# The Nature of the Westminster Standards?



## brianeschen (Feb 1, 2011)

My main question: Is the Westminster a consensus document?

Background for this question: I was reading an article written by J. V. Fesko in the Westminster Theological Journal [WTJ 63 (2001) 235-49] entitled "The Days of Creation and Confessional Subscription in the OPC." In this article the author makes the argument that the Westminster Assembly was purposefully imprecise in its formulation of certain doctrines so as to include all strands of Reformed theology. Examples he gave of doctrines permitted by the standards included 1) Amyraldianism, 2) Denial of the imputation of Christ's active obedience, 3) Supralapsarian & Infralapsarian, 4) Theonomy & anti Theonomy and 5) The interpretation of the meaning of "in the space of six days" allowing for ordinary and non ordinary days. 

Quote from the article:


> If the OPC adopts a twenty-four-hour view to the exclusion of all other views, then the OPC will begin to turn the Confession into the very thing that it never was intended to be—the confession of one particular strand of Reformed theology rather than a consensus document. On the days of creation, those in favor of the twenty-four-hour view might succeed. If they do, the question we will then face is, Which strand of Reformed theology will eventually triumph? The supra- or infralapsarians, the theonomists or non-theonomists, the classical apologetes or the presuppositionalists, the pre-, a-, or postmillenialists, hymn singers or exclusive psalmists, redemptive-historical or traditional preachers?



Are the Westminster Standards a consensus document as described by Pastor Fesko? If so, to what degree? How do we determine what the divines were being intentionally vague about?

I appreciate any help in understanding this issue.


----------



## MW (Feb 1, 2011)

brianeschen said:


> My main question: Is the Westminster a consensus document?


 
Sometimes there is a concerted effort to maintain a reformed catholicism as over against a specific school of interpretation but it must be shown from the records that a specific teaching sought consensus. The Amyraldians were not accommodated by the divines. They were rightfully put in their place, as the Minutes will show, and the Confession specifically states that Christ's redemption and its application are co-extensive. On creation, there is no record of debate either in the reformed tradition or the Assembly. "In the space of six days" is specific and can only refer to one fact -- literalism. Premillennialism (what was called chiliasm) is specifically rejected by the connection of the second coming with the resurrection and final judgment. Certain strains of "historicism" find their way into the standards in relation to the Jews and the Antichrist, so it is clear that the standards are at least biased in the direction of what is now called postmillennialism without requiring one to denounce idealist interpretations of Revelation. On theonomy, the standards teach a broader but not a narrower view of the application of God's law to society today. They clearly espouse Psalms in worship, as the history of the Dircetory of Worship will show. Finally, they can be understood as teaching either supra- or infralapsarianism, but any knowledge of the debate will show that it was regarded as a point of strict logic, and the logic of the Standards is distinctively supralapsarian.


----------



## Scott1 (Feb 2, 2011)

"Consensus" in that it is, amazingly so, precise to address only what was clear in Scripture- and to say no more, no less.

The section on infants dying in infancy is a good example of that- it establishes that there is reason to hope, but not demand, not saying how many or how few infants dying in infancy are saved, because salvation is completely and utterly the act of a sovereign God.


----------



## TimV (Feb 2, 2011)

armourbearer said:


> and the Confession specifically states that Christ's redemption and its application are co-extensive.



I thought you pointed out last year that they changed the word "whole" to "perfect" obedience to accommodate three Englishmen who didn't believe Christ's active obedience was salvic, and it was a compromise that no one was happy with, but a compromise none the less. Where does is speak of His redemption being co-extensive?


