What do you think?
Rate this book
Collected Writings of John Murray #4
Collected Writings of John Murray, Volume 4: Studies in Theology
Studies in Theology is the fourth and concluding volume in the Collected Writings of John Murray. Like the preceding volumes it presents a selection of the finest work, produced mainly during his long and distinguished ministry as Professor of Systematic Theology at Westminister Theological Seminary, Philadelphia.
Volume 4 includes articles dealing with several areas of doctrine which lay close to Murray's heart. Among them is the hitherto unpublished work, 'Jesus, the Son of God', which is possibly thr last piece of theological writing. Its chief characteristic - as with all of Murray's writings - lies in the way in which the text of Scripture suffuses everything he says. This concern to be thoroughly biblical applied also to his doctrine of Scripture, to Christology, and to his understanding of the proclamation of the gospel and the Christian ethic. Outstanding articles in each of these areas may be found in these pages.
John Murray was a systematic theologian par excellence. But he also wrote several magisterial studies in the area of historical theology. Studies in Theology includes his expositions of Calvin's teaching on Scripture and Divine Sovereignty, the Theology of the Westminister Confession, and the Covenant Theology. All of these chapters display erudition of the highest quality, and at the same time are seasoned with the humility of mind which was one of John Murray's greatest spiritual qualities.
Also included in this volume is a collection of Murray's book reviews which first appeared in The Westminister Theological Journal during the years 1954-1967. Major theological works influence teachers, students, ministers, and eventually the enture Christian church. For this reason Professor Murray's discussions of the writings of such influential figures as Karl Barth, Emil Brunner and G.C. Berkouwer are of lasting value.
Volume 4 includes articles dealing with several areas of doctrine which lay close to Murray's heart. Among them is the hitherto unpublished work, 'Jesus, the Son of God', which is possibly thr last piece of theological writing. Its chief characteristic - as with all of Murray's writings - lies in the way in which the text of Scripture suffuses everything he says. This concern to be thoroughly biblical applied also to his doctrine of Scripture, to Christology, and to his understanding of the proclamation of the gospel and the Christian ethic. Outstanding articles in each of these areas may be found in these pages.
John Murray was a systematic theologian par excellence. But he also wrote several magisterial studies in the area of historical theology. Studies in Theology includes his expositions of Calvin's teaching on Scripture and Divine Sovereignty, the Theology of the Westminister Confession, and the Covenant Theology. All of these chapters display erudition of the highest quality, and at the same time are seasoned with the humility of mind which was one of John Murray's greatest spiritual qualities.
Also included in this volume is a collection of Murray's book reviews which first appeared in The Westminister Theological Journal during the years 1954-1967. Major theological works influence teachers, students, ministers, and eventually the enture Christian church. For this reason Professor Murray's discussions of the writings of such influential figures as Karl Barth, Emil Brunner and G.C. Berkouwer are of lasting value.
- GenresTheology
390 pages, Library Binding
Published May 1, 2014
3 people are currently reading
51 people want to read
About the author
John Murray
33 books73 followersJohn Murray was a Scottish-born Calvinist theologian who taught at Princeton Seminary and then left to help found Westminster Theological Seminary, where he taught for many years.
Murray was born in the croft of Badbea, near Bonar Bridge, in Sutherland county, Scotland. Following service in the British Army in the First World War (during which he lost an eye, serving in the famous Black Watch regiment) he studied at the University of Glasgow. Following his acceptance as a theological student of the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland he pursued further studies at Princeton Theological Seminary under J. Gresham Machen and Geerhardus Vos, but broke with the Free Presbyterian Church in 1930 over that Church's treatment of the Chesley, Ontario congregation. He taught at Princeton for a year and then lectured in systematic theology at Westminster Theological Seminary to generations of students from 1930 to 1966, and was an early trustee of the Banner of Truth Trust. Besides the material in the four-volume Collected Writings, his primary published works are a commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (previously included in the New International Commentary on the New Testament series but now superseded by Douglas J. Moo's commentary), Redemption Accomplished and Applied, Principles of Conduct, The Imputation of Adam's Sin, Baptism, and Divorce.
