What do you think?
Rate this book
Collected Writings of John Murray #2
Collected Writings of John Murray, Volume 2: Systematic Theology
Volume 2 of hisCollected Writingsthus provides John Murray's own selection from his articles and lectures in systematic theology. In it will be found definitive treatments of subjects upon which, in the judgement of many, he advanced the frontiers of reformed theology and gave fresh elucidation of biblical truth. This is most evident in the chapters on Adamic Administration and Definitive Sanctification, but the seed-thoughts of further insight are also clearly evident in many other places.
428 pages, Hardcover
First published December 1, 1978
7 people are currently reading
130 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the Epistle to the Romans (previously included in the New International Commentary on the New Testament series but now superseded by Douglas J. Moo's commentary), Redemption Accomplished and Applied, Principles of Conduct, The Imputation of Adam's Sin, Baptism, and Divorce.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 - 8 of 8 reviews
October 23, 2024
Very underrated work. Highly recommend.
July 1, 2024
VOLUME TWO OF THE SERIES: CONTAINING THE MOST “SYSTEMATIC” THEOLOGICAL MATERIAL
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 1977 collection states, “It was never John Murray’s intention to produce a Systematic Theology and insofar as this volume follows, to a limited extent, the form of a Systematic Theology, the responsibility belongs to the publishers and not the author. The material presented here was not written consecutively: it was prepared at different periods of Professor Murray’s life and for different purposes… John Murray consistently resisted appeals that his comprehensive class lectures on Systematic Theology should be published, even though he had the full manuscripts. His chief reason appears to have been that his work as a whole was so representative of the volumes of systematic theology already available that the printing of his own lectures would be unwarranted. But this is not to say that he thought reformed theology had reached definitive conclusions on all biblical subjects. On the contrary, he judged it to be the constant business of the Church to seek a larger knowledge of Scripture…”
He firmly rejects evolution: “The crux of the question as it is posed for us by the theory of evolution is: can the portrayal given us in the Bible, and particularly in Genesis 1 and 2, be interpreted as compatible with a theory that man … as represented in Genesis, came to be by a process of evolution from lower forms of animate life?... There are several considerations that demand a negative answer. 1. Man’s identity consists in the image and likeness of God… we are compelled to conclude that no action or process such as would account for the other forms of life would be sufficient for the order to which man belongs… 2. Genesis 2:7 cannot be reconciled with the evolutionary hypothesis, and it confirms the conclusions derived from Genesis 1:26; 5:1; 9:6… The postulate of evolutionary theory is to the opposite effect… 3. Genesis 2:7… shows that man has affinity with the material stuff of the earth and with the animate creation as well… So we should expect resemblances of various kinds… No evolutionary hypothesis is necessary to explain them; they are required by the relationships man sustains to his environment.” (Pg. 12-13)
In an essay, he notes, “Scripture usage of the terms ‘soul’ and ‘spirit’ does afford plausibility to the contention that man’s nature is trichotomic rather than dichotomic, that there are three components, body, soul, and spirit rather than two, body and spirit.” (Pg. 23) He concludes, “The evidence does not support the tripartite construction. We need not suppose, however, that soul and spirit are always synonymous and are interchangeable. The entity denoted by soul and by spirit is to be viewed from different aspects. When one aspect is in view, the term ‘spirit’ is the appropriate designation, and when another aspect is in view the term ‘soul.’” (Pg. 32)
He states, “The distinction to be borne in mind is that foreordination, though all-inclusive, does not operate so as to deprive man of his agency, nor of the voluntary decision by reason of which he is responsible for his actions. Similarly foreordination does not rule out the power of contrary choice in those cases where this obtained or obtains. Just as foreordination does not conflict with or rule out human responsibility, so it does not conflict with or rule out the power of alternative choice, nor does it conflict with or rule out the power of contrary choice where this power is necessarily posited.” (Pg. 64)