----------



## sastark (Feb 2, 2011)

Brian: Is Dr. Fesko's article what passes for scholarship these days (or back in 2001)? I don't see legitimate research, I see a blatant scare tactic in order to justify anti-confessional points of view. "If we allow the 6/24 boogie-men to push this through, we'll all be stoning sodomites and declaring classical apologists heretics." NONSENSE! The WCF is a consensus document and the Reformed consensus at the time of its writing was that God made all things "in the space of six days." Only centuries later do we find Presbyterian compromising with the "cutting edge" science of their day: geology. The Confession is a Reformed consensus document, and heterodox positions which deny creation is six days are outside of that Reformed consensus.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Feb 2, 2011)

I think some of the contentions about original intent of the Westminster Assembly, whether it was consensus or over minority objections, are way off, when there is no evidence in the Assembly documents or minutes to support them. Creation is a prime example. It ends up arguing from silence or adducing literature that the Assembly should have been aware of and known about so they must have included those views in their "consensus."


----------



## jogri17 (Feb 2, 2011)

A lot of calvinistic historians would disagree with that. For example: 
Curt Daniel says it comes down on the side of infra.

I presume you are relying on the work of Dr. Guy M. Richard in the CPJ?


----------



## Wayne (Feb 2, 2011)

Seth:

Did Fesko actually say that? :



> "If we allow the 6/24 boogie-men to push this through, we'll all be stoning sodomites and declaring classical apologists heretics."



I gather not, but rather that you are putting words in his mouth. In which case, I don't think that's a helpful way to argue your points. You can have differences with him, but this isn't the way to do it, not if you truly want to advance your own arguments.


----------



## sastark (Feb 2, 2011)

Wayne, I did not say Fesko said that. I am using hyperbole to make my point. Fesko is (was, since the article was written back in 2001) attempting to rally the troops. The idea is (was) if the OPC upholds a 6/24 view, then those who hold to non-theonomy, non-presuppositional apologetics, non-postmillennialism will be next on the witch hunt. The argument goes: You, Rev. John Doe, hold to non-theonomy, so you must allow non-6/24 interpretations of the days of Gen. 1, or else you're next. It's a classic bit of rhetoric, but scholarship it is not.


----------



## Wayne (Feb 2, 2011)

> "Are you saying Fesko was engaging in hyperbole, to rally the troops?" he said with a wry smile.



I'll admit a general problem with hyperbole, Seth. It's too easily batted down ("I never said any such thing") and I think it usually sidetracks rather than advance the discussion.

Seriously, I'm trying to help here, not be argumentative. But will bow out on this now, my point stated, for what it's worth.


----------



## jogri17 (Feb 2, 2011)

I say we hold the debates until the minutes come out and are available to everyone at their local theological libraries!


----------



## Prufrock (Feb 2, 2011)

TimV said:


> I thought you pointed out last year that they changed the word "whole" to "perfect" obedience to accommodate three Englishmen who didn't believe Christ's active obedience was salvic, and it was a compromise that no one was happy with, but a compromise none the less. Where does is speak of His redemption being co-extensive?



Hi Tim,

I think you may have misunderstood which point Rev. Winzer was answering here. The statement about his redemption and application being co-extensive is in answer to the Amyraldian question, not the active obedience question. WCF 8.1 and 8.8 address that point.

Re: the three Englishmen you referred to - I assume it was a discussion dealing with Twisse, Gataker and Vines. Just a quick historical point on that. It should be noted that no one at the assembly denied that Christ's obedience (active or otherwise) was salvific: the question related to _how_ that was the case, not _whether_ it was the case; and, incidentally (while I can't speak for Vines), Twisse and Gataker should not necessarily be lumped together as maintaining the same position as one another.The question (at least during the time of the assembly) was not really framed in terms of _whether both an active and a passive obedience were imputed_; for, while these concepts can be distinguished, they are not really separate "things," and there is a difference in category between obedience and righteousness. Some theologians maintained the Christ's perfect keeping of the positive demands of the law (active obedience) rendered him a fit and spotless sacrifice (answering to the punitive demands of the law), so that perfect satisfaction could be made to God's justice; and there were other variations of this concept. Many of the theologians who maintained positions of this nature did so through keen awareness of initial disputes with Rome at the time of the Reformation. Also, some feared that the standard formulae would give weight to Antinomian statements that we no longer had to obey the law ourselves. No one denied that Christ's fulfilling all the commandments is salvific, or contributes to our salvation: it was just a question of _how_.