Murray preached at Chesley and Lochalsh from time to time until his retirement from Westminster Theological Seminary in 1968. He married Valerie Knowlton 7 December 1967 and retired to Scotland where he was connected with the Free Church of Scotland. Writing after a communion season at Lochalsh, Murray said, “I think I feel most at home here and at Chesley of all the places I visit.” There had been some consideration that upon leaving the seminary, Murray might take a pastorate in the newly formed Presbyterian Reformed Church, but the infirmity of his aged sisters at the home place necessitated his return to Ross-shire, Scotland.
Murray was born in the croft of Badbea, near Bonar Bridge, in Sutherland county, Scotland. Following service in the British Army in the First World War (during which he lost an eye, serving in the famous Black Watch regiment) he studied at the University of Glasgow. Following his acceptance as a theological student of the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland he pursued further studies at Princeton Theological Seminary under J. Gresham Machen and Geerhardus Vos, but broke with the Free Presbyterian Church in 1930 over that Church's treatment of the Chesley, Ontario congregation. He taught at Princeton for a year and then lectured in systematic theology at Westminster Theological Seminary to generations of students from 1930 to 1966, and was an early trustee of the Banner of Truth Trust. Besides the material in the four-volume Collected Writings, his primary published works are a commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (previously included in the New International Commentary on the New Testament series but now superseded by Douglas J. Moo's commentary), Redemption Accomplished and Applied, Principles of Conduct, The Imputation of Adam's Sin, Baptism, and Divorce.
Murray preached at Chesley and Lochalsh from time to time until his retirement from Westminster Theological Seminary in 1968. He married Valerie Knowlton 7 December 1967 and retired to Scotland where he was connected with the Free Church of Scotland. Writing after a communion season at Lochalsh, Murray said, “I think I feel most at home here and at Chesley of all the places I visit.” There had been some consideration that upon leaving the seminary, Murray might take a pastorate in the newly formed Presbyterian Reformed Church, but the infirmity of his aged sisters at the home place necessitated his return to Ross-shire, Scotland.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
July 1, 2024
VOLUME FOUR OF THE SERIES: CONTAINING VARIOUS STUDIES, AND BOOK REVIEWS
John Murray (1898-1975) was a Scottish-born Calvinist theologian who taught at Princeton Seminary and helped found Westminster Theological Seminary, where he taught Systematic Theology for thirty years until his retirement in 1966.
The Preface to this 1982 collection states, “With the publication of these pages the hopes expressed in the first volume … are fulfilled… As with all the true doctors of the =church, among whom John Murray ranks, his purpose was broader and higher than the production of scholarship as such: he was jealous that the hearts and minds of his hearers and readers might be devoted to God. He aimed, to use his own phrase, as ‘intelligent piety,’ and for that to occur he knew that meditation upon Scripture had to become a part of our being… The contents of this volume, with one important exception, have originally appeared in various publications, most of which have been long out-of-print. The exception is in the fourth chapter, ‘Jesus the Son of God,’ which was the last major article to be prepared by Professor Murray. It is the only piece of his writing concerning which the present writers can ever recall him expressing the desire that it should be printed.”
