Murray, Systematic Theology

SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY

Second Article

JOHN MURRAY

SYSTEMATIC theology is to be distinguished from the discipline that has come to be known as biblical theology. This does not mean that the latter is more biblical. It is true that systematic theology deals with the data of general revelation insofar as these data bear upon theology, and general revelation does not come within the province of bib-lical theology. But, since the principal source of revelation is Holy Scripture, systematic theology must be concerned to be biblical not one whit less than biblical theology. The difference is merely one of method.

Biblical theology deals with the data of special revelation from the standpoint of its history; systematic theology deals with the same in its totality as a finished product. The method of systematic theology is logical, that of biblical theology is historical. The definition of Geerhardus Vos puts this differ-ence in focus. " Biblical Theology is that branch of Exegetical Theology which deals with the process of the self-revelation of God deposited in the Bible."1 The pivotal term in this definition is the word "process" as applied to God's special self-revelation. Or, as Vos says later, when taking account of the objections to the term "biblical theology", the name "History of Special Revelation" is to be preferred.2

It cannot be denied that special revelation had a history. God did not reveal himself to man in one great and all-embracive disclosure. Since we are mainly concerned with the revelation that post-dates the fall of man and also to a great extent with redemptive revelation, it is apparent that this revelation began with the protevangelium to our first parents, was expanded more and more through successive

1 Biblical Theology. Old and New Testaments, Grand Rapids, 1948, p. 13.

8 Ibid., p. 23; cf. also G. F. Oehler: Theology of the Old Testament, E.T.,

Edinburgh, 1874, Vol. I, pp. 7, 8, 20, 22. 33

34 WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL

generations and ages, and accumulated progressively until it reached its climax in the coming and accomplishments of the Son of God in the fulness of the time, the consummation of the ages. Our perspective is not biblical if we do not reckon with this history and with the process and progression which it involves. And our study of special revelation would not only be too restricted but it would also be dishonouring to God if it did not follow the lines of the plan which he himself pursued in giving us this revelation.

It is necessary to appreciate the terms of the definition of biblical theology. No phase of biblical studies enlists more interest or receives more attention at the present time than biblical theology. There is a reaction against what has been considered to be the religious and theological barrenness of the product that had been so largely devoted to literary and historical criticism, and this applies particularly to Old Testa-ment studies. In the words of Gerhard von Rad, "It is not so very long ago that a theology of the Old Testament could learn very little beyond questions of date and of this and that in matters of form from those introductory studies which were working mainly on the lines of literary criticism".3 But in the last twenty or thirty years there has been a marked change in "the surprising convergence indeed the mutual intersection which has come about . . . between introductory studies and Biblical Theology".4 Or, to state the climate in the words of G. Ernest Wright, "one of the most important tasks of the Church today is to lay hold upon a Biblically centred theology. To do so means that we must first take the faith of Israel seriously and by use of the scholarly tools at our disposal seek to understand the theology of the Old Testament. But, secondly, as Christians we must press toward a Biblical theology, in which both Testaments are held to-gether in an organic manner."3 And the realization of the

3 Old Testament Theology, E.T., New York, 1962, Vol. I, p. v. Walther Eichrodt is more emphatic and says: "It is high time that the tyranny of historicism in OT studies was broken and the proper approach to our task re-discovered" (Theology of the Old Testament, E.T., Philadelphia, 1901, Vol. I, p. 31).

* von Rad: idem. s God Who Acts. Biblical Theology as Recital, London, 1952, pp. 29 f.

SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY II 35

fact that biblical faith is something "radically different from all other faiths of mankind", he says, "leads most Biblical scholars today to believe that far more unity exists in the Bible than was conceived fifty years ago. They are thus confident that a Biblical theology is possible which is some-thing other than the history of the Bible's religious evolution."6

It is not the purpose of this article to review the history of the distinctive discipline known as biblical theology from the work of Johann Philipp Gabler to the present time. But it is necessary to point out the radical divergences that exist be-tween the viewpoint reflected in the definition by Vos, given above, and some of the representative exponents of biblical theology in the last two decades.