He continues, “The essence of free agency is that we act without compulsion from without, according to our nature or character. Free agency thus construed applies to all conditions of men and angels…. The principle here asserted is that an act may be certain as to its futurition, but free as to the mode of its occurrence… although we are not able so to analyze the relations of God’s foreknowledge and human agency that we can discover and perceive the perfect ‘concursus’ that obtains, yet we must maintain both without any infringement upon the province, reality, and integrity of each. The foreknowledge of God presupposed certainty of occurrence; his foreordination renders all occurrence certain; by his providence what is foreordained is unalterably put into effect. Only within the realm of all-inclusive providence is our free agency a fact, and only thus is it maintained… Providence in fulfillment of foreordained purpose is not only compatible with the freedom indispensable to our being; it is indispensable to the existence of our freedom and never functions so as to interfere with it.” (Pg. 65-66)
He acknowledges, “Now here is the problem. How can it be that, from the aspect of the divine plan, there is immutable predetermination and accomplishment, and yet from the aspect of man’s agency no coercion or compulsion, no curtailment of his freedom and responsibility, and no alleviation of his guilt? It is a mystery beyond our comprehension. We cannot so diagnose or analyze the interrelations of these correlative facts that we shall be able to see the perfectly harmonious co-working of these two distinct agencies or factors. There is convergence of both in the one act of the fall. But how they converge, how there can be the combination of divine and human agency in the same event and yet no interference with or curtailment of either, is a matter beyond our understanding. This is what we mean when we say that we are faced with an insoluble problem.” (Pg. 73-74) Later, he adds, “The humble Christian is content to contain these unresolved problems. They do not disturb his peace of mind because… the ground of all peace of mind is the conviction of the sovereignty, justice, goodness of God. What he cannot resolve he believes God does…. Christian piety leaves unresolved problems in the hand of God, remembering that, if we knew all, we would be as God…” (Pg. 75-76)
He states, “not only is the compatibility of love and wrath the vindication of the doctrine of propitiation, it is also the kay toe the understanding of wrath inflicted upon Christ himself as the one upon whom the good pleasure of the Father rested, and the one whom the Father loved with unique and immutable love. The difficulty for many… is: How could Jesus be uniquely and immutably loved of the Father, and at the same time be the object of his wrath? The answer resides in the same principle, that love and wrath are not contradictory, that love in its intensest exercise can coexist with the exercise and infliction of wrath.” (Pg. 146)
He explains, “The priority of regeneration does not violate our free agency. If we remember that man, though a free agent, is able to exercise that free agency only in the service and bondage of sin and is unable to release his free agency from that bondage, the interposition of supernatural grace simply ensures the release of his free agency to the end that it may exercise itself in the doing of that which is holy and good. God… delivers man from his servitude in sin, so that he may be able freely to will that in which God’s purpose and our blessedness consist. This is no violation of liberty but rather the emancipation of liberty, to the true exercise of it unto the glory of God… [This] must be borne in mind even in the case of unregenerate infants… where regeneration takes place in the case of an infant there is the immediate transition from the kingdom of darkness to the kingdom of God, and even though intelligent faith cannot be in exercise, nevertheless there is that which we may and must call the germ of faith.” (Pg. 199-200)
He continues, “If infants are depraved they may also be holy. The regenerate infant in this respect radically differs from the unregenerated infant. The regenerate infant is not under the dominion of sin, is not a child of wrath, but a child of God and a member of his kingdom… It will take years, of course, for the infant concerned to arrive at explicit consciousness of the implications of that regeneration and of the salvation it involves… We must not, therefore, conceive of the regenerate infant as regenerated in infancy and then converted when he reaches years of understanding and discretion. No, not at all!... Of course, oftentimes persons regenerated in infancy pass through experiences when they grow up that closely resemble the experience of conversion and they themselves may think that, prior to that event, they were under the domination of sin… In many other cases, however… many of the most intelligent Christians can never remember a time when… they were without God and without hope in him. They were not only regenerated in infancy, but nurtured in the bosom of Christian instruction.” (Pg. 200-201)