Hope you're doing well, brother.


----------



## TimV (Feb 2, 2011)

Thanks, Paul!


----------



## py3ak (Feb 2, 2011)

FTR, Tim, you might be thinking of this post or of this thread.


----------



## sastark (Feb 2, 2011)

Wayne said:


> > "Are you saying Fesko was engaging in hyperbole, to rally the troops?" he said with a wry smile.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Wayne, I genuinely appreciate the help (and that's not hyperbole!). I will keep your advice in mind in future discussions.


----------



## TimV (Feb 2, 2011)

Thanks, Ruben!


----------



## MW (Feb 2, 2011)

TimV said:


> I thought you pointed out last year that they changed the word "whole" to "perfect" obedience to accommodate three Englishmen who didn't believe Christ's active obedience was salvic, and it was a compromise that no one was happy with, but a compromise none the less. Where does is speak of His redemption being co-extensive?


 
Paul has ably distinguished the two points. My statement regarding Amyraldians refers to the extent of the atonement, not the imputation of righteousness. The issue which revolves around active obedience would be one clearcut example of consensus, but there is ample evidence in the records to demonstrate this point; it is not something made up out of thin air. To clarify, I don't believe anyone in particular was accommodated, for that is not the nature of a confession; it is reformed catholicism which is maintained against idiosyncratic views.


----------



## MW (Feb 2, 2011)

jogri17 said:


> I say we hold the debates until the minutes come out and are available to everyone at their local theological libraries!


 
One volume (the most important) of the Minutes has been available for quite a long time and there are more records of discussion than what is found in the Minutes. Lightfoot, Baillie, and Gillespie are all available as primary source material, as well as the Fast Day sermons and numerous volumes from the divines.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Feb 2, 2011)

As noted the one volume Mitchell & Struthers should be useful for a lot of this kind of thing in addition to the other accounts. The Van Dixhoorn Minutes have been somewhat available. 13 sets came to the US when Chad's dissertation was completed and various scholars have resorted to it at the happy institutions that picked up a copy. No one local to me got a set but I was one of two individuals that obtained sets, and very grateful to have been offered one (but rather expensive). Otherwise it had been a long wait since 2005 to do any work. Oxford was supposed to publish in 2010 but maybe it will be 2011 now. The Oxford should be superior and hopefully much more indexed.


armourbearer said:


> jogri17 said:
> 
> 
> > I say we hold the debates until the minutes come out and are available to everyone at their local theological libraries!
> ...


----------



## MW (Feb 2, 2011)

NaphtaliPress said:


> As noted the one volume Mitchell & Struthers should be useful for a lot of this kind of thing in addition to the other accounts. The Van Dixhoorn Minutes have been somewhat available. 13 sets came to the US when Chad's dissertation was completed and various scholars have resorted to it at the happy institutions that picked up a copy. No one local to me got a set but I was one of two individuals that obtained sets, and very grateful to have been offered one (but rather expensive). Otherwise it had been a long wait since 2005 to do any work. Oxford was supposed to publish in 2010 but maybe it will be 2011 now. The Oxford should be superior and hopefully much more indexed.


 
Thanks Chris. Yes, it will definitely be a great advantage to obtain the complete Minutes in a new edition.


----------



## brianeschen (Feb 3, 2011)

sastark said:


> The Confession is a Reformed consensus document, and heterodox positions which deny creation is six days are outside of that Reformed consensus.





NaphtaliPress said:


> Creation is a prime example. It ends up arguing from silence or adducing literature that the Assembly should have been aware of and known about so they must have included those views in their "consensus."


So would you say the Westminster Standards is a consensus document in that it stated what most of the Assembly believed? This seems to be different than what Pastor Fesko is arguing as he is saying that the document is vague enough to accommodate minority views thereby leaving the minority views within the scope of Reformed Confessions. Therefore, it is a consensus document. For example (and this is the main point of his article), you can believe that the days of creation are not ordinary days and still in good faith say that you agree with that part of the Standards . . . no stated difference is required to your Presbytery for pastors who hold that view.

