Can the Language of our Confessions be Improved?
Michael Brown
in Creeds & Confessions, Ecclessiology, John Owen
|
17 Comments
Can the precise language of our confessions be improved? John Owen thought so. Evidence of this can be found in the Savoy Declaration of 1658, a confession of which he and his colleague Thomas Goodwin were the principal architects. The Savoy Declaration was essentially a modified version of the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF), written for the Congregationalist churches and their form of ecclesiology. While several things in the Savoy Declaration may alarm Presbyterian and Continental Reformed believers, two areas stand out as sterling examples of the way good confessional language can be made better (that is, if you believe it is an improvement to add explicit language about the Covenant of Redemption and the imputed active obedience of Christ in justification).
The first is in regard to WCF Chapter 8, Of Christ the Mediator. 8.1 reads: "It pleased God, in His eternal purpose, to choose and ordain the Lord Jesus, His only begotten Son, to be the Mediator between God and man; the Prophet, Priest, and King, the Head and Saviour of His Church, the Heir of all things, and Judge of the world: unto whom He did from all eternity give a people, to be His seed, and to be by Him in time redeemed, called, justified, sanctified, and glorified."
Chapter 8.1 of the Savoy is identical to WCF 8.1 with the exception of the following added words (in bold italics): "It pleased God, in His eternal purpose, to choose and ordain the Lord Jesus, His only begotten Son, according to a covenant made between them both, to be the Mediator between God and man..."
For Owen, the Covenant of Redemption (Pactum Salutis) was the driving purpose to redemptive history and the foundation of the Person and Work of Christ (examples of this are pervasive throughout his treatises, sermons, and 7-volume exegetical commentary on Hebrews, but one very good place to look is in his treatise against the Socinians, Vindiciae Evangelicae in vol.XII of his Works, 497-507). So important was this doctrine for Owen that he wanted it to be confessed more explicitly than it is in the WCF.
Another example is on the chapter regarding the doctrine of justification. WCF 11.1 reads: "Those whom God effectually calleth, He also freely justifieth: not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous, not for anything wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ's sake alone; nor by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness, but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them, they receiving and resting on Him and His righteousness by faith; which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God."
Chapter 11.1 of the Savoy is identical with WCF 11.1 with the exception of the words, "but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them." These were replaced with the words, "but by imputing Christ's active obedience to the whole law, and passive obedience in his death for their whole and sole righteousness."
Anyone who has read Owen's book, The Doctrine of Justification by Faith through the Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ; Explained, Confirmed, and Vindicated (1677), knows that Owen believed that the imputation of Christ's active obedience was a necessary part of the Gospel: "the obedience of Christ unto the law, and the imputation thereof unto us, are no less necessary unto our justification before God, than his suffering of the penalty of the law, and the imputation thereof unto us, unto the same end" (p.252). He believed this was important enough to be made explicit in an ecclesiastical confession.
If the churches of NAPARC ever produce one new confession for all of us, what would it look like?
Reader Comments (17)
Thanks. I'm quite interested in the differences between the WCF and Savoy.
Another one, not without significance, is WCF 11:4 - God did, from all eternity, decree to justify all the elect, and Christ did, in the fullness of time, die for their sins, and rise again for their justification: nevertheless, they are not justified, until the Holy Spirit doth, in due time, actually apply Christ unto them.
Savoy 11:4 - God did from all eternity decree to justify all the elect, and Christ did in the fulness of time die for their sins, and rise again for their justification: nevertheless, they are not justified *personally*, until the Holy Spirit doth in due time actually apply Christ unto them.
Goodwin makes a distinction between believers being justified actually/personally (in time) and believers being justified 'in their head' (pretemporally). He posits a more nuanced view of eternal justification than the antinomians. I think the Savoy makes room for Goodwin's view more so than the WCF.
Mark
I have heard others point out the Savoy's inprovement on justification as well. I think it would be a worthwhile addition to the WCF itself.
Mark,
Thanks for the 11.4 ref and the background on Goodwin's view. I wasn't aware of his nuance. Do you think it was in any way connected to his view of the sealing of the Spirit? (i.e. second blessing)
Mike,
I don't think so, but Goodwin certainly isn't afraid to pioneer new views, even if they go against the grain so to speak. Although, his view on justification in eternity is shared by others, as well (e.g. Witsius).
BTW, is it true you're writing a thesis on Owen's cov. theology?
Mark
Yeah, particularly on his view of the Mosaic and republication of the CoW. I am still doing research.