He begins the first essay with the statement, “The task of systematic theology is to set forth in orderly and coherent manner the truth respecting God and his relations to men and 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…. It was of his sovereign will that God created the universe and made us men in his image… and since we are created in his image we cannot but be confronted with the display of that glory. Therefore what is called natural or general revelation comes within the scope of the data of revelation with which systematic theology deals.” (Pg. 1)
Later in this essay, he acknowledges, “The history of doctrine demonstrates the 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. This progression does not mean that the advance has been uniformly continuous. There have been periods of theological decadence… lamentably, the professing church too often shows retrogression rather than progress and theological mission is to a large extent discarded. Instead of building upon foundations solidly laid the foundations are destroyed… But the unfaithfulness of the church in any one period or place does not suspend, far less does it make void, the constant progression which systematic theology is accorded by the oversight of the church’s Lord and the enlightenment of his Spirit.” (Pg. 6)
He continues, “What then of biblical theology?... Biblical theology recognizes that special revelation did not come from God in one mass at one particular time. Special revelation came by process. It came progressively in history throughout ages and generations… Thus began the process of redemptive revelation to the progressive unfolding of which the Bible bears witness. The process was not, however, one of uniform progression… But we must believe that the pattern found in Scripture reflects the pattern followed in the history of revelation as a whole…. If biblical theology deals with the HISTORY of revelation it must follow the progression which this history dictates… 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… we may not import into one period the data of revelation which belong to a later period.” (Pg. 17-19)
In the “Jesus the Son of God” essay mentioned earlier, he stated, “It is necessary … to discuss those passages in which dependence upon and subordination to the Father are asserted when at the same time our Lord identifies himself as Son…. Correlative with these are other passages in which Jesus speaks of the Father and his own filial relation is implied… It is apparent in respect of his messianic identity, office and commission that this dependence on and subordination to the Father obtain. It is easy to assume, therefore, that the Sonship in view in these instances cannot be the intrinsic and ontological Sonship but the messianic. It is this assumption that I call into question… we must distinguish between the distinctly messianic predications and the identifying designation. To speak in theological terms, the person may be identified in terms of what he is as divine human… it by no means follows that the title ‘Son’ by which he identifies himself is to be construed as messianic… Jesus’ self-designation as the Son need not be interpreted as the Messianic Son… And so it is consonant with and appropriate to all that belongs to the mystery of his person and commission that he should designate himself in terms of his intrinsic and transcendent Sonship.” (Pg. 74-75)
He comments on 2 Cor 5:19, “The question is concerned with the term ‘world’ in the clause ‘reconciling the world to himself’… There is no intimation of the inclusiveness characterizing the context of Colossians 1:20. Everything points to the restrictiveness which we find in Colossians 1:21… It is true that on occasion Paul MAY use the word ‘world’ in an inclusive sense to designate what we mean by cosmos (cf. Rom 1:20; 1 Cor 8:4). But such instances are few and a survey of his use of the term will show that frequently he means the world of humanity viewed from various aspects… But of more significance is the fact that when Paul is thinking of the reconciliation in its cosmic reference he finds it necessary to use very different terms to make clear his meaning… The explanatory clause in 2 Cor 5:19 definitely points to the more restrictive sense of the term ‘world.’ It is not so certain what the precise intent of the clause ‘not imputing to them their trespasses’ is. It may be taken as specifying that in which the reconciliation consisted and in that event would be closely related to the clause in verse 21… What is the realm to which the non-imputation of trespasses applies?... It is the realm of humanity. The good angels have no trespasses to be remitted. For the fallen angels there is no redemptive provision…. only of men can Paul be thinking when he says, ‘reconciling the world.’” (Pg. 108-109)
He suggests, “It is absolutely and universally true that God does not delight in or desire the death of a wicked person. It is likewise absolutely and universally true that he delights in the repentance and life of the wicked person. It would surely be quite unwarranted to apply the latter proposition less universally or more restrictively than the former… the thought can be expressed thus, ‘God does not desire the death of the wicked but rather their repentance and life.’” (Pg. 122) He continues, “we are not here speaking of God’s declarative will. In terms of his decretive will it must be said that God absolutely decrees the eternal death of some wicked and, in that sense, is absolutely pleased so to decree. But… it is the will of God’s benevolence… that is stated, not the will of God’s decree… And neither is there evidence to show … there is here any comparative notion to the effect that God takes greater pleasure in saving men than he does in damning them.” (Pg. 125-126)
