Title of the Essay
Write a document analysis on any ONE (1) of the following, paying particular attention to the stated or implied aims and outcomes of the document: Selections from “The Westminster Confession of Faith” (1643). (Bettenson, Documents of the Christian Church, pp 319-323).
Commentary:
So this is a document that I really didn’t have any real background on. I don’t really know much about the puritan period and I wasn’t really very attuned to the document. I also am Arminian leaning and so, I am really probably not too aligned with the predestination aspects of this document.
I am really drowning in assignments at the moment. So I made the decision to take my foot off the accelerator for this assignment and thought I would get a pass but not a good mark. Pleasant surprise to get a 90% High Distinction.
Abstract
The Westminster Confession developed and presented in 1646 was commissioned in response to a tumultuous political and religious setting in England, in response to Continental Radicalism imported from Europe. It was particularly concerned with the potential of one specific radicalism, Arminian doctrine, to infiltrate England and sought to counter this with the Calvinist doctrine of Predestination. Born out of the “Solemn League and Covenant” that Parliament had signed with Scotland, it was heavily influenced by Scottish Presbyterianism, and a substantial portion of the document supports the doctrines of that church. Nevertheless, Clause I around the primacy of Holy Scripture has been an enduring legacy of the document to this day, with commentators referring to it as a foundational statement of the infallibility of Scripture.
Introduction
In Europe, the war between Protestant and Catholic was raging, leaving a dreadful, fiery ruin of Magdeburg, seemingly being repeated in Ireland, just across the water from England. Against this backdrop, a decision was made to codify a doctrinal position designed to shore up Protestantism. It was developed in the face of a king whom no one in the realm trusted and whose own doctrinal position was uncertain and unsafe given his Arminian leanings.
The principal position of the Westminster Confession of 1643 is found from the first clause where Scripture as the word of the sovereign God, is exalted. God’s sovereignty underpins virtually every clause. The document lays out the ramifications of God’s sovereignty in fine detail which includes the very nature of soteriology in God’s election.
The Political and Religious Background of the Westminster Confession
In June 1643, the English Parliament set out on a program of reforms aiming to “procure and preserve the peace of the Church… and for the vindicating and clearing of the doctrine of the Church… from all false calumnies and aspersion, it is thought fit and necessary to call an Assembly of learned, godly and judicious divines.”[1] Against the political and ecclesiastical problems acutely affecting England in 1643, this was a difficult task to achieve. Parliament was at war with Charles I, and the Protestant movement itself was in the midst of a cold war between the Laudian (Arminian leaning) and Puritan (Calvinist leaning) parties.[2] In fact, immediately before the calling of the assembly in 1643, Parliament had lost a series of battles against the King, which made the work of the assembly more urgent since Parliament saw the losses as a sign of God’s judgement on the nation.[3]
Charles I had married a Roman Catholic princess and worse, was favouring Arminian adherents who were opposed to the doctrines of Calvin held by both the Puritans and Presbyterians.[4] The basis of the assembly was clearly a function of politics and military need. Parliament, in its struggle with Charles I had called on an alliance with Scotland, and Scotland’s condition was the signing of the Solemn League and Covenant, requiring the abandoning of “Episcopal polity and establish[ing] Presbyterian standards of doctrine and worship.”[5] In 1646, the Confession was produced.
