John Murray on Theological Progress & Scripture’s Sufficiency.
 
In the previous post’s comments section, Todd reminded us of John Murray’s views on this question of the sufficiency of the Westminster Standards.  Once again, I am a simply amazed at the reaction of some men in PCA circles to my comments.  This was almost “common sense” when I was in seminary.   We studied Murray for systematics.  Everyone should read Murray’s wisdom.  The first is from his essay “The Finality and Sufficiency of Scripture” (Collected Writings, Vol. 1, p. 22):
 
  1. Let us learn from our tradition, let us prize our heritage, let us enter into other men’s labors; but let us know that it is not the tradition of the past, not a precious heritage, and not the labors of the fathers, that are to serve this generation and this hour, but the Word of the living and abiding God deposited for us in the Holy Scripture, and this Word as ministered by the church.  And we must bring forth from its inexhaustible treasures, in exposition, proclamation, and application—application to every sphere of life—what is the wisdom and power of God for man in this age in all the particularity of his need, as for man in every age.
 
This next set of quotations comes from his “Systematic Theology” (Collected Writings, Vol. 4, pp. 1-21):
 
  1. 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 (p. 7).
  2.  
Murray’s example is Calvin’s extra-Creedal formulations of the doctrine of the deity of Christ (p. 8). Here’s how he concludes that discussion:
 
  1. This polemic on Calvin’s part offers a prime example of the need to bring theological formulation to the test of Scripture as the only infallible norm.  As it is true that ecclesia reformata reformanda est [the church is reformed and always reforming] so also is it true that theologia reformata reformanda est [theology is reformed and always reforming].  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 underway and heterodoxy will the the lot of the succeeding generation (p. 8).
  2.  
Well, reading what passes for theological debate in some quarters of our church today, one would think that declension results from failing to conform all our thoughts and words to the 17th-century tradition of Westminster.
 
Oh, and here comes that dangerous, Hegelian word “progress.”
 
  1. 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. In the orthodox tradition we may never forget that there is yet much land to be possessed. . . (p. 9).
 
Ah, I see there is still hope for lowly students like myself.  But there’s more:
  1.  
  2. 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.
  3.  
  4. 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.
  5.  
  6. 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.
 
Oh John Murray, that Federal Vision proponent!
The Insufficiency of Westminster
Saturday, July 22, 2006