Your definition of "consensus" appears to be different than Pastor Fesko's.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Feb 3, 2011)

I would disagree the language is vague as far as what the Divines meant (literal six days). I think David Hall's work makes that clear. The question is of course mute in the PCA since the creation report. But in general, absent an action by a subsequent adopting body (like the PCA or OPC etc) we should not simply allow importation of a meaning to the words of the standards that is broader than the original intent of the assembly. 


brianeschen said:


> sastark said:
> 
> 
> > The Confession is a Reformed consensus document, and heterodox positions which deny creation is six days are outside of that Reformed consensus.
> ...


----------



## brianeschen (Feb 3, 2011)

NaphtaliPress said:


> I would disagree the language is vague as far as what the Divines meant (literal six days).


Thank you for the response. That is the way it seemed to me as well, without having the background information. That is naturally how one understands the English language. 


NaphtaliPress said:


> The question is of course mute in the PCA since the creation report.



Did the creation report change the force of the Confession on the point of the days of Creation? Is the PCA position that it is not required to state a difference with the Standards to hold to non ordinary days?

Is it the case that the meaning of the Westminster Standards is important as well as what the adopting body says about a particular subject? For instance, the PCA can determine by way of a report that the divines did not exclusively mean six days (as we understand days) and therefore a pastor does not need to be granted an exception for holding to non-literal days. If this is the case, it seems that the Standards have been changed in an unconstitutional manner . . . by way of a report. The result is division instead of unity.

For application purposes, as an elder in the PCA is it wrong to promote the idea in Presbytery that a Teaching Elder should state a difference if his views are different on the subject of Creation? Is this matter settled in the PCA by reason of Pastor Fesko's "consensus" argument?


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Feb 3, 2011)

I don't recall the report specifics; but I do recall that even David Hall argued on the floor of GA that the issue was not about disallowing different views than literal six day. 
Perhaps Wayne can fill in my gaps on the report.


brianeschen said:


> NaphtaliPress said:
> 
> 
> > I would disagree the language is vague as far as what the Divines meant (literal six days).
> ...


----------



## Oecolampadius (Feb 3, 2011)

With regards to the issue of the Imputation of the Active Obedience of Christ, Alan Strange addressed the issue in an article that was published in CPJ 4 2008. I believe he used the Van Dixhoorn Minutes but the bulk of his arguments were drawn from when the Assembly were discussing the revision of the 39 Articles.

I would like to provide more information but I'm missing my copy.


----------



## proregno (Feb 3, 2011)

See this related article (Presbyterian Appeasement, by dr. John Byl), about the 'in the space of six days' issue here.

One quote:

"In the same manner that, as noted by Estelle, one cannot build an historical gospel on a non-historical Adam, so, likewise, one cannot build an historical Adam on a largely non-historical Genesis 1-11. The story of Adam--and his fall-- is very plausible within the context of the biblical account of origins. However, when shoe-horned into the origins tale of mainstream science, the biblical Adam simply does not fit. See, for example, my post The Cost of an Old Earth. Estelle's drawing of the line at Adam is abitrary, inconsistent with his rationale for silencing Genesis 1. 

It is thus not surprising that other Presbyterian theologians, applying the same faulty epistemology more consistently, have taken the next logical step of caving in also to biological evolution. Consider, for example, theologian Dr. Bruce Waltke's argument for embracing human evolution ..."


----------



## timmopussycat (Feb 3, 2011)

On the question of Theonomy vs. Anti-Theonomy (if, by Theonomy you mean the ethical perspective of Christian Reconstruction popularized by Bahnsen and others) the facts are clear: the Divines were not Theonomists. Although they accepted the continuity of Mosaic crimes and punishments in particular cases, they did not adopt the position taken by two of their number (Cawdrey and Palmer) that requiried the Christian Magistrate to implement all Divinely unamended Mosaic laws. Instead, the Divines recognized that the Mosaic system as such had "expired together with the state of that people" while some laws, those that "general equity may require", could be legitimately instituted by Christian magistrates. 
Sinclair Ferguson (An Assembly of Theonomists in Theonomy: A Reformed Critique) has suggested that WCF 19:4 was designed to accommodate a measure of consensus between a range of views and a reading of the relevant sources (found in CPJ 5 The Westminster Assembly & and the Judicial Law Part 1 Chronology) will show that he is almost certainly correct.