1. The most significant works in biblical theology at the present time are based on the assumptions of the literary and historical criticism which rejects the Bible's own representa-tions. That is to say, the Bible is not regarded as providing us with "the actual historical course of events". There is, therefore, a reconstruction of biblical history in accordance with what are conceived to be the insights which scholarly research has afforded us. With respect to the framework, the period of the patriarchs, the oppression in Egypt, the Exodus

f the Revelation at Sinai, the Wandering in the Wilderness, the Conquest, for example, von Rad says, this was "not deter-mined by the actual historical course of events, since that had long passed out of memory; its basis was rather a preconceived theological picture of the saving history already long estab-lished in the form of a cultic confession" and thus "even the sequence of the main events conforms already to a canonical schema of a cultic nature".7 This position means the rejection of the truly historical character of the Old Testament. In this resides the basic divergence by which the work concerned has forfeited its right to be called theology of the Old Testa-ment. The alleged history which provides the framework for this Old Testament "theology" is a reconstructed history of which the Old Testament itself knows nothing. Even if this

Ibid., p. 35. 7 Op. cit., pp. 4 f. Cf. also Sigmund Mowinckel: The Old Testament as

Word of God, E.T., New York, 1959, pp. 13, 15.


viewpoint speaks of revelation and revelatory acts, the pro-gressive revelation posited is not the process portrayed for us in the Old Testament. Biblical theology properly conceived and unfolded must follow the lines delineated for us in the Scriptures. To the extent to which these lines are abandoned or reconstructed to that extent the theology ceases to be the biblical theology.

2. Representatives of the biblical theology being criticized show a radical divergence in respect of the unity which is indispensable to a proper view of revelation. In Sigmund Mowinckel's esteem, for example, "the Old Testament is not a homogeneous entity", "between 'the Law' and 'the Prophets' there is a huge cleft, an essential difference" so that the Old Testament "bears the clear marks of a diverse human history with many cross-current lines".8 There is indeed the diversity and multiformity which accumulating divine self-disclosure involves. All of this belongs to the term "process". But to confuse diversity with heterogeneity is to relinquish the basic premise of biblical theology.

3. The almost exclusive emphasis upon revelatory deeds betokens a distinct deflection from the biblical witness. Again Mowinckel is representative. "This idea of God as the God of history, and of history as the place of revelation, also clearly shows what the Bible means by revelation. It is not communi-cation of knowledge, theoretical truths from and about God. Yes, it is too, but only secondarily and derivatively. Primarily and essentially revelation is deed-, it is God's work of creating anew and of creating the future that is his revelation."9 "As has been mentioned already, for the Old Testament, God's word is not utterances, not verbal expressions of ideas, con-cepts, and thoughts, but deed."10 With a total thrust that is more congenial G. Ernest Wright is perhaps the most pro-nounced advocate of this thesis. "Biblical theology is the confessional recital of the redemptive acts of God in a particular history, because history is the chief medium of revelation."11 "Biblical theology is first and foremost a theology of recital.""

8 Ibid., pp. 16, 17, 19. Cf. also von Rad: op. cit., pp. 6, 7, 8, 16.

9 Op. cit., p. 39. " Ibid., p. 42. Op. cit., p. 13. 12

Ibid., p. 28; cf. also pp. 38, 55, 59.


It is to be appreciated that Wright does not overlook the fact that God reveals himself in words.13 Furthermore, many of the insights and emphases in Wright's eloquent monograph are not only worthy of endorsement but are to be highly prized as contributions to Old Testament study.

It is not to be disputed that acts are central in God's re-demptive accomplishment and that the cardinal message of the gospel is the proclamation of what God has done. Be-lieving confession in both Testaments reflects these features. But the type of concentration upon acts as the media of revelation, exemplified in the biblical theology of the present, is subject to criticism for three reasons in particular, (a) Deeds are of themselves mute for us unless they are accompanied by word revelation respecting their significance.14 This prin-ciple applies in a great variety of respects. If the acts are God*s acts, they can only be understood for what they are in the context of knowledge respecting God, respecting his rela-tion to the world in which the acts occur, and his relation to those who are the beneficiaries of these redemptive deeds. In a word, the interpretation of their meaning involves a concept of God derived from other revelatory data. Further, if they are acts of grace, the grace must be related to needs which make this grace relevant. Thus there are implications in-volved in the term "deeds" which presuppose an understanding which the deeds themselves do not impart and the same applies to the confession respecting these deeds, (b) The concentra-tion upon deeds is prejudicial to what occupies so large a place in the Scripture, namely, the verbal communication of truth respecting God and his will for man.15 It is apparent

* Cf. ibid., pp. 23, 83, 103. x* It is not that G. Ernest Wright, for example, is oblivious of this fact.

