the value of historical and creedal theology is welcome. He gives due recognition to the role of the Holy Spirit in leading the church to understand the revelation of God in Scripture. The theological traditions of the church encapsulated in the historic creeds and confessions help the people of God in all generations to understand and apply the Biblical teaching. At a time when creedal statements are often regarded as outmoded, we need to be reminded that the theological task is no momentary, individualistic affair. We need all the wisdom and insight of the people of God in past generations to enable us to grasp the riches of the gospel. This is part and parcel of the communion of the saints. But tradition is not to be elevated to the level of Scripture. Our theology must always be open to revision in the light of God's Word.

John Murray's account of the relationship between systematic and historical theology avoids the nihilism of the anti-traditional stance of fundamentalism. Also, in clearly distinguishing between Biblical revelation and dogmatics, he refuses to accord magisterial authority to tradition. For Protestants there can be no Roman Catholic style Magesterium that stands alongside or suppliments Scripture.

Kevin Vanhoozer puts this in typically theodramatic terms,

"The Spirit thus brings about a mutual indwelling of canonical script and performing community, incorporating us not only into the drama of redemption but into the actor who stands at its very heart. As a work of the Spirit, tradition plays the role of the moon to the Scripture's sun: what light, and authority, tradition bears, it does so by virtue of reflecting the light of the Son that shines forth from the canon." (The Drama of Doctrine, WJK, 2005, p. 210)

Page references are to Collected Writings of John Murray Volume 4: Studies in Theology, Banner of Truth Trust, 1982.

John Murray on the task of Systematic Theology 2

Systematic Theology and Biblical Revelation

After setting out his basic definition of systematic theology and discussing the role of natural theology in the field of systematics, Murray turns his attention to Biblical revelation. Here, Murray shows that he was cognisant with the theological developments of his time (the original article was written in 1963). He takes issue with Emil Brunner and Karl Barth's view that the Bible is a witness to revelation, rather than the revealed Word of God. He quotes from the latter's Church Dogmatics I/2,

"we call the Bible a witness of divine revelation...we distinguish the Bible from such revelation. A witness is not absolutely identical to that to which it witnesses."

John Murray disagrees with this view. For him, the principal source of revelation is Holy Scripture,

"Systematic Theology when it is true to its task must regard Scripture as that which Scripture claims for itself, namely, that it is the Word of God." (p. 2).

Murray does not take issue with Barth's point that Scripture is a witness. But he regards the Bible's witness as itself revelatory, "Scripture is God's own witness to us, borne through the instrumentality of men but borne by such a unique mode that the witness of men is God's own witness." (p. 3) God does not speak to us through Scripture so that the Bible becomes the Word of God. God reveals himself to us in the witness of the written Word.

This account of Biblical revelation does not compromise the status of Christ as the supreme revelation of God,

"Christ himself is the supreme revelation of God. He is the image of the invisible God, the effulgence of his glory and the transcript of his being (cf. Col 1:15, Heb 1:3). Scripture is not to be identified with him in this unique identity that is his. But it is apparent that we need more than the revelation which Christ is, and we can have no knowledge of, or encounter with, the revelation that he is except through Scripture." (p. 2)

The identity of Scripture as God's revealed Word is of great importance for the discipline of systematic theology,

"When we properly weigh the proposition that the Scriptures are the deposit of special revelation, that they are the oracles of God, that in them God encounters us and addresses us, discloses to us his incomprehensible majesty, summons us to the knowledge and fulfilment of his will, unveils to us the mystery of his counsel, and unfolds the purposes of his grace, then systematic theology, of all sciences and disciplines, is seen to be the most noble, not one of cold, impassioned reflection but one that stirs adoring wonder and claims the most consecrated exercise of all our powers." (p. 4)

Murray's account of Scripture incorporates both the propositional and personal aspects of Biblical revelation. God encounters us in and by his written Word. This encounter is redemptive. Scripture gives us the history of God's redemptive acts and interprets them for us. But more than that, we experience God's redemptive work through the witness of the Spirit to the Word. Natural revelation has its place in the study of theology. But natural revelation is not salvific. That distinction belongs to the special revelation of Scripture. The true theologian will have experienced the saving power of God for himself,

"it is a travesty for a man not knowing the power of revelation to pose as an expositor of it." (p. 5).