He firmly rejects “temperance propagandists” who require abstinence: “Temperance propagandists say certain things are to be refused and scrupulously avoided. Paul says nothing is to be refused. Temperance propagandists say the Christian witness is prejudiced when believers partake of certain things. Paul says that it is by those who believe and know the truth they are to be received with thanksgiving and that it was for that purpose God created them. Temperance propagandists imply that God’s blessing cannot be invoked on the use of certain things. Paul says that it is by prayer they are sanctified. Temperance propagandists say the Word of God forbids the use of certain things. Paul says it is by the Word of God they are sanctified.” (Pg. 154-155)
He asserts, “There is a twofold aspect to the will of God. And there is the DISPARITY between the decretive will and the perceptive will, between the determinations of his secret counsel that certain events will come to pass and the prescriptions of his revealed will to us that we do not bring these events to pass. It cannot be gainsaid that God decretively wills what he preceptively forbids and decretively forbids what he perceptively commands…. it is at this point that the sovereignty of God makes the human mind reel as it does nowhere else in connection with thus topic. It should be so. It is the sanctified understanding that reels. And it is not the mark of intelligence to allege of claim a ready resolution of the apparent contradiction with which it confronts us. How can God say: This comes to pass by my infallible foreordination and providence, and also say to us: This thou shalt not being to pass?” (Pg. 202)
He continues, “The providence of God, as also his decretive will, is at no point exemplified and vindicated as to its all-inclusiveness more effectively than at the point where our responsible agency is exercised in violation of his command. There is, after all, the contradiction that we by sin offer to God’s sovereignty. It is the contradiction of the claim which his sovereignty demands of us and the contradiction of what is God’s good pleasure. But if the providence of God did not embrace that very contradiction, then there would be a sphere outside the realm of God’s providence and, therefore, outside the sphere of his sovereign control and direction. The simple upshot of that alternative would be that God would not be sovereign, and man in his sin would be able to command a realm impervious to God’s providence.” (Pg. 203-204)
He explains, “Covenant theology denotes a development of theological thought and construction within the Reformed or Calvinistic tradition. This does not mean that the idea of God’s covenantal relations with men has been ignored in other theological traditions. The term ‘covenant’ is a Biblical term, and any theology which regards Scripture as the rule of faith is compelled to recognize the frequency with which the relationship that God established with men is set forth in covenantal terms… Covenant theology is… a distinguishing feature of the Reformed tradition because the idea of covenant came to be an organizing principle in terms of which the relations of God to men were construed.” (Pg. 216)
He acknowledges, “Reformed Protestants… do not deny that there is such a thing as tradition to which all due deference must be paid… There is truly a ‘catholic’ tradition to which all due respect is to be paid and for which we should thank God. The Romish church has attempted to monopolize the word ‘Catholic’… Protestants should not be the dupes of Rome in this respect and should resist every attempt on the part of Rome to appropriate that denomination. The Church of Rome is not the catholic church… There is also a Protestant tradition. It is the viewpoint of the Protestant church as over against the perversions and apostasies of the Romish communion. This tradition is enshrined in the great Protestant creeds and in the theology of the Protestant reformers…. There is in like manner a reformed tradition… we glory in it because we believe that it is the purest repristination and expression of apostolic Christianity.” (Pg. 268-269)
Perhaps surprisingly, he says in a review of Karl Barth’s Christ and Adam: Man and Humanity in Romans 5, “The genius of Karl Barth places great demands upon anyone who ventures to review his writings. This brief treatise if no exception. Barth’s interpretation of Romans 5 … has direct lines of connection with what has come to be known as Bart’s theology… Since the reviewer is compelled to disagree with Barth at pivotal points of his interpretation, is it better to concentrate on these questions rather than to go further afield in evaluation of Barth’s theology or in appraisal of Barth himself as a theological genius.” (Pg. 316)
The volumes in this series will be virtual “must reading” for anyone seriously studying contemporary Evangelical Reformed theology.
John Murray (1898-1975) was a Scottish-born Calvinist theologian who taught at Princeton Seminary and helped found Westminster Theological Seminary, where he taught Systematic Theology for thirty years until his retirement in 1966.
The Preface to this 1982 collection states, “With the publication of these pages the hopes expressed in the first volume … are fulfilled… As with all the true doctors of the =church, among whom John Murray ranks, his purpose was broader and higher than the production of scholarship as such: he was jealous that the hearts and minds of his hearers and readers might be devoted to God. He aimed, to use his own phrase, as ‘intelligent piety,’ and for that to occur he knew that meditation upon Scripture had to become a part of our being… The contents of this volume, with one important exception, have originally appeared in various publications, most of which have been long out-of-print. The exception is in the fourth chapter, ‘Jesus the Son of God,’ which was the last major article to be prepared by Professor Murray. It is the only piece of his writing concerning which the present writers can ever recall him expressing the desire that it should be printed.”