Arminus and Calvin
Underlying many of the clauses in the Confession, nearly a third in fact, is the conflict between Arminian and Calvinist positions on free will and the doctrine of predestination (Clause III, VI, IX, X, XI, XVII, XVIII, XXVIII, XXIX).[6] Calvin’s central theology was God’s sovereignty.[7] Arminius argued that divine election for salvation is conditioned by man’s free will, not denying the sovereignty of God, but standing contrary to Calvin’s ideas of predestination based on God’s absolute sovereignty.[8] That this is the nub addressed in many of the clauses of the Confession is incontrovertible.[9] Note Clause III: “By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestined unto everlasting life, and others foreordained to everlasting death.”; or Clause VI on the fall of man, “…whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil.” indicating our inability to exercise free will to choose God. Clause IX reinforces this doctrinal position: “Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good…”
Calvinism, by way of John Knox and the Scottish Presbyterian Church and the Solemn League and Covenant, was to be the new foundation of the English Church.[10]
Holy Scripture as Foundation
In an environment in which ideas from radicals such as Thomas Müntzer and the Zwickau Prophets, and doctrines such as Sola Spiritus, were gaining currency through men such as Lodowicke Muggleton and John Reeve,[11] the first clause of the Confession stands as a foundation for Sola Scriptura. In setting the scene for the sovereignty of God, it makes the link by establishing Holy Scripture as the infallible word of God, who is truth itself.[12] At some level then, the sovereignty of God is established over Scripture by rejecting human involvement in direct inspiration, including subsequent revelation through the Church.[13] The Puritans held the Bible in high esteem, so it makes sense that the first substantive words of the Confession relate to “Holy Scripture”.[14] The key to the Divines’ reasoning therefore, was that “God was the author of Scripture, making it the Word of God, of divine origin and authority” and therefore held “…the logical priority for… all religious knowledge.”[15]
In essence, this is an argument for the authority of and sufficiency of Scripture. Francis Turretin (1623-1687), quoted by Oliphant, states that the Scriptures “have a theological and infallible certainty which cannot possibly deceive the true believer illuminated by the Spirit of God”.[16] However, Oliphant goes on to highlight Warfield’s argument that the confession is not pointing to an establishment of Scripture’s authority, but rather to the strength of the drafters’ confession of Scripture’s authority, that we can identify through the eyes of faith, as evidence of that authority.[17]
Foreordained, Predestined
Clause III of the Confession contains the words, “…some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life and others foreordained to everlasting death…”. This clause provides the blueprint for the Covenant Theology of the Confession. It gives full confessional status to the theology for the first time, though it had appeared previously in the Irish Articles.[18] Briefly stated, the covenantal structures of the Covenant of Redemption and Covenant of Grace subordinate predestination to God’s covenantal purpose. This clause integrates the Covenants and predestination, making predestination and reprobation to serve God’s covenantal economy of grace and work, a point developed further in Clause VII.[19]
Free-Will and Liberty of Conscience
Whilst these clauses do not constitute the majority, the tranche devoted to dispelling Arminianism is indicative of the background issue in the mid-1600s.[20] Daniell highlights this, pointing on the effect of Continental radicalism and the growth of “aberrant views”, while cautioning that this might be an overblown view of the landscape.[21] Regardless, the presentation of Calvinist protestant theology around the effects of the fall of man (Clause VI), the loss of will to spiritual good (Clause IX), the perseverance of the saints (Clauses XI, XVII), the loss of the unregenerate (Clause XVII), the assurance of grace (Clause XVIII), God’s sovereignty over our conscience (Clause XX), the effect of baptism as sign of regeneration (Clause XXVIII) and even the designation of “worthy receivers” of the sacrament of the Lord’s supper (Clause XXIX) is evidence that the document was designed to counter a specific doctrinal position that “threatened” the kingdom.[22]
Implications of the Confession
The true hub of the Confession is the eternal decree “for the manifestation of his glory” (Clause III), a call similar to that of 2 Corinthians 4:6, to see “the light of the knowledge of the glory of God” in “the face of Jesus Christ”.[23] The Confession, in particular Clause VIII, is designed to elevate the glory of God in the doctrine of “this high mystery of predestination [which must be] handled with special prudence and care”.[24]
Were the Confession’s Aims and Outcomes achieved?
The commissioners and the broader assembly took seriously the charge to respond to the “false calumnies and aspersions” gaining ascendancies in England.[25] Despite the Assembly’s best efforts, within 100 years in England the desired outcomes of the confession simply had not taken root, and radicalism had gained a foothold: 18th century England looked on the commissioners with “generally unfavourable eyes”.[26] Indeed, what was radical then to the Divines, would within generations become “culturally orthodox” today.[27]
The Confession Today
The Confession still holds a place of honour in the Scottish Presbyterian church, but its role in English churches is diminished, because the events of politics overtook it in the strife between the military and Parliament over what shape religion in the nation should take, and not least in the influence of Kings Charles’ death which did more to shape that outcome than anything he had done in his life.[28] An interesting development of the Confession is its impact on the debates around inerrancy, styled “infallibility” by Warfield in defending the Westminster doctrine for a modern context.[29] Clause I therefore becomes a foundational argument in Warfield, but also the considerations leading to the 1978 Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy.[30] A key issue, particularly in the translation of the Confession to the American Presbyterian iteration of the church, was the Confession’s view of the civil magistrate which opposed the aims of a “godly American republic” (Clause XXIII).[31]
Conclusion
A document designed to resist continental radicalism and respond to “false calumnies and aspersions”, the Westminster Confession could be argued to have at least provided a focal point for doctrine in a time of immense turmoil. However, its effect dissipated to a large degree in the very turmoil in which it was born. Nevertheless, in various forms, from its honoured position in the Scottish Presbyterian church, to its modified form in American Presbyterianism, to its dilute form in the views expressed in The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, the Confession has an enduring legacy.