Systematic theology must be enriched by the findings of the other theological disciplines. It will draw upon the resources of exegetical, biblical and historical theology in order to bring forth the riches of the whole counsel of God. In a future post I will reflect on what Murray has to say about the interplay of the different theological disciplines in relation to systematics.

Murray's teaching on systematic theology and Scripture helps Reformed dogmatics to respond to the oft repeated Barthian charge that viewing the Bible as revelation supplants the supremacy of Christ. But more than that, his dynamic account of Scripture as the redemptive medium of our encounter with God by the Spirit, delivers systematic theology from dry propositionalism. God uses his written Word to describe, interpret and advance the great drama of redemption. Systematic theology when done properly will help the people of God to play their Biblically scripted roles in the theo-drama.

All page references are to Collected Writings of John Murray Volume 4: Studies in Theology, Banner of Truth Trust, 1982.

John Murray on the task of Systematic Theology 1

Systematic Theology and Natural Revelation

John Murray

In a recent post on John Frame and the task of Systematic Theology (here). I referred to Frame's admiration of John Murray's approach to systematic theology. Frame was one of Murray's students at the Westminster Theological Seminary. Murray has some very interesting things to say about the task of systematic theology. He argues for a revelation-based, progressive approach to the discipline that is rooted in Biblical exegesis. He makes some interesting proposals on the relationship between Biblical and Systematic Theology. It is possible that Murray's blueprint may help to stimulate some fresh thinking in the world of Reformed Dogmatics. At the moment, opinion seems to be divided between the likes of Kevin Vanhoozer with this theo-dramatic reconfiguring of theology and Paul Helm and others who claim that Charles Hodge and Louis Berkhof were basically right in their approach.

In this series of posts, I hope to summarise Murray's views and discuss how they might be useful in reforming Reformed Theology. All page references are to Collected Writings of John Murray Volume 4: Studies in Theology, Banner of Truth Trust, 1982.

This is Murray's basic proposal,

"The task of systematic theology is to set forth in orderly and coherent manner the truth respecting God and his relations to the world. This truth is derived from the data of revelation, and revelation comprises all those media by which God makes himself and his will known to us men." (p. 1).

God has revealed himself first of all in creation, 'The heavens declare the glory of God' (Psalm 19:1). The study of nature cannot be left to to philosophy and science. The theologian must pay attention to what God has revealed of himself in creation. This does not mean that natural theology should develop independently of Scripture. But we study Scripture in the context of the world which is filled with a manifestation of the glory of God. Natural revelation is defined as,

"the revelation given in the works of creation and general providence and in the constitution of our own being...natural theology properly conceived, would be the setting forth of the truth of God and his relations to men and to the world derived from these sources." (p. 2).

Murray argues that this approach has relevance for apologetics. Because God has revealed himself to us in creation and providence, we may make use of cosmological and teleological arguments, as they may be inferred from the nature of the created universe. As far as I am concerned, such arguments may not be used to prove existence of God. But their value lies in demonstrating that there is nothing irrational in the fundamental presupposition that God exists.

Systematic theology then, is conceived in the broadest possible terms, paying attention to all the ways in which God has revealed himself, in creation, Scripture and above all, in Christ. Reformed theology does not recognise the Enlightenment's division of the world into noumenal and phenomenal compartments. The whole universe is a theatre of God's glory, while the Biblically scripted drama of redemption takes centre stage. In the next post in this series, I will reflect on what Murray has to say about theology and the revelation of God in Scripture.