----------



## discipulo (Feb 3, 2011)

I know very little about the Westminster Assembly, I've been trying to correct that by reading Robert Letham's tome with great profit,

but I had the idea that Church Polity was The matter where the divines agreed to disagree, namely not stating

Presbyterianism in detriment of Episcopalianism or vice versa. Any thoughts on this?


----------



## sastark (Feb 3, 2011)

brianeschen said:


> For application purposes, as an elder in the PCA is it wrong to promote the idea in Presbytery that a Teaching Elder should state a difference if his views are different on the subject of Creation? Is this matter settled in the PCA by reason of Pastor Fesko's "consensus" argument?



As far as I'm aware (and, understand that my experience is limited to my own denomination), at the time of examination, anyone on the floor of Presbytery can ask questions of the TE being examined. Do they allow that in the PCA? A pointed question may not prevent the TE from being transferred/ordained in your Presbytery, but it may get you the information you need and whatever his answer is will then be a matter of record.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Feb 3, 2011)

That the Westminster Standards had consensus statements with a range of interpretation is undeniable. Though I think it's clear historically that the creation days were not one of those statements. 

But the matter is more complicated by the "animus imponentus" principle. The language can take on broader meaning or allowable interpretations if the body adopting the document chooses to read it that way. Both Strange and Fesko have discussed this before. So for example, it's clear the Divines did not specifiy "active obedience" in order to accommodate men like Twisse. But you would be hard pressed to find a conservative Presbyterian body today ordaining anyone who denies "active" obedience. So in that case they have tightened the meaning from the original. Whereas in the creation days, some denominations are broadening the allowable interpretation from the orginal. 

I'm not saying I agree with this. I'm throwing this out there to help explain what's going on ecclesiastically.


----------



## MW (Feb 3, 2011)

Puritan Sailor said:


> So for example, it's clear the Divines did not specifiy "active obedience" in order to accommodate men like Twisse.


 
This is the kind of consensus which is clearly deniable. There is no accommodation of the views of an individual or a minority. The consensus is always in the direction of maintaining catholicity among reformed churches. According to Featley's account of the discussion in the revision of the 39 articles, a compelling factor for more general terms was the way the matter had been settled by other churches.


----------



## brianeschen (Feb 4, 2011)

sastark said:


> As far as I'm aware (and, understand that my experience is limited to my own denomination), at the time of examination, anyone on the floor of Presbytery can ask questions of the TE being examined. Do they allow that in the PCA? A pointed question may not prevent the TE from being transferred/ordained in your Presbytery, but it may get you the information you need and whatever his answer is will then be a matter of record.



Each candidate is required to write theological statements before being examined. Those are included as part of the attachments of the minutes. The only things that get listed in the minutes are the stated differences and if the Presbytery granted an exception to that difference. Questions and answers don't get written in the records. 

What is interesting to me is that it is being argued that a pastor does not have to state a difference for holding to a non ordinary day view. The "consensus document" view is being used to justify it. And this appears to have been changed by a report on Creation by a GA committee in the PCA, if what Chris is saying is true. I don't understand why it would be a big deal to state a difference on one's view of Creation since the PCA allows for it anyway.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Feb 7, 2011)

armourbearer said:


> Puritan Sailor said:
> 
> 
> > So for example, it's clear the Divines did not specifiy "active obedience" in order to accommodate men like Twisse.
> ...


 
Could you explain this a little more? What do you think the difference is in "maintaining catholicity" vs. allowing different views within a certain scope? I'm not sure I see what the difference is. I agree they were aiming for catholicity. But it's also clear there were differences of opinion among the divines and yet they could all subsribe to the language chosen while maintaining their views.


----------