He observes, “we must appreciate the extent to which God will be glorified in the glorification of his people… God will be glorified in all his works. The damnation of the reprobate will redound to the glory of God, and no speck of stain will attach to God’s action. It will redound to the glory of his justice and power. But in the glorification of his people, the whole sum of the divine perfections will be manifested as in no other handiwork of his. We must say this, because it is only in relation to the redemption of his elect that the incarnation of the Son has meaning. The glorification of the elect is really one with the final glorification of him who himself is the embodiment of the glory of God.” (Pg. 314)
He explains, “The word ‘sacrament’ is not strictly a biblical term. But it has come to designate certain ordinances of New Testament institution. In the Reformed Churches it is used to denote two ordinances and only two… 1. Ordinances instituted directly by Christ himself. The Lord’s Supper was instituted on the night in which he was being betrayed, and baptism on the eve of his ascension. With respect to the latter, it is necessary to distinguish between the baptism of John and that performed by Jesus’ disciples, on the one hand, and that instituted by Jesus after his resurrection, on the other… 2. They are ordinances in which material elements and visible signs are used, in baptism water and washing with water, in the Lord’s supper bread and wine and the oral participation of these… It is apparent that only baptism and the Lord’s supper belong to the category defined by this combination.” (Pg. 366-367)
He states, “Here it is necessary to correct an error that is widespread, that only those who go to the Lord’s table are members of the church, that merely baptized persons are not making a profession. This is a pernicious underestimate of the meaning of baptism. It so happens that most of us have been baptized in infancy. Unless we have repudiated our infant baptism, we ARE professing.” (Pg. 370-371) Later, he adds, “The basis upon which baptism is dispensed to infants is, therefore, this divine institution. The promise of the covenant is to believers and their children. The abuses often attendant upon the baptism of infants should not be pleaded as objections to the ordinance itself. It is necessary that the church should exercise care and vigilance to prevent these abuses.” (Pg. 374-375)
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 1977 collection states, “It was never John Murray’s intention to produce a Systematic Theology and insofar as this volume follows, to a limited extent, the form of a Systematic Theology, the responsibility belongs to the publishers and not the author. The material presented here was not written consecutively: it was prepared at different periods of Professor Murray’s life and for different purposes… John Murray consistently resisted appeals that his comprehensive class lectures on Systematic Theology should be published, even though he had the full manuscripts. His chief reason appears to have been that his work as a whole was so representative of the volumes of systematic theology already available that the printing of his own lectures would be unwarranted. But this is not to say that he thought reformed theology had reached definitive conclusions on all biblical subjects. On the contrary, he judged it to be the constant business of the Church to seek a larger knowledge of Scripture…”
He firmly rejects evolution: “The crux of the question as it is posed for us by the theory of evolution is: can the portrayal given us in the Bible, and particularly in Genesis 1 and 2, be interpreted as compatible with a theory that man … as represented in Genesis, came to be by a process of evolution from lower forms of animate life?... There are several considerations that demand a negative answer. 1. Man’s identity consists in the image and likeness of God… we are compelled to conclude that no action or process such as would account for the other forms of life would be sufficient for the order to which man belongs… 2. Genesis 2:7 cannot be reconciled with the evolutionary hypothesis, and it confirms the conclusions derived from Genesis 1:26; 5:1; 9:6… The postulate of evolutionary theory is to the opposite effect… 3. Genesis 2:7… shows that man has affinity with the material stuff of the earth and with the animate creation as well… So we should expect resemblances of various kinds… No evolutionary hypothesis is necessary to explain them; they are required by the relationships man sustains to his environment.” (Pg. 12-13)
