M.TH. LONG DISSERTATION (LD6.1) - John Owen

John Owen’s Theological Context
In a series of interactions in the Westminster Theological Journal, 216 John Frame has
criticized Muller’s approach to history. In particular, Frame censures Muller for refusing
to ask ‘normative’ questions, such as whether the early church’s exegesis of key
trinitarian texts was correct. 217 Muller argues that legitimate historical method cannot be
inferred from Scripture; the presuppositions of historiography are ‘minimal and belong
to the realm of common sense’; 218 they are neutral, and can be shared by believers and
unbelievers alike. In contrast, Frame believes that Scripture must govern every aspect of
faith and life, including historical method, whether by explicit precept, or, at least, by
permission. Therefore, part of the historian’s task is evaluation in the light of
Scripture. 219
Building on Frame, I would argue that the historical method espoused by
scholars such as Muller, far from belonging simply to the realm of common sense,
actually represents the application to historical research of such Scriptural virtues as
honesty, love for the truth, respect for one’s interlocutors, a willingness to be quick to
listen and slow to speak, and a refusal to be judgmental. Thus, it is shaped not by neutral
common-ground shared by believers and unbelievers, but by God’s Word; unbelievers
can use this method only because of common grace.
Further, autonomous, ‘non-evaluative’ historiography is not simply undesirable;
it is impossible. As Cornelius Van Til observed, the doctrine of creation means that
humanity’s task is ‘To think God’s thoughts after him, to dedicate the universe to its
216 Frame 1994; 1997a; 1997b; Muller 1994; 1997.
217 Frame 1994: 140-44.
218 Muller 1997: 302.
219 Frame 1997b: 311-15. See also 1987: 310: ‘[God’s Word] is the historian’s criterion of evaluation.
[Historical theology] applies the Word to the church’s past for the sake of the church’s present edification’.
65