[1] William Beveridge quoted in Clif Daniell, “The Westminster Assembly and 17th Century English Radicalism: Resolutions and Reformations,” The Confessional Presbyterian 16 (2020): 93, https://research.ebsco.com/plink/ff6395a2-5e9c-34e1-b199-030eca433191; John D Woodbridge and Frank A James III, Church History: Volume Two: From Prereformation to the Present Day (Zondervan, 2013), Two:278.
[2] Daniell, “Westminster,” 93; Diarmaid MacCullouch, Reformation: Europe’s House Divided 1490-1700 (2003; Penguin Books, 2004), 520; Woodbridge and James III, Church History 2, Two:279.
[3] Daniell, “Westminster,” 95.
[4] Eric Landry and Michael S Horton, eds., The Reformation Then and Now (Hendrickson Publishers Inc, 2017), 236.
[5] Woodbridge and James III, Church History 2, Two:276.
[6] Note that all references to the Westminster Confession, unless otherwise stated, will be from Henry Bettenson and Chris Maunder, eds., Documents of the Christian Church, Fourth. (1943; Oxford University Press, 2011).
[7] Sergio Celis Cuellar, “God’s Sovereignty in the Teachings of Calvin and Arminius: Implications for the Doctrine of Judgment Part I,” Advenimiento 10.1 (2022): 36, https://research.ebsco.com/linkprocessor/plink?id=b72714db-fa4c-3dcb-ae56-68ea740bfeb8.
[8] “rather [Arminius] wanted to adjust those aspects he considered incongruent with… God’s character” Celis Cuellar, “Sovereignty,” 36–37, 57.
[9] James W Scott, “The Doctrine of Immediate Inspiration in the Westminster Confession,” Mid-America Journal of Theology 34 (2023): 59, https://research.ebsco.com/linkprocessor/plink?id=585e9966-aa22-366a-ae77-c9fb438f2f94.
[10] MacCullouch, Reformation, 293; Landry and Horton, The Reformation, 236–37; Scott, “Inspiration,” 58.
[11] Daniell, “Westminster,” 97–98.
[12] Scott, “Inspiration,” 55.
[13] Scott, “Inspiration,” 55–56; esp Catholicism K Scott Oliphint, “‘How Firm a Foundation’ and the Westminster Confession of Faith,” Unio Cum Christo 5.2 (2019): 84, https://research.ebsco.com/plink/b9e62f1f-ffa3-37fe-a176-d6933a37fddb.
[14] Woodbridge and James III, Church History 2, Two:279.
[15] Muller “Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics” (vol 2 2003) quoted in Scott, “Inspiration,” 61.
[16] Turretin, Institutes, 1:89 (2.6.11) quoted in Oliphint, “Foundation,” 85.
[17] Oliphint, “Foundation,” 86.
[18] Holmes Rolston, “Responsible Man in Reformed Theology: Calvin versus the Westminster Confession,” Scottish Journal of Theology 23.2 (1970): 131, https://research.ebsco.com/plink/264a2787-dcf2-32af-9fd8-8cd7cd272c42.
[19] Rolston, “Responsible,” 133.
[20] Oliphint, “Foundation,” 86.
[21] Daniell, “Westminster,” 94; For a historical perspective through to Dort, note Jeffrey T Riddle, “Has the Bible Been Kept Pure?: The Westminster Confession of Faith and the Providential Preservation of Scripture,” Puritan Reformed Journal 11.2 (2019): 237–43, https://research.ebsco.com/linkprocessor/plink?id=1b932bdb-a5ff-3692-a967-1361853201f3.