"By means of human agents", he says, "God provides each event with an accompanying Word of interpretation, so that the latter is an integral part of the former" (ibid., p. 84). "To confess God is to tell a story and then to expound its meaning" (ibid., p. 85). It is that Wright and the other scholars concerned lay such emphasis upon revelation as consisting in "acts" and on theology as recital that verbal communication is not accorded its place and as a result the concept of revelation is distorted. Cf. the succeeding footnote.

x* James Barr, writing from a different theological standpoint from that

of the present writer, has effectively drawn attention to this same feature


that the reconstruction of Old Testament history adopted by the biblical theology in question goes hand in hand with the rejection of the authenticity of the Old Testament witness to this verbal communication. And the way in which biblical theology is distorted is due to a large extent to the suppression of this feature of the Old Testament itself. Again, this biblical theology is not a transcript of the Old Testament but of hypotheses which are alien to its representations, (c) The suppression of the revelatory word tends to discard or at least overlook the place which the communication of truth occupies in redemptive accomplishment. Redemption is the redemption of men in the whole compass of personality and in the whole realm of their relationships. Indispensable, there-fore, is the enlightenment of the mind. How can redemption be effective in the whole range of personal life without the correction which truth conveyed imparts and the enlighten-ment which truth sheds abroad in heart and mind? The Bible in both Testaments is true to this need. It is true to this re-quirement because it is realistic, and the emphasis upon deeds to the suppression or neglect of verbal communication has come by a discount of the Bible's realism, a fallacy into which even orthodox apologetic has sometimes fallen whe i^ it says that Jesus came not to preach the gospel but that there might be a gospel to preach. Jesus came to do both.

4. The biblical theology representative of recent decades, in reconstructing biblical history, has deprived biblical the-

of the biblical representation. In The Princeton Seminary Bulletin for May 1963 under the title, "Revelation through History in the Old Testa-ment and in Modern Theology" he sets forth some of the most cogent considerations in criticism of the viewpoint under consideration. Barr does not deny revelation through historical divine action but "that it can be the principal organizing conceptual bracket which we use to view the material as a whole and to identify the common and essential features within its variety" (p. 8). With respect to the Exodus events and the texts bearing upon them these texts, he says, "far from representing the divine acts as the basis of all knowledge of God and all communication with him, they represent God as communicating freely with men, and particularly with Moses, before, during and after these events" (p. 7). Thus there are, he contends, other axes than that of "acts" and the one he has particularly in mind is that of "direct verbal communication be-tween God and particular men on particular occasions" (p. 11).


ology of its foundations. Apart from the truncated and re-vised version of Mosaic and post-Mosaic history, of the Sinai transactions, of the wilderness journeys, of the conquest of Canaan, and of the events closely interrelated, it is character-istic to question, if not to deny, the authenticity of the pa-triarchal history as set forth in Genesis. Th. C. Vriezen, for example, "takes the historical line to begin with Moses, not because", as he himself affirms, "he denies the possibility of a pre-Mosaic revelation to Abraham, but because, in his opinion, a scholarly historical approach is possible to a certain extent with respect to Moses but not with respect to Abraham".l6 And Walther Eichrodt, who rightly attaches primacy to the covenant relationship, does not go back farther than Mosaic times to find this covenant concept.17 The covenantal in-stitution is basic to any construction of redemptive history and revelation. The Exodus cannot be biblically interpreted unless it is recognized to be in fulfilment of the patriarchal covenant {cf. Exod. 2:24, 25; 3:6-17). The Sinai tic covenant must be understood as an appendage to and extension of the Abrahamic {cf. Gal. 3:17-22). And the coming of Christ is in pursuance of the same {cf. Luke 1:72, 73). Christ is the seed in whom all the families of the earth are blessed {cf. Gen. 22:18; Acts 3:25; Gal. 3:8, 9, 16). It should be apparent how indispensable to biblical theology is the covenant con-cept and how far removed from the biblical data our theology must be if it is not oriented to the successive unfoldings of covenant grace and relationship. But the main interest of our present discussion is that the covenant history with which the Bible furnishes us is bereft of its foundation unless we go back to the origin of this history in the covenants made with Abraham (Gen. 15:8-21; 17:1-21). The theology which can dispense with this central feature of patriarchal history is not biblical theology.18

