Justification is often regarded as the article by which the church stands or falls.

In this piece, John Murray dives deep to expound this essential doctrine. Originally a

Systematic Theology lecture by Murray during his tenure teaching at Westminster

Theological Seminary (1930-1966), his work aims to equip theological students to

grasp justification’s role in God’s redemption.1 As a proponent of “Old Princeton” and

the Reformed tradition, Murray seeks to uphold a high view of God’s righteousness

and the awfulness of human sin.2 Throughout this piece, he staunchly affirms the

Reformed position of salvation as God’s monergistic work, refuting the Pelagians,

Papists, Arminians and Liberals.

Murray’s central thesis is that justification is the objective work of God in

making man right with him, without any contribution on man’s part. He compellingly

substantiates this by demonstrating how each aspect of justification—its nature,

ground, and instrument—directs the focus outside of ourselves.

He begins by defining the nature of justification as forensic (204-205).

Establishing the correct definition of “justification” from the outset is very important,

especially in light of Augustine’s idea of factitive justification, which significantly

affected this historical debate. Against Augustine, Murray correctly claims that

justification is forensic since, in all Scripture’s use, it concerns one’s judicial standing

rather than moral character (205). With this exact definition, Murray confines the

1
John Murray, Collected Wri ngs of John Murray (Volume 2): Systema c Theology (Banner of Truth,
1991), 7–9.
2
Iain H. Murray, The Life of John Murray (Banner of Truth, 2007), 18.

Page 2
debate to the issue of guilt and the satisfaction of God’s justice and law.

He then insightfully highlights that soteric justification faces a unique

predicament because God’s declaration of sinners as righteous must align with truth,

leading him to propose the concept of “constitution” (206-207). He shows how similar

expressions from Scripture hint at this concept (Rom 4; 5:17, 19) and how it is included

within the act of justification itself (207-209).

Murray then claims that justification must be grounded upon perfect

righteousness since it is a definitive act. He uses Scripture’s contrast between human

and divine righteousness to eliminate any Papist notion of infused righteousness,

emphasizing that the remedy is external, found only in Christ (210-214).

Finally, he underscores the objective character of justification by emphasizing

faith as the only fitting instrument of justification (215). Unlike other graces like love or

repentance, Murray notes that faith’s distinguishing feature—its self-abandonment

and reliance on another—makes it appropriate since its efficacy depends entirely on

the object rather than the individual (216-217).

Even in his appendices section, Murray defends the objective character of

justification by arguing that the continued remission of sins addresses the issue of

God’s fatherly displeasure rather than guilt. Furthermore, he claims that justification

by faith is not opposed to good actions since good works naturally flow from it.

Page 3
 It is worth noting, however, that Murray omits the classic counterevidence

from James 2:14-16, specifically its use of the word “justified.” While this omission may

be excused as a method of keeping the emphasis on his central argument, identifying

and responding to this possible rebuttal might have increased the piece’s overall

completeness.

The Bible is Murray’s only source for his argument. Murray’s formulation of this

doctrine is guided by the principle of analogia Scripturae. He examines various

passages that address the concept of justification and harmonizes them to construct a

coherent understanding. Murray excels at organizing biblical information according to

logical categories. In his semantic analysis of “justification,” he looks for verses that

either contrast, correlate, or are synonymous with the term to establish its forensic

nature (204-205).

While this approach can occasionally lead to proof-texting, Murray avoids this

pitfall by expertly balancing his selectiveness with grammatical-historical exegesis. To

illustrate, when substantiating his concept of “constitution,” he avoids proof-texting

with a set of unrelated verses (207-208). Instead, he concentrates on a specific passage

(Romans 4-5) and by focusing on correlated phrases such as “constituted righteous”,

“gift of righteousness”, and “imputation”, he not only exegetes their respective

meanings but also reveals how the concept of “constitution” underpins the whole

passage.

Page 4
 Murray takes a deeply theological approach to scriptural interpretation, going

beyond literal meanings and delving into the underlying theological implications. His

desire for theological coherence drives him to supplement terms like “declare

righteous” with the concept of “constitution,” especially since the English translation

falls short of capturing the full theological meaning (207, 209). The strength of his

theological interpretation is showcased in his ability to construct arguments that, while

not explicitly stated in Scripture, remain true to theological principles, such as seeing

an analogy between creation and justification (209). While unchecked, theologically

innovative interpretations can be dangerous, Murray avoids this risk by grounding his

insights in his doctrine of God.

Murray’s piece emphasizes the importance of the doctrine of justification

because it affects our doctrine of God. His concept of constitution upholds God’s

truthfulness and defends the Protestant view against Papist charges of legal fiction. It

is the missing link that connects Christ’s propitiation to God’s declaration. Without this

concept, Christ would be an ineffective saviour, and God would be a liar.

Murray’s analysis of justification in terms of its logical and distinct components

effectively breaks down the concept’s complexities. His distinction between

justification’s nature and ground reveals the misleading nature of the debate between

moral and forensic justification, which erred by conflating the categories of nature and

ground (205). He effectively moves the debate forward and redirects the disagreement

by establishing that the nature of justification is undeniably forensic. His distinction

Page 5
between ground and instrument also exposes the Remonstrance error of viewing faith

as the ground of justification rather than its instrument (215-216), which dangerously

elevates faith to the level of merit.

Furthermore, by distinguishing the objective character of justification from

other aspects of redemption, such as regeneration or sanctification, Murray maintains

that the heart of the gospel is God’s work for us in Christ (202-203). This assertion

defends God’s monergistic role in salvation and rejects the Arminian and Papist

systems’ synergism.

Murray’s meticulous analysis of justification has undoubtedly shaped debates

on justification and thus remains a foundational piece for the Christian world.

Bibliography

Murray, Iain H. The Life of John Murray. Banner of Truth, 2007.

Page 6