The Upper Register Blog » Blog Archive

Bible and Confession

Last week, Scott Clark wrote on the topic of Bible and Confession. He was reacting to a comment posted by Tremper Longman on Save Our Seminary and which had been reposted on the Puritan Board. Longman had written:

I like to say that there is no institution I love as much as Westminster Seminary [Philadelphia]. However one of the reasons why I left in 1998 was my perception that the seminary was beginning to change from the deeply Reformed but outward facing institution that it was from the time that I first knew it in the 1970’s to a more inward defensive institution. I remember talking to one colleague, for instance, who told me that if I felt the Bible taught something that the Confession did not that I had to side with the Confession. That’s not the Reformed approach to the study of the Bible that I know and love. However it is a perspective that I think has only grown with time.

A couple of posters on the Puritan Board were troubled by the comment of this unnamed colleague as reported by Longman. One said, “Frankly, it sounds like something that would come out of Rome.” I would have to agree. Accordingly, then, I did not find Clark’s defense of the unnamed colleague’s comments to be helpful. I will quote some of Clark’s statements and give my response.

First, Clark writes:

The question here is not whether the bible is normative. The question is whether one person’s reading of Scripture is normative for everyone else.

This is not a helpful way of framing the question. I doubt that Longman or any other WTS faculty member who has exceptions to the Westminster Standards is asking his views to be “normative for everyone else.” He is merely asking that his views be tolerated. There is a big difference. The official position of the seminary is stated in the Confession. But if an individual professor has an exception or scruple at a certain point – say on the Sabbath or the threefold division of the Law – he wants to have the freedom to teach his understanding of the Scripture on that point, thus respectfully disagreeing with the Confession’s interpretation of Scripture on that point, while acknowledging that his view is not the view taught in the Confession and thus not the official position of the seminary. I do not understand how Clark can say that this makes the exception or scruple ”normative for everyone else.”

Now Clark does have a valid point in one sense. Clark’s valid point is that a confessional Presbyterian seminary has the right to ensure that its students are taught confessional Presbyterian doctrine. In other words, Clark is pointing out that a confessional seminary cannot allow unfettered academic freedom, otherwise it would cease to be a confessional seminary. This, of course, is true of all sorts of confessional schools, and is not limited to Presbyterian ones. He provides an example:

Is Tremper allowed to teach Presbyterian seminary students that the Bible teaches credobaptism? No, of course not. I’m not saying that Tremper was teaching credobaptism but just using this as an example. In this case there is no doubt that the confession trumps what a given prof may think the bible to teach if that conclusion contradicts what the Reformed churches hold the bible to teach.

But as valid as this point is in general, it can be a blunt instrument when we come down to the details. What Clark seems not to recognize is that there is a distinction between the Reformed and Presbyterian system of doctrine contained in the Confession and the numerous statements and teachings in the Confession that are not essential to the system of doctrine. One cannot be Reformed and Presbyterian while holding to credobaptism. The concept of infant or covenant baptism is essential to the system of doctrine. Reformed theology is agreed in holding a covenantal conception of church membership, so that the children of professing believers are members of the visible church. But Reformed theology is not monolithic on all points. One can be Reformed and hold to a Continental view of the Sabbath, even though the Standards clearly do not affirm the Continental view. One can be Reformed and hold that the civil magistrate ought not to enforce the first table of the law. One can be Reformed and hold to a variety of non-dispensational eschatological views (historic premillennialism, amillennialism, postmillennialism). One can be Reformed and hold to the framework interpretation of Genesis 1, even though the Confession itself says that God created the world ”in the space of six days.”

Were a Westminster professor to stop holding to the five points of Calvinism, or covenant theology, or infant baptism, then, yes, that professor should resign and look for a job elsewhere. But a Westminster professor who is committed to the Reformed system of doctrine should be allowed some degree of academic freedom within the realm of matters not essential to the system of doctrine.

Clark goes on:

When Tremper became a prof at WTS he swore an oath before God, the board, and the faculty that he believed the Westminster Standards ex animo - from the soul. If he came to believe that some language or chapter in the standards was unbiblical he was duty bound to take that concern to his colleagues on the faculty and failing to find satisfaction, to take it to the board.