He begins the first essay with the statement, “The task of systematic theology is to set forth in orderly and coherent manner the truth respecting God and his relations to men and 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…. It was of his sovereign will that God created the universe and made us men in his image… and since we are created in his image we cannot but be confronted with the display of that glory. Therefore what is called natural or general revelation comes within the scope of the data of revelation with which systematic theology deals.” (Pg. 1)
Later in this essay, he acknowledges, “The history of doctrine demonstrates the 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. This progression does not mean that the advance has been uniformly continuous. There have been periods of theological decadence… lamentably, the professing church too often shows retrogression rather than progress and theological mission is to a large extent discarded. Instead of building upon foundations solidly laid the foundations are destroyed… But the unfaithfulness of the church in any one period or place does not suspend, far less does it make void, the constant progression which systematic theology is accorded by the oversight of the church’s Lord and the enlightenment of his Spirit.” (Pg. 6)
He continues, “What then of biblical theology?... Biblical theology recognizes that special revelation did not come from God in one mass at one particular time. Special revelation came by process. It came progressively in history throughout ages and generations… Thus began the process of redemptive revelation to the progressive unfolding of which the Bible bears witness. The process was not, however, one of uniform progression… But we must believe that the pattern found in Scripture reflects the pattern followed in the history of revelation as a whole…. If biblical theology deals with the HISTORY of revelation it must follow the progression which this history dictates… 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… we may not import into one period the data of revelation which belong to a later period.” (Pg. 17-19)
In the “Jesus the Son of God” essay mentioned earlier, he stated, “It is necessary … to discuss those passages in which dependence upon and subordination to the Father are asserted when at the same time our Lord identifies himself as Son…. Correlative with these are other passages in which Jesus speaks of the Father and his own filial relation is implied… It is apparent in respect of his messianic identity, office and commission that this dependence on and subordination to the Father obtain. It is easy to assume, therefore, that the Sonship in view in these instances cannot be the intrinsic and ontological Sonship but the messianic. It is this assumption that I call into question… we must distinguish between the distinctly messianic predications and the identifying designation. To speak in theological terms, the person may be identified in terms of what he is as divine human… it by no means follows that the title ‘Son’ by which he identifies himself is to be construed as messianic… Jesus’ self-designation as the Son need not be interpreted as the Messianic Son… And so it is consonant with and appropriate to all that belongs to the mystery of his person and commission that he should designate himself in terms of his intrinsic and transcendent Sonship.” (Pg. 74-75)
He comments on 2 Cor 5:19, “The question is concerned with the term ‘world’ in the clause ‘reconciling the world to himself’… There is no intimation of the inclusiveness characterizing the context of Colossians 1:20. Everything points to the restrictiveness which we find in Colossians 1:21… It is true that on occasion Paul MAY use the word ‘world’ in an inclusive sense to designate what we mean by cosmos (cf. Rom 1:20; 1 Cor 8:4). But such instances are few and a survey of his use of the term will show that frequently he means the world of humanity viewed from various aspects… But of more significance is the fact that when Paul is thinking of the reconciliation in its cosmic reference he finds it necessary to use very different terms to make clear his meaning… The explanatory clause in 2 Cor 5:19 definitely points to the more restrictive sense of the term ‘world.’ It is not so certain what the precise intent of the clause ‘not imputing to them their trespasses’ is. It may be taken as specifying that in which the reconciliation consisted and in that event would be closely related to the clause in verse 21… What is the realm to which the non-imputation of trespasses applies?... It is the realm of humanity. The good angels have no trespasses to be remitted. For the fallen angels there is no redemptive provision…. only of men can Paul be thinking when he says, ‘reconciling the world.’” (Pg. 108-109)
He suggests, “It is absolutely and universally true that God does not delight in or desire the death of a wicked person. It is likewise absolutely and universally true that he delights in the repentance and life of the wicked person. It would surely be quite unwarranted to apply the latter proposition less universally or more restrictively than the former… the thought can be expressed thus, ‘God does not desire the death of the wicked but rather their repentance and life.’” (Pg. 122) He continues, “we are not here speaking of God’s declarative will. In terms of his decretive will it must be said that God absolutely decrees the eternal death of some wicked and, in that sense, is absolutely pleased so to decree. But… it is the will of God’s benevolence… that is stated, not the will of God’s decree… And neither is there evidence to show … there is here any comparative notion to the effect that God takes greater pleasure in saving men than he does in damning them.” (Pg. 125-126)
