The Westminster Assembly and Westminsterian Deviations
“The mere fact that a particular doctrine was held by an individual Westminster divine during the assembly’s debates does not automatically mean that doctrine was considered within the bounds of confessional orthodoxy by the assembly. Not everything in the WCF is a compromise.”
This is a quote from Keith Mathison, professor of systematic theology at Reformation Bible College. It’s been making the rounds, but I think it says less than Mathison hoped. There is a kind of person who will cite members of the Assembly as cover for their idiosyncratic views (e.g. hypothetical universalism and Edmund Calamy’s alleged support of it) and my guess is that Mathison is aiming at them. However, the framing in his statement needs further development in order to be helpful.
First, is there a difference between a view being excluded from the Westminster Standards and being ruled outside the bounds of confessional orthodoxy? Is it possible to hold doctrinal views excluded by the Assembly and still be within the bounds of confessional orthodoxy? How is that even evaluated? I’m thinking here of Erastianism, which was held by a small number of the divines and was very much rejected in the Westminster Confession. Are Erastians outside the bounds of confessional orthodoxy?…
The Logical Chain of the Protestant Solas
Brad East argues that historical Protestant theological claims often overreach, giving as an example the assertion that the traditional five solas logically imply each other. “Any of them might be true—all of them might be true—but irrespective of that question, each principle requires independent demonstration; the solas are not necessarily a package deal.” I think Brad overstates things, and that the solas mostly imply each other as a package deal. A couple of thoughts on the outset before I make my friendly case. First, no magisterial Reformer or Reformed church ever distilled Protestant theology into the five solas or expressed them as a foundational unit. The arrangement of the five solas came centuries later in order to categorize a simplified essence of Protestant thought. Second, the definitions embedded in the terms matter. The solas are slogans, not dogmatic categories, and depending on the definitions used different conclusions are going to be reached about their logical necessitation.
Alright, so the foundational sola is Solus Christus, namely that Christ in his person and work alone sufficiently accomplished all that is necessary for salvation. This sola is not just that Christ is the single savior, but that who he is and what he did alone saves. The Reformers argued that we are justified by the person and work of Christ alone. That logically requires that no other person or activity justifies, saves, or contributes to that salvation in any way
Christ in his person and work alone are what saves/justifies
Any other ground for salvation/justification is in addition to Christ’s work
∴ Salvation/justification is by Christ’s work (grace) alone…
Review, Control, and Synods: The Church’s Connection
The great Cappadocian church father Gregory of Nazianzus, who chaired the Council on Constantinople which settled the Nicene Creed, said “I saw the end of not even one synod as being useful”. Replace “synod” with “presbytery” and you get the idea. Herman Bavinck relays a proverb, “Every [church] council gives birth to [further] battles.” To riff on Ecclesiastes: Of meetings there is no end.
I was asked to speak on that exciting topic of “review and control” and Westminster Confession of Faith 31, “On Synods and Councils”. This risks significant boredom in our listener, or alternatively, perhaps the polity nerds are the ones already here. Yet the subject of review and control has great relevance to the ministry and mission of the church
“Review and control” is a phrase used in the EPC’s constitution and throughout American Presbyterianism, and means that higher church courts (presbyteries to sessions, general assemblies/synods to presbyteries) have the right and responsibility to review the actions of their subordinate courts and to correct them if necessary. This relationship has a confessional basis. WCF 31.2 states…
Establishment and Freedom in American, Westminsterian Confessionalism
Kevin DeYoung has a piece up at Themelios arguing that the 1788 American revisions to the Westminster Confession of Faith surrounding the civil government’s relationship to the church are substantially and irreconcilably different from the original 1647 version. Stephen Wolfe’s rejoinder I think gets the better of it: removal doesn’t imply denial. The 1788 version of the WCF only ceased requiring ministerial belief in the government’s responsibility to ensure doctrinal purity in the church, enforcement of Christianity in society, and the establishment of a national church. The revisions don’t rule those views out. Back in 2019 (pre-Christian nationalism debates) I wrote
“The 1788 version [of the WCF] does not explicitly contradict the 1647 version, it just does not specifically hold [its assertions], which means someone who agrees with 1647 may faithfully subscribe to 1788. The 1647 version of the WCF… taught that the civil government was also instituted by God, and therefore there should be no separation of church and state in a Christian society. Since both church and government were instituted by God for the ordering of society there were levels of interaction and accountability between the two. The 1647 WCF is not Erastian, but neither does it grant secular authority over the church.”
The EPC’s Confession of Faith and Women’s Ordination
Recently I have been pressed on two fronts about the ordination of women in the EPC. The first concerns my claim in Women’s Ordination in the EPC: Learning from the CRC that “[Women’s ordination] is not addressed in the Westminster Confession and Catechisms, and so lies outside the system of doctrine taught in the scriptures.” I have been challenged on whether this is an accurate representation of the Confession and Catechisms. The second concerns the absence of the topic in What the EPC Can Learn from the PCA, with some stating that for the EPC to grow numerically and to grow in doctrinal and confessional rigor requires repudiating the ordination of women.
In regards to the first claim, I have several starting presuppositions. First is that the Westminster Divines were familiar with and well-versed in the Reformational documents and debates on both the European continent and colonial America, and that these informed their deliberations and finalized standards. The second is that the Divines, as Puritans and scholastics, did not make theological or liturgical assumptions, but rather developed and defended their assumptions. The third is that the Divines were trying to forge a Puritan/Presbyterian consensus built on the pre-existing English, Scottish, and Irish Reformational confessions and liturgies. The fourth is the acknowledgement that the Assembly published more than the Confession and Catechisms, and so all of the Standards produced were intended to be taken as a unit. Yet, these additional documents were only ever adopted in Scotland, even if they influenced things in Ireland and America. The fifth is that the specific vow and formulation about “the system of doctrine” is not from the Assembly itself, but was developed by the Irish Presbyterian Church in the early 1700s and has been part of the American subscription formula since the founding of the American Presbyterian Church…