16 An Outline of Old Testament Theology, E.T., Oxford, 1958, p. 16, n. 1;

cf. p. 30. 17

Op. cit., p. 36. Wright makes summary mention of "the call of the Patriarchal fathers" (op. cit., p. 76) as central in confessional recital, but the Abrahamic covenant does not give direction to his presentation of this recital.

18 The significance of the Noahic covenants, pre-diluvian and post-


When biblical theology is conceived of as dealing with "the process of the self-revelation of God deposited in the Bible", it must be understood that this specialized study of the Bible, so far from being inimical to the interests of systematic theology is indispensable to the systematic theology that is faithful to the Bible. In some cases the present-day interest in biblical theology springs from or at least is related to an antipathy to systematics or, as it is sometimes called, dogmatics. The latter is charged with being abstract and philosophical and, therefore, devoid of the dynamic realism and force which ought to characterize any reproduction of the Bible's witness. This charge is not to be dismissed as without any ground or warrant. 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. But two observations require to be made with reference to this charge and to the corresponding admission. First, there are certain phases of the truth with which systematic theology must deal and certain polemics which it must conduct that call for the type of treatment which to many people seems cold and formal. The painstaking analysis and exacting research which the pursuit of a faithful dogmatics requires must not be abandoned because some people have no interest in or patience with such studies. This would mean that areas of investigation necessary to the wide range of the theologian's mandate would be abandoned to the enemy. We must appreciate how diversified are the tasks and interests that come within the orbit of systematic theology. A biblical scholar's product may have to be sometimes as dry as dust. But dust has its place, especially when it is gold dust. Second, the charge, insofar as it is warranted, is not the fault of systematic theology but of the theologian or of the milieu of which his product is the reflection. Systematic theology by its nature must have its logical divisions.19 Not all theologies have the

diluvian, is not to be depreciated. They furnish us with the covenantal concept basic to all subsequent covenantal disclosures. But in terms of redemptive revelation we are bereft of the foundation of all subsequent disclosure if we fail to take full account of the Abrahamic covenants.

9 It is of interest that two recent noteworthy titles: Ludwig Khler:


same sequence or the same structural schematism. But if we think of theology, anthropology, and soteriology, it is difficult to comprehend how any one sensitive to the governing message of Scripture can take exception to the exhibition of this message under such subdivisions as these exemplify. It is true, as Calvin reminded us at the beginning of his Institutio, that we cannot think properly of ourselves without thinking of God and we cannot think properly of God without also thinking of ourselves. But theology is teaching, exposition, communication, and it so happens that we cannot say every-thing all at once nor can we think of everything that needs to be thought of God and of ourselves all at once. The ob-servation all-important for the present is that there is nothing inherent in a logical mode of treatment that hinders, far less prevents, sustained confrontation with the living Word of the living God. Systematic structure is the application to the totality of revelation of the same method as the science of homiletics applies to the exposition of particular passages of Scripture.

Biblical theology is indispensable to systematic theology. This proposition requires clarification. The main source of revelation is the Bible. Hence exposition of the Scripture is basic to systematic theology. Its task is not simply the exposition of particular passages. That is the task of exegesis. Systematics must coordinate the teaching of particular pas-sages and systematize this teaching under the appropriate topics. There is thus a synthesis that belongs to systematics that does not belong to exegesis as such.20 But to the extent to which systematic theology synthesizes the teaching of Scripture, and this is its main purpose, it is apparent how

Old Testament Theology, E.T., Philadelphia, 1957; Millar Burrows: An Outline of Biblical Theology adopt the method of topical presentation. It may not be legitimate to question the right of a scholar to choose his own title. But Burrows' work is not "biblical theology" in the generally ac-cepted use of the title. It is rather a systematic theology. And Ludwig Khler does not follow the historico-genetic method of delineation.

