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 OPC’s New Modern Version of the Westminster Standards
I’ve written before about the EPC’s modern language edition of the Westminster Confession and Catechisms, and noted several years ago that the OPC had in 2018 created a study to modernize all of the Standards. Well, the OPC finally finished this work — in summer 2025! The OPC never does anything quickly. True presbyterians are they.
The OPC had previously in 1993 published a modern language, study version of the Westminster Confession, and I had thought that perhaps this new effort would change their actual constitutional documents. The changes were limited to morphological adjustments, replacing archaic pronouns, replacing obsolete and/or archaic words, substituting a modern translation of the Scriptures for the text of the Ten Commandments and the Lord’s Prayer, and doing all in a way that preserved the cadence, memorability and dignified style of the standards. Like the previous study version, these are very conservative changes that don’t touch the substance of the Standards’ grammar, much less its doctrine. My hope was that if the OPC formally made such a modernized constitutional change, that not only would there be a new, solid modern language version (rather than a modernized version that also lowers the reading level of the documents, as in the EPC), but also something could be pointed to as a future constitutional option for the EPC and other churches. Such an update could be a solid ecumenical foundation for modernized confessionalism. If the conservative OPC did it, why not us?…
Article up at Ref21: ‘A Missing Question in the Westminster Catechisms?’
Read the article at ref21. Here is an excerpt:
Westminster Shorter Catechism 85 asks, “What doth God require of us that we may escape his wrath and curse due to us for sin?” This is a hugely important question! The answer comes in three parts: 1) Faith in Jesus Christ. 2) Repentance unto life. 3) An answer that may make any self-respecting, sola gratia & sola fide holding Protestant spit out their coffee: The diligent use of all the outward means whereby Christ communicates to us the benefits of redemption.
There are things and our use of things that God requires for us to escape his wrath and curse. These things and our use of them is how Jesus gives us the benefits of redemption. In other words, this is how Jesus gives us salvation… This allows us to ask our question, “How is prayer made effectual for salvation…”
Year-Long, Westminster Shorter Catechism Preaching Guide
One of the advantages of the Heidelberg Catechism over the Westminster Shorter Catechism is the former’s 52-week layout. The Heidelberg Catechism’s 129 questions are divided into 52 Lord’s Day segments so that its topics could be easily arranged into a yearly preaching schedule. The Westminster Standards don’t have anything like that. This is my first attempt at crafting a 52-week topical preaching guide using the Westminster Shorter Catechism…
Reassessing the EPC’s Modern Language Westminster Standards
In 2019 I started a series on confessionalism and the EPC. My initial post received a lot of pushback and interest. That combination led to some good friendships developing and a hesitation on publishing the rest. Now I’ve decided to get the remaining, written parts of the series out there.
All posts in that series can be found here. The first article focused upon the EPC’s amendments to the Westminster Standards and can be found here, something I’ve written about additionally and more accessibly here.
This is Part II, on the EPC’s modern language versions of the Westminster Confession and Catechisms. In summary, I argue that,
- The EPC never adopted the modern language versions of the Westminster Confession and Catechisms. At different points the EPC has approved them for use or publication, but never adopted as the official doctrinal standard of the church.
- The original language version of the Westminster Confession and Catechisms were the original constitutional standard of the EPC, meaning that they are the default standard, not the modern language. If the modern language versions are to be used as the doctrinal standard of the church they would need to be approved following the constitutional amendment process.
- There are significant differences in content between the original and modern language versions of the Standards. The doctrine of God, the imputation of sin, the nature of justification, the accomplishment and application of Christ’s redemptive work, and the nature of the church and its ordinances are all articulated differently in the modern language version. These are significant areas of theology with significant divergences from the constitutional and original version of the Westminster Standards.
- The modern language versions, whether or not they were formally adopted by the EPC, are functionally the confessional standards of our church. They are promoted, published, and used in ways that the original is not. With the differences between the two versions being significant, without proactive reinterpretation by pastors, the modern language version will mislead congregants. Their use should be ended, and if a modern language version is really desired, then a more conservative and less inventive alternative should be endorsed.