I did my MA thesis on Owen's cov. theology. Specifically, I argued that his doctrine of sola fide was contingent upon his thoroughgoing covenant theology. I've done some work on Owen's view of Sinai and hope to present a paper on that topic at Cambridge this year at the John Owen conference. I have a friend who is writing his Phd thesis at the Vrije Universiteit on Owen and his longest chapter looks at Sinai! Hope your research goes well. Make sure to check out Samuel Petto's work, as well.
Nice!!! I wish I could be there! Mike Horton is going.
If you have time...
1) Have you found in Owen any explicit connection between his doctrine of justification sola fide and his view of republication in Sinai?
2) What do you make of the apparent tension in Owen between his view of Sinai (particulalry in his Hebrews commentary) and his blatant postmillennialism (as we would label today) evidenced especially in his Parlimentary sermons?
Also, is your MA thesis published? I would love to read it. I am presently writing a paper on how Owen's view of the Pactum essentially drove his view of justification sola fide.
Mike,
My thesis was rushed (a combination of factors). But I had someone talk to me about potential publication. In my opinion, I would basically start from scratch. David Wong's thesis is not very good; so, the need still exists (IMO) for a work on Owen's cov. theology. I'll happily send you a copy of my thesis, but I only (for some reason) am able to send you the version without the content footnotes. My University insisted on Harvard style, which I hate.
I think Owen's 'post-mil' view is better explained by 17thC religio-political circumstances rather than exegetical ones. Owen would deny that, but the type of 'millennial' thought of his time was not purely exegetical in nature - if it was, then they were horrible exegetes (esp. Goodwin).
What's your email?
Mark,
Email me at: michaelbrown@christurc.org
THANKS!
I think Owen's 'post-mil' view is better explained by 17thC religio-political circumstances rather than exegetical ones. Owen would deny that, but the type of 'millennial' thought of his time was not purely exegetical in nature - if it was, then they were horrible exegetes
That has been my thinking so far. I am interested in finding out how much of an understanding Owen had of the two kingdoms, and how much his views were shaped/changed after the Restoration. I realize that he is a man of his times and we have to read him in that context. It is just fascinating to me to read his comments on Hebrews 8 and then read a sermon like "The Shaking..." on Heb 12.
Rev. Brown,
I've thought a lot about what a revamped confession would look like (I recall both Scott Clark and Kim R. advocating something like this) for NAPARC churches. One must admit that WCF is clearer than our 3FU in certain areas (visible/invisible church distinction, bi-covenantalism and covenant of works, for instance), and that a hybrid of the two confessions would help shore up each other's weaknesses. I think that a common catechism, however, should be more closely modeled off of the Heidelberg.
However, I don't know how on earth one would be able to find language that would be universally acceptable. PRCs would revolt if there was anything on common grace, some continental folks would bolt on Westminster-style Sabbath articles, some Dutch folks would revolt over Cov. of Works, and so forth.
The only way would be to craft language so broad as to be virtually useless, imprecise, and unclear. If the language is too tight, you'd have to defrock those who stand within the pale of Reformed orthodoxy simply because they are outside of a "mainstream".
David,
You raise good points. Those are the challenges that are before us. The bottom line is that not everyone will be happy no matter what is written. Inevitiably, some will splinter off and want their own confession or opt for one of the older ones (i.e. WS or TFU). But IMO that should not preclude and/or hinder us from at least thinking about it more seriously.
Then you'll love this site!
Regarding the particular language of "active/passive" that was added for Savoy, over here you can see an FV dude using this as a strike against the doctrine.
Do we have any way of knowing whether Westminster divines would have looked at that Savoy change and say "Yes, yes, that says what we meant even better," or "No, we didn't mean to say that"?
Rube,
Yes, we do, actually. Aside from looking at the actual minutes (which Van Dixhoorn's work is all about) we can look at what particular divines believed and said in their other writings. There it is clear that most held to the imputed active obedience of Christ.
Rube,
Thanks for the comparison site. That is really helpful.
As in "not everybody wrote about it, but all of the writings we have support it," or "some Westminster divines rejected it"? If the latter, is the softer (than Savoy) Westminster language a compromise with that minority, and what does that say about accepting such a minority as confessional/orthodox today?
If the latter, is the softer (than Savoy) Westminster language a compromise with that minority, and what does that say about accepting such a minority as confessional/orthodox today?
Yes, some Westminster divines rejected IAO, such as Twisse and Gataker. Was it a compromise? Yes, I think so, at least to a certain extent. What does that say for us? Well, the minority was able to live with the WS's language. Anyone who subscribes the WS or the TFU today must be able to live with its language, particularly on matters of justification sola fide. But it also might say to us that a new, clearer confession should be considered. As it is, many of the churches in NAPARC have adopted synodical statements clarifying what they mean in thier confessions so as to protect the church from the error of the FV and NPP. Maybe its time to write something brand new.