I don’t know much about the context in which these quotations are being offered as evidence, but everyone ought to read them.
I have read the collected works and, strikingly, pretty much worked through this material without taking much notice. I took it for granted. I guess that is what happens when one reads John Frame and Vern Poythress before John Murray.
Here I reproduce them in full. I’ll hunt down references if no one else will:
“The fact that systematic theology is a development which arose in the course of history within the sphere of the church reminds us that it should not be thought of as the product of a theologian or series of theologians. It is true that the greatest contributions have been made by theologians. We think of Athanasius, Augustine, and Calvin. But neither these men nor their work can be understood or assessed apart from the history in the context of which they lived and wrought, particularly the history of the church. We may not underestimate the influence exerted by these men upon subsequent history. But history conditioned their work also and it is only because they occupied a certain place in history that they were able to contribute so significantly to the superstructure which we call theology. Of more relevance, however, than this obvious fact of interaction and dependence is the doctrine of the presence and activity of the Holy Spirit.”
“…so that the church organically and corporately may increase and grow up into knowledge unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ. It is this perspective that not only brings to view but also requires the progression by which systematic theology has been characterized. The history of doctrine demonstrates this progressive development and we may never think that this progression has ever reached a finale. Systematic theology is never a finished science nor is its task ever completed.”
“However epochal have been the advances made at certain periods and however great the contributions of particular men we may not suppose that theological construction ever reaches definitive finality.”
“When any generation is content to rely upon 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.”
“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 history. A theology that relies upon the past evades the demands of the present.”
“The progressive correction and enrichment which theology undergoes is not the exclusive task of great theologians. It often falls to the lot of students with mediocre talent to discover the oversights and correct the errors of the masters.”
“The question cannot be dismissed: Is a document drawn up more than three centuries ago an adequate Confession for the church today? First of all, it should be borne in mind that the creeds of the church have been framed in a particular historical situation to meet the need of the church in that context, and have been oriented to a considerable extent in both their negative and positive declarations to the refutation of the errors confronting the church at that time. The creeds are, therefore, historically complexioned in language and content and do not reflect the particular and distinguishing needs of subsequent generations.”
“No Confession in the history of the church exemplifies this more patently than the Westminster Confession. It is the epitome of the most mature thought to which the church of Christ has been led up to the year 1646. But are we to suppose that this progression ceased with that date? To ask the question is to answer it. An affirmative is to impugn the continued grace of which the Westminster Confession is itself an example at the time of its writing. There is more light to break forth from the living and abiding Word of God.”
Mark,
These are all from his essay called “Systematic Theology,” which can be found in volume 4 of his Collected Works. The first quite is found on the bottom of page 5. FWIW.
wl
I have a John Murray audio lecture that I listened to just the other day where he implores the Reformed community to push into new ground regarding the doctrine of covenant. He says “For as much as we have understood covenant as contract, we have been misguided.”
Steven,
Where can I obtain that lecture?
I have personally sat and listened to lectures from ACE men who have laid at the feet of Murray all the “problems” that “Federal Vision” men are introducing into the church. One man in particular said that Murray was far too influenced by wrong-headed German theology (Barth in particular) on these matters, particularly his doctrine of the covenant. Sad.
Garrett,
I think I found it on sermon audio, but if you’d like to email me I could send it to you. I’m not sure where it would be. I have quite a mass of mp3s. Be forewarned, the quality leaves much to be desired.
*not sure where it would be on sermonaudio