[22] Daniel R Hyde, “Handling a High Mystery: The Westminster Confession on Preaching Predestination,” Puritan Reformed Journal 2.2 (2010): 236, https://research.ebsco.com/plink/a360daba-ead2-3608-9132-283b7cb3154a.
[23] Oliphint, “Foundation,” 92.
[24] Hyde, “Predestination,” 244.
[25] Daniell, “Westminster,” 99.
[26] Daniell, “Westminster,” 106.
[27] Daniell, “Westminster,” 106.
[28] MacCullouch, Reformation, 524.
[29] Jared C Hood, “Warfield, Infallibility, and the Westminster Confession,” The Reformed Theological Review 80.1 (2021): 50, https://research.ebsco.com/plink/34db9b93-7da3-3ff4-ad57-b9ba05d35b51.
[30] Hood, “Warfield, Infallibility, and the Westminster Confession,” 50.
[31] Kevin DeYoung, “A Tale of Two Texts: How the Westminster Confession of Faith Was Changed by American Presbyterians to Reflect a New Understanding of the Civil Magistrate,” Themelios 49.2 (2024): 295, https://research.ebsco.com/plink/bb0ff155-4718-3a8a-bf6a-27e9df68d4bc.
Bibliography
Bettenson, Henry, and Chris Maunder, eds. Documents of the Christian Church. Fourth. 1943. Repr., Oxford University Press, 2011.
Celis Cuellar, Sergio. “God’s Sovereignty in the Teachings of Calvin and Arminius: Implications for the Doctrine of Judgment Part I.” Advenimiento 10.1 (2022): 36–57. https://research.ebsco.com/linkprocessor/plink?id=b72714db-fa4c-3dcb-ae56-68ea740bfeb8.
Daniell, Clif. “The Westminster Assembly and 17th Century English Radicalism: Resolutions and Reformations.” The Confessional Presbyterian 16 (2020): 93. https://research.ebsco.com/plink/ff6395a2-5e9c-34e1-b199-030eca433191.
DeYoung, Kevin. “A Tale of Two Texts: How the Westminster Confession of Faith Was Changed by American Presbyterians to Reflect a New Understanding of the Civil Magistrate.” Themelios 49.2 (2024): 281–95. https://research.ebsco.com/plink/bb0ff155-4718-3a8a-bf6a-27e9df68d4bc.
Hood, Jared C. “Warfield, Infallibility, and the Westminster Confession.” The Reformed Theological Review 80.1 (2021): 49–75. https://research.ebsco.com/plink/34db9b93-7da3-3ff4-ad57-b9ba05d35b51.
Hyde, Daniel R. “Handling a High Mystery: The Westminster Confession on Preaching Predestination.” Puritan Reformed Journal 2.2 (2010): 235–58. https://research.ebsco.com/plink/a360daba-ead2-3608-9132-283b7cb3154a.
Landry, Eric, and Michael S Horton, eds. The Reformation Then and Now. Hendrickson Publishers Inc, 2017.
MacCullouch, Diarmaid. Reformation: Europe’s House Divided 1490-1700. 2003. Repr., Penguin Books, 2004.
Oliphint, K Scott. “‘How Firm a Foundation’ and the Westminster Confession of Faith.” Unio Cum Christo 5.2 (2019): 81–95. https://research.ebsco.com/plink/b9e62f1f-ffa3-37fe-a176-d6933a37fddb.
Riddle, Jeffrey T. “Has the Bible Been Kept Pure?: The Westminster Confession of Faith and the Providential Preservation of Scripture.” Puritan Reformed Journal 11.2 (2019): 225–31. https://research.ebsco.com/linkprocessor/plink?id=1b932bdb-a5ff-3692-a967-1361853201f3.
Rolston, Holmes. “Responsible Man in Reformed Theology: Calvin versus the Westminster Confession.” Scottish Journal of Theology 23.2 (1970): 129–56. https://research.ebsco.com/plink/264a2787-dcf2-32af-9fd8-8cd7cd272c42.
Scott, James W. “The Doctrine of Immediate Inspiration in the Westminster Confession.” Mid-America Journal of Theology 34 (2023): 55–84. https://research.ebsco.com/linkprocessor/plink?id=585e9966-aa22-366a-ae77-c9fb438f2f94.
Woodbridge, John D, and Frank A James III. Church History: Volume Two: From Prereformation to the Present Day. Vol. Two. Zondervan, 2013.