20 The principle known as the analogy of Scripture is indispensable to

exegesis for "the infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scrip-ture itself". But the analogy of Scripture is not to be equated with the synthesis which is the specific task of systematic theology.

4 2 WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL

dependent it is upon the science of exegesis. It cannot co-ordinate and relate the teaching of particular passages with-out knowing what that teaching is. So exegesis is basic to its objective. This needs to be emphasized. Systematic theology has gravely suffered, indeed has deserted its vocation, when it has been divorced from meticulous attention to biblical exegesis. This is one reason why the charge mentioned above has so much to yield support to the indictment. Systematics becomes lifeless and fails in its mandate just to the extent to which it has become detached from exegesis. And the guar-antee against a 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 that Word. The Word is living and powerful.

What then of biblical theology? What function does it per-form in this process? 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 pro-gressively in history throughout ages and generations. Man-kind has never lacked special revelation. Man's life had been regulated from the outset by specially revealed ordinances and commandments. When our first parents had fallen from their original integrity, special revelation with redemptive import supervened upon their sin and misery to inspire faith and regulate life in the new context which their sin had created. Thus began the process of redemptive revelation to the progressive unfolding of which the Bible bears witness. This process was not, however, one of uniform progression. The Bible does not provide us with a complete history of special revelation {cf. John 20:30, 31; 21:25). But we must believe that the pattern found in the Scripture reflects the pattern followed in the history of revelation as a whole. This pattern which Scripture discloses shows that special revelation and the redemptive accomplishments correlative with it have their marked epochs. It is undeniable that the flood and the institutions related thereto, the Abrahamic revelations, the Exodus from Egypt, the Davidic period, the coming of Christ mark outstanding epochs in the history of revelation. The


science concerned with the history of special revelation must take account of this epochal character and it would be an artificial biblical theology that did not adhere to the lines which this epochal feature prescribes. Redemption, as Geer-hardus Vos observes, "does not proceed with uniform motion, but rather is 'epochal* in its onward stride. We can observe that where great epoch-making redemptive acts accumulate, there the movement of revelation is correspondingly acceler-ated and its volume increased."21 The divisions which biblical theology recognizes and in terms of which it conducts its study are not, therefore, arbitrary but are demanded by the characteristics of redemptive and revelation history. The Bible is itself conscious of the distinct periods into which the history of revelation falls. Although there could be more detailed subdivision within certain periods, it could not be contested that the Bible itself marks off the distinguishing character and momentous significance of the creation of man, the fall of man, the flood, the call of Abraham, the Exodus, the advent of Christ. Hence the periods, the creation to the fall, the fall to the flood, the flood to the call of Abraham, the call of Abraham to the Exodus, and the Exodus to Christ22 are so well-defined that this structure must be adhered to in the discipline, biblical theology.

If 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 the data of revelation which belong to a later period. When we do this we violate the conditions which define the distinctiveness of this study.23 And not only

31 Op. cit., p. 16.

32 The period from the Exodus to Christ would obviously require sub-

division. But there is also good reason for recognizing a unity corresponding to that of the other periods. The New Testament era is, of course, the consummatory era in this structure. Redemption and revelation will be resumed at Christ's second coming. But the new revelatory acts associated with the second advent do not come within the province of biblical theology.

23 There are several questions that arise in connection with this principle. It is not the purpose of this article to discuss these. Suffice it to say that


so. We do violence to revelation itself because the history of revelation and the progressiveness which characterized it be-long to the activity of God by which revelation has come to us, and the error is not merely a violation of the science of biblical theology but a distortion of the history which must ever be borne in mind and prized as that apart from which redemptive revelation does not exist.

This is a subject worthy of considerable expansion. But, in relation to our present interest, it is this principle that bears directly upon exegesis. Exegesis is the interpretation of particular passages. This is just to say the interpretation of particular revelatory data. But these revelatory data occur within a particular period of revelation and the principle which guides biblical theology must also be applied in exegesis. Thus biblical theology is regulative of exegesis.

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. It might seem that an undue limitation is placed upon systematic theology by requiring that the exegesis with which it is so intimately concerned should be regulated by the principle of

the abuses must be avoided. We are not prevented thereby from using the data of later periods of revelation in determining the precise import and purport of earlier data, their import and purport, however, in the precise context in which they were given. And we are certainly not to overlook the witness borne by the New Testament, for example, to the intent and scope of Old Testament data. We may not accede to the tendency so common to underestimate the richness of Old Testament revelation, the vigour of the faith of Old Testament saints, or the relevance of its institutions.

We should also keep in view the distinction that must be maintained in certain instances between the revelation given in particular periods and the inscripturation of that revelation. This is specially important in the pre-Mosaic periods. It is inscripturation that provides us with the data and assures us of their authenticity. Furthermore, inscripturation is a mode of revelation and so with inscripturation there are revelatory data that belong only to the inscripturation itself. Inscripturation does not merely provide us with a record of revelations previously given by other modes; Scripture is itself revelation.


biblical theology. And it might seem to be contrary to the canon so important to both exegesis and systematics, namely, the analogy of Scripture. These appearances do not correspond to reality. The fact is that only when systematic theology is rooted in biblical theology does it exemplify its true function and achieve its purpose. Two respects in which this is illus-trated may be mentioned.

1. Systematic theology deals with special revelation as a finished product incorporated for us in Holy Scripture. But special revelation in its totality is never properly conceived of apart from the history by which it became a finished product. As we think of, study, appreciate, appropriate, and apply the revelation put in our possession by inscripturation, we do not properly engage in any of these exercises except as the pano-rama of God's movements in history comes within our vision or at least forms the background of our thought. In other words, redemptive and revelatory history conditions our thought at every point or stage of our study of Scripture revelation. Therefore, what is the special interest of biblical theology is never divorced from our thought when we study any part of Scripture and seek to bring its treasures of truth to bear upon the synthesis which systematic theology aims to accomplish. Furthermore, the tendency to abstraction which ever lurks for systematic theology is hereby counteracted. The various data are interpreted not only in their scriptural context but also in their historical context and therefore, as Vos says, "in the milieu of the historical life of a people"24 be-cause God has caused his revelation to be given in that milieu.

2. Perhaps the greatest enrichment of systematic theology, when it is oriented to biblical theology, is the perspective that is gained for the unity and continuity of special revela-tion. Orthodox systematic theology rests on the premise of the unity of Scripture, the consent of all its parts. It is this unity that makes valid the hermeneutical principle, the analogy of Scripture. A systematic theology that is faithful to this attribute of Scripture and seeks earnestly to apply it cannot totally fail of its function. But when systematic

a< Op. cit., p. 17.

4 6 WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL

theology is consciously undertaken with the claims and re-sults of biblical theology in view, then the perspective gained is more than that merely of unity. It is the unity of a growing organism that attains its fruition in the New Testament and in the everlasting covenant ratified and sealed by the blood of Christ. Revelation is seen to be an organism and the dis-crete parts, or preferably phases, are perceived to be not sporadic, unrelated, and disjointed oracles, far less hetero-geneous 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 Scrip-ture 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 this unfolding process, are applied with that particular relevance to the topic under consideration. Texts will not thus be forced to bear a meaning they do not possess nor forced into a service they cannot perform. But in the locus to which they belong and by the import they do possess they will contribute to the sum-total of revelatory evidence by which biblical doctrine is established. We may never forget that systematic theology is the arrangement under appropriate divisions of the total witness of revelation to the truth respecting God and his relations to us men and to the world. Since the Bible is 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 mihds by which we shall be conformed to his image in knowledge, righteousness, and holiness of the truth.

Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia

^ s

Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling, reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However, for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article. Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available, or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American Theological Library Association.

Murray, Systematic Theology

Documents

Transcript of Murray, Systematic Theology