In an essay, he notes, “Scripture usage of the terms ‘soul’ and ‘spirit’ does afford plausibility to the contention that man’s nature is trichotomic rather than dichotomic, that there are three components, body, soul, and spirit rather than two, body and spirit.” (Pg. 23) He concludes, “The evidence does not support the tripartite construction. We need not suppose, however, that soul and spirit are always synonymous and are interchangeable. The entity denoted by soul and by spirit is to be viewed from different aspects. When one aspect is in view, the term ‘spirit’ is the appropriate designation, and when another aspect is in view the term ‘soul.’” (Pg. 32)
He states, “The distinction to be borne in mind is that foreordination, though all-inclusive, does not operate so as to deprive man of his agency, nor of the voluntary decision by reason of which he is responsible for his actions. Similarly foreordination does not rule out the power of contrary choice in those cases where this obtained or obtains. Just as foreordination does not conflict with or rule out human responsibility, so it does not conflict with or rule out the power of alternative choice, nor does it conflict with or rule out the power of contrary choice where this power is necessarily posited.” (Pg. 64)
He continues, “The essence of free agency is that we act without compulsion from without, according to our nature or character. Free agency thus construed applies to all conditions of men and angels…. The principle here asserted is that an act may be certain as to its futurition, but free as to the mode of its occurrence… although we are not able so to analyze the relations of God’s foreknowledge and human agency that we can discover and perceive the perfect ‘concursus’ that obtains, yet we must maintain both without any infringement upon the province, reality, and integrity of each. The foreknowledge of God presupposed certainty of occurrence; his foreordination renders all occurrence certain; by his providence what is foreordained is unalterably put into effect. Only within the realm of all-inclusive providence is our free agency a fact, and only thus is it maintained… Providence in fulfillment of foreordained purpose is not only compatible with the freedom indispensable to our being; it is indispensable to the existence of our freedom and never functions so as to interfere with it.” (Pg. 65-66)
He acknowledges, “Now here is the problem. How can it be that, from the aspect of the divine plan, there is immutable predetermination and accomplishment, and yet from the aspect of man’s agency no coercion or compulsion, no curtailment of his freedom and responsibility, and no alleviation of his guilt? It is a mystery beyond our comprehension. We cannot so diagnose or analyze the interrelations of these correlative facts that we shall be able to see the perfectly harmonious co-working of these two distinct agencies or factors. There is convergence of both in the one act of the fall. But how they converge, how there can be the combination of divine and human agency in the same event and yet no interference with or curtailment of either, is a matter beyond our understanding. This is what we mean when we say that we are faced with an insoluble problem.” (Pg. 73-74) Later, he adds, “The humble Christian is content to contain these unresolved problems. They do not disturb his peace of mind because… the ground of all peace of mind is the conviction of the sovereignty, justice, goodness of God. What he cannot resolve he believes God does…. Christian piety leaves unresolved problems in the hand of God, remembering that, if we knew all, we would be as God…” (Pg. 75-76)
He states, “not only is the compatibility of love and wrath the vindication of the doctrine of propitiation, it is also the kay toe the understanding of wrath inflicted upon Christ himself as the one upon whom the good pleasure of the Father rested, and the one whom the Father loved with unique and immutable love. The difficulty for many… is: How could Jesus be uniquely and immutably loved of the Father, and at the same time be the object of his wrath? The answer resides in the same principle, that love and wrath are not contradictory, that love in its intensest exercise can coexist with the exercise and infliction of wrath.” (Pg. 146)
He explains, “The priority of regeneration does not violate our free agency. If we remember that man, though a free agent, is able to exercise that free agency only in the service and bondage of sin and is unable to release his free agency from that bondage, the interposition of supernatural grace simply ensures the release of his free agency to the end that it may exercise itself in the doing of that which is holy and good. God… delivers man from his servitude in sin, so that he may be able freely to will that in which God’s purpose and our blessedness consist. This is no violation of liberty but rather the emancipation of liberty, to the true exercise of it unto the glory of God… [This] must be borne in mind even in the case of unregenerate infants… where regeneration takes place in the case of an infant there is the immediate transition from the kingdom of darkness to the kingdom of God, and even though intelligent faith cannot be in exercise, nevertheless there is that which we may and must call the germ of faith.” (Pg. 199-200)