He firmly rejects “temperance propagandists” who require abstinence: “Temperance propagandists say certain things are to be refused and scrupulously avoided. Paul says nothing is to be refused. Temperance propagandists say the Christian witness is prejudiced when believers partake of certain things. Paul says that it is by those who believe and know the truth they are to be received with thanksgiving and that it was for that purpose God created them. Temperance propagandists imply that God’s blessing cannot be invoked on the use of certain things. Paul says that it is by prayer they are sanctified. Temperance propagandists say the Word of God forbids the use of certain things. Paul says it is by the Word of God they are sanctified.” (Pg. 154-155)
He asserts, “There is a twofold aspect to the will of God. And there is the DISPARITY between the decretive will and the perceptive will, between the determinations of his secret counsel that certain events will come to pass and the prescriptions of his revealed will to us that we do not bring these events to pass. It cannot be gainsaid that God decretively wills what he preceptively forbids and decretively forbids what he perceptively commands…. it is at this point that the sovereignty of God makes the human mind reel as it does nowhere else in connection with thus topic. It should be so. It is the sanctified understanding that reels. And it is not the mark of intelligence to allege of claim a ready resolution of the apparent contradiction with which it confronts us. How can God say: This comes to pass by my infallible foreordination and providence, and also say to us: This thou shalt not being to pass?” (Pg. 202)
He continues, “The providence of God, as also his decretive will, is at no point exemplified and vindicated as to its all-inclusiveness more effectively than at the point where our responsible agency is exercised in violation of his command. There is, after all, the contradiction that we by sin offer to God’s sovereignty. It is the contradiction of the claim which his sovereignty demands of us and the contradiction of what is God’s good pleasure. But if the providence of God did not embrace that very contradiction, then there would be a sphere outside the realm of God’s providence and, therefore, outside the sphere of his sovereign control and direction. The simple upshot of that alternative would be that God would not be sovereign, and man in his sin would be able to command a realm impervious to God’s providence.” (Pg. 203-204)
He explains, “Covenant theology denotes a development of theological thought and construction within the Reformed or Calvinistic tradition. This does not mean that the idea of God’s covenantal relations with men has been ignored in other theological traditions. The term ‘covenant’ is a Biblical term, and any theology which regards Scripture as the rule of faith is compelled to recognize the frequency with which the relationship that God established with men is set forth in covenantal terms… Covenant theology is… a distinguishing feature of the Reformed tradition because the idea of covenant came to be an organizing principle in terms of which the relations of God to men were construed.” (Pg. 216)
He acknowledges, “Reformed Protestants… do not deny that there is such a thing as tradition to which all due deference must be paid… There is truly a ‘catholic’ tradition to which all due respect is to be paid and for which we should thank God. The Romish church has attempted to monopolize the word ‘Catholic’… Protestants should not be the dupes of Rome in this respect and should resist every attempt on the part of Rome to appropriate that denomination. The Church of Rome is not the catholic church… There is also a Protestant tradition. It is the viewpoint of the Protestant church as over against the perversions and apostasies of the Romish communion. This tradition is enshrined in the great Protestant creeds and in the theology of the Protestant reformers…. There is in like manner a reformed tradition… we glory in it because we believe that it is the purest repristination and expression of apostolic Christianity.” (Pg. 268-269)
Perhaps surprisingly, he says in a review of Karl Barth’s Christ and Adam: Man and Humanity in Romans 5, “The genius of Karl Barth places great demands upon anyone who ventures to review his writings. This brief treatise if no exception. Barth’s interpretation of Romans 5 … has direct lines of connection with what has come to be known as Bart’s theology… Since the reviewer is compelled to disagree with Barth at pivotal points of his interpretation, is it better to concentrate on these questions rather than to go further afield in evaluation of Barth’s theology or in appraisal of Barth himself as a theological genius.” (Pg. 316)
The volumes in this series will be virtual “must reading” for anyone seriously studying contemporary Evangelical Reformed theology.
Displaying 1 of 1 review