But, in fact, Clark has misquoted the pledge that Westminster Seminary requires of its faculty. The pledge does not say that one believes the Westminster Standards ex animo. Here is the full text of the faculty pledge. Note the three references to “the system of doctrine.”

I do solemnly declare, in the presence of God, and of the Trustees and Faculty of this Seminary, that (1) I believe the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God, the only infallible rule of faith and practice; and (2) I do solemnly and ex animo adopt, receive, and subscribe to the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms in the form in which they were adopted by this Seminary in the year of our Lord 1936, as the confession of my faith, or as a summary and just exhibition of that system of doctrine and religious belief, which is contained in Holy Scripture, and therein revealed by God to man for his salvation; and I do solemnly, ex animo, profess to receive the fundamental principles of the Presbyterian form of church government, as agreeable to the inspired oracles. And I do solemnly promise and engage not to inculcate, teach, or insinuate anything which shall appear to me to contradict or contravene, either directly or impliedly, any element in that system of doctrine, nor to oppose any of the fundamental principles of that form of church government, while I continue a member of the Faculty in this Seminary. I do further solemnly declare that, being convinced of my sin and misery and of my inability to rescue myself from my lost condition, not only have I assented to the truth of the promises of the Gospel, but also I have received and rest upon Christ and His righteousness for pardon of my sin and for my acceptance as righteous in the sight of God and I do further promise that if at any time I find myself out of accord with any of the fundamentals of this system of doctrine, I will on my own initiative, make known to the Faculty of this institution and, where applicable, my judicatory, the change which has taken place in my views since the assumption of the vow.

In addition, the WTS mission statement includes this as one of the seminary’s core values:

Reformed orthodoxy, as informed by the system of doctrine contained in the Westminster Standards, represents faithfully and accurately what Scripture teaches.

Notice the careful manner in which this statement is worded. The Westminster Standards themselves are not a core value. The core value is “Reformed orthodoxy” (which is historically much broader than the Westminster Standards). Furthermore, this “Reformed orthodoxy” is ”informed by the system of doctrine contained in the Westminster Standards,” not by the Westminster Standards per se, but by “the system of doctrine” that they contain. And finally, the seminary’s core commitment is that all of this “represents faithfully and accurately what Scripture teaches.”

Westminster Seminary clearly wants to place itself within the great historic tradition of “Reformed orthodoxy,” yet to do so in a manner that provides full freedom of conscience for professors to teach (within the limits of the system of doctrine) what they believe the Scripture teaches. This seems to me to be an equitable and fair solution that respects both the need for the institution to have its own historic and confessional identity, while respecting the conscience of individual professors as they strive to exegete and apply Scripture in the 21st century within the context of a commitment to the great tradition of “Reformed orthodoxy,” which, again, is wider than the sum total of propositions contained in the Westminster Standards.

Clark concludes:

We should not be disturbed to read that someone at WTS thought that the teaching of Presbyterian seminary professors should reflect the Presbyterian reading of the bible. We should rather be disturbed by the fact that a Presbyterian seminary professor thought it odd that someone should expect him to teach like a Presbyterian.

Again, this statement is absolutely true but it equivocates by implying that “Presbyterian” is a monolithic concept permitting of no variations or nuances within the system. Surely a professor or a scholar who is not a Baptist or a Lutheran or an Episcopalian or a Catholic, but who is Reformed in his soteriology, who is committed to sola fide, covenant theology, etc., who embraces Presbyterian church government and a Presbyterian view of the sacraments, ought to be permitted to teach at a confessional Presbyterian institution even if he disagrees with specific statements in the Westminster Standards. After all the Westminster Standards deliver dicta on many more topics than those that are essential and historically constitutive of the Reformed system of doctrine.

I don’t know whether or not Longman accurately represented what his colleague said. But as reported, it is not defensible. Clark’s defense misrepresents the faculty pledge and overlooks the crucial distinction between the Westminster Standards per se and the system of doctrine that they contain.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, March 5th, 2008 at 1:49 pm and is filed under Tradition, Sola Scriptura, Presbyterianism. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

Comments are closed.