He continues, “If infants are depraved they may also be holy. The regenerate infant in this respect radically differs from the unregenerated infant. The regenerate infant is not under the dominion of sin, is not a child of wrath, but a child of God and a member of his kingdom… It will take years, of course, for the infant concerned to arrive at explicit consciousness of the implications of that regeneration and of the salvation it involves… We must not, therefore, conceive of the regenerate infant as regenerated in infancy and then converted when he reaches years of understanding and discretion. No, not at all!... Of course, oftentimes persons regenerated in infancy pass through experiences when they grow up that closely resemble the experience of conversion and they themselves may think that, prior to that event, they were under the domination of sin… In many other cases, however… many of the most intelligent Christians can never remember a time when… they were without God and without hope in him. They were not only regenerated in infancy, but nurtured in the bosom of Christian instruction.” (Pg. 200-201)
He observes, “we must appreciate the extent to which God will be glorified in the glorification of his people… God will be glorified in all his works. The damnation of the reprobate will redound to the glory of God, and no speck of stain will attach to God’s action. It will redound to the glory of his justice and power. But in the glorification of his people, the whole sum of the divine perfections will be manifested as in no other handiwork of his. We must say this, because it is only in relation to the redemption of his elect that the incarnation of the Son has meaning. The glorification of the elect is really one with the final glorification of him who himself is the embodiment of the glory of God.” (Pg. 314)
He explains, “The word ‘sacrament’ is not strictly a biblical term. But it has come to designate certain ordinances of New Testament institution. In the Reformed Churches it is used to denote two ordinances and only two… 1. Ordinances instituted directly by Christ himself. The Lord’s Supper was instituted on the night in which he was being betrayed, and baptism on the eve of his ascension. With respect to the latter, it is necessary to distinguish between the baptism of John and that performed by Jesus’ disciples, on the one hand, and that instituted by Jesus after his resurrection, on the other… 2. They are ordinances in which material elements and visible signs are used, in baptism water and washing with water, in the Lord’s supper bread and wine and the oral participation of these… It is apparent that only baptism and the Lord’s supper belong to the category defined by this combination.” (Pg. 366-367)
He states, “Here it is necessary to correct an error that is widespread, that only those who go to the Lord’s table are members of the church, that merely baptized persons are not making a profession. This is a pernicious underestimate of the meaning of baptism. It so happens that most of us have been baptized in infancy. Unless we have repudiated our infant baptism, we ARE professing.” (Pg. 370-371) Later, he adds, “The basis upon which baptism is dispensed to infants is, therefore, this divine institution. The promise of the covenant is to believers and their children. The abuses often attendant upon the baptism of infants should not be pleaded as objections to the ordinance itself. It is necessary that the church should exercise care and vigilance to prevent these abuses.” (Pg. 374-375)
The volumes in this series will be virtual “must reading” for anyone seriously studying contemporary Evangelical Reformed theology.
January 1, 2019
One of my favourite theologians. Incredible clear use of language. Vol. 2 is a great place to start.
September 23, 2020
Murray is a perceptive exegete with penetrating logic, bringing out a theological richness that is well founded. If you disagree with his reading of the Scriptures, you’ll hard pressed to make a more convincing case
September 4, 2021
Probably deserves 5 stars but the reading level was pretty challenging.
Want to read
November 13, 2023Among Pastor Silversides' favorites.
February 27, 2016
Only set out to read a portion of it, specifically the parts dealing with Sanctification. Those sections were very good and well worth the read.
May 1, 2017
Solid.
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews