{"id":{"repo_id":"uwtsd","oai_identifier":"oai:repository.uwtsd.ac.uk:2051"},"canonical_url":"https://search.dev.ndltd.org/etd/uwtsd/oai:repository.uwtsd.ac.uk:2051","repository":{"repo_id":"uwtsd","name":"University of Wales Trinity Saint David","base_url":"https://repository.uwtsd.ac.uk/cgi/oai2"},"display":{"title":"An evaluation of the soteriology of John Murray","abstract":"John Murray (1898-1975) was professor of Systematic Theology at Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 1937-1966. We argue that Murray’s soteriology was indeed a true reflection of his mentor’s, John Calvin’s, theology. The differences in both men’s respective soteriologies were partly attributed to Calvin’s quidqualis distinction, within which he sometimes made contradictory statements, but which nevertheless suited his purpose of particularism. Even accepting that Calvin’s theology was slightly more Christological than Murray’s, both men over emphasised the sovereignty o f God, in their zeal to protect salvation from human autonomy. To counterbalance Murray’s over reliance upon the divine sovereignty, we saw that two things were necessary: giving weight to the bible’s emphasis on the role of faith; and explicating the bible’s doctrine o f the believer’s union with Christ in his death and resurrection. Ironically, in respect of the latter, Murray’s understanding of union with Christ as described in his doctrine of definitive sanctification was fundamental. We were with Christ in his death and resurrection, believes Murray. We then argued that Paul locates certain doctrines in the cross and others in the resurrection; and that these doctrines which arise out of historical union with Christ, are then existentially applied when coming to faith.","abstract_html":"John Murray (1898-1975) was professor of Systematic Theology at Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 1937-1966. We argue that Murray’s soteriology was indeed a true reflection of his mentor’s, John Calvin’s, theology. The differences in both men’s respective soteriologies were partly attributed to Calvin’s quidqualis distinction, within which he sometimes made contradictory statements, but which nevertheless suited his purpose of particularism. Even accepting that Calvin’s theology was slightly more Christological than Murray’s, both men over emphasised the sovereignty o f God, in their zeal to protect salvation from human autonomy. To counterbalance Murray’s over reliance upon the divine sovereignty, we saw that two things were necessary: giving weight to the bible’s emphasis on the role of faith; and explicating the bible’s doctrine o f the believer’s union with Christ in his death and resurrection. Ironically, in respect of the latter, Murray’s understanding of union with Christ as described in his doctrine of definitive sanctification was fundamental. We were with Christ in his death and resurrection, believes Murray. We then argued that Paul locates certain doctrines in the cross and others in the resurrection; and that these doctrines which arise out of historical union with Christ, are then existentially applied when coming to faith.","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Harley, John"],"institution":"University of Wales Trinity Saint David","degree_name":"phd","degree_level":"doctoral","degree_discipline":null,"degree_department":null,"school":null,"contributors":[],"advisors":[],"committee_chairs":[],"committee_members":[],"year":2022,"date_issued":"2022-05","date_published":"2022-05","updated_at":"2026-07-24T05:52:56Z","subjects":["BT Diwinyddiaeth Athrawiaethol"],"languages":[],"rights":[],"rights_urls":[],"identifier_entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier.grantnumber","label":"Dc Identifier Grantnumber","values":["UWTSD"],"render_values":[{"text":"UWTSD","href":null,"code":true}]}]},"links":{"outbound_url":"https://doi.org/10.82227/repository.uwtsd.ac.uk.00002051","outbound_label":"DOI","outbound_source":"dc:identifier.doi"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:contributor.sponsor","label":"Sponsor","values":["University of Wales Trinity Saint David"]},{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Harley, John"]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:date","label":"Dc Date","values":["2022-05-22"]},{"key":"dc:date.issued","label":"Date","values":["2022-05"]},{"key":"dc:publisher.commercial","label":"Dc Publisher Commercial","values":["University of Wales Trinity Saint David"]},{"key":"dc:publisher.department","label":"Dc Publisher Department","values":["Traethodau PhD","Institute of Education and Humanities"]},{"key":"dc:publisher.institution","label":"Dc Publisher Institution","values":["University of Wales Trinity Saint David"]},{"key":"dc:relation.isreferencedby","label":"Dc Relation Isreferencedby","values":["https://repository.uwtsd.ac.uk/id/eprint/2051/"]},{"key":"dc:type","label":"Dc Type","values":["Gosodiad"]},{"key":"dc:type.qualificationlevel","label":"Dc Type Qualificationlevel","values":["doctoral"]},{"key":"dc:type.qualificationname","label":"Dc Type Qualificationname","values":["phd"]}]},{"id":"subjects_keywords","label":"Subjects and Keywords","entries":[{"key":"dc:subject","label":"Dc Subject","values":["BT Diwinyddiaeth Athrawiaethol"]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier.doi","label":"DOI","values":["10.82227/repository.uwtsd.ac.uk.00002051"]},{"key":"dc:identifier.grantnumber","label":"Dc Identifier Grantnumber","values":["UWTSD"]},{"key":"dc:identifier.uri","label":"Identifier URI","values":["https://repository.uwtsd.ac.uk/id/eprint/2051/1/2051%20Harley%2C%20John.%20John%20Murray%20%281999%29.pdf"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description.abstract","label":"Abstract","values":["John Murray (1898-1975) was professor of Systematic Theology at Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 1937-1966. We argue that Murray’s soteriology was indeed a true reflection of his mentor’s, John Calvin’s, theology. The differences in both men’s respective soteriologies were partly attributed to Calvin’s quidqualis distinction, within which he sometimes made contradictory statements, but which nevertheless suited his purpose of particularism. Even accepting that Calvin’s theology was slightly more Christological than Murray’s, both men over emphasised the sovereignty o f God, in their zeal to protect salvation from human autonomy. To counterbalance Murray’s over reliance upon the divine sovereignty, we saw that two things were necessary: giving weight to the bible’s emphasis on the role of faith; and explicating the bible’s doctrine o f the believer’s union with Christ in his death and resurrection. Ironically, in respect of the latter, Murray’s understanding of union with Christ as described in his doctrine of definitive sanctification was fundamental. We were with Christ in his death and resurrection, believes Murray. We then argued that Paul locates certain doctrines in the cross and others in the resurrection; and that these doctrines which arise out of historical union with Christ, are then existentially applied when coming to faith."]},{"key":"dc:format","label":"Dc Format","values":["text"]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["An evaluation of the soteriology of John Murray"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:contributor.sponsor":["University of Wales Trinity Saint David"],"dc:creator":["Harley, John"],"dc:date":["2022-05-22"],"dc:date.issued":["2022-05"],"dc:description.abstract":["John Murray (1898-1975) was professor of Systematic Theology at Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 1937-1966. We argue that Murray’s soteriology was indeed a true reflection of his mentor’s, John Calvin’s, theology. The differences in both men’s respective soteriologies were partly attributed to Calvin’s quidqualis distinction, within which he sometimes made contradictory statements, but which nevertheless suited his purpose of particularism. Even accepting that Calvin’s theology was slightly more Christological than Murray’s, both men over emphasised the sovereignty o f God, in their zeal to protect salvation from human autonomy. To counterbalance Murray’s over reliance upon the divine sovereignty, we saw that two things were necessary: giving weight to the bible’s emphasis on the role of faith; and explicating the bible’s doctrine o f the believer’s union with Christ in his death and resurrection. Ironically, in respect of the latter, Murray’s understanding of union with Christ as described in his doctrine of definitive sanctification was fundamental. We were with Christ in his death and resurrection, believes Murray. We then argued that Paul locates certain doctrines in the cross and others in the resurrection; and that these doctrines which arise out of historical union with Christ, are then existentially applied when coming to faith."],"dc:format":["text"],"dc:identifier.doi":["10.82227/repository.uwtsd.ac.uk.00002051"],"dc:identifier.grantnumber":["UWTSD"],"dc:identifier.uri":["https://repository.uwtsd.ac.uk/id/eprint/2051/1/2051%20Harley%2C%20John.%20John%20Murray%20%281999%29.pdf"],"dc:publisher.commercial":["University of Wales Trinity Saint David"],"dc:publisher.department":["Traethodau PhD","Institute of Education and Humanities"],"dc:publisher.institution":["University of Wales Trinity Saint David"],"dc:relation.isreferencedby":["https://repository.uwtsd.ac.uk/id/eprint/2051/"],"dc:subject":["BT Diwinyddiaeth Athrawiaethol"],"dc:title":["An evaluation of the soteriology of John Murray"],"dc:type":["Gosodiad"],"dc:type.qualificationlevel":["doctoral"],"dc:type.qualificationname":["phd"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-24T05:52:56Z"}