Although the light of nature, and the works of creation ...



ANALYSIS OF WESTMINSTER CONFESSION

CHRIS DIERKES

SALLIE McFAGUE

4/10/06

This paper will explore the Westminster Confession focusing on the question of Revelation and the place of the Scriptures, allowing me to explore my own thinking on the subject in comparison to this confessional document. The Confession begins:

Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men unexcusable;[1] yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of His will, which is necessary unto salvation.

The question of whether the works of creation and providence by the light of reason (nature) prove the existence of a Creator God is for me quite open. According to the Westminster Confession they leave the human inexcusable, inexcusable that is if they do not recognize the obviousness of a Creator Providential God of the Universe.

In Romans Ch. 1 it is written:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of those who by their wickedness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made. So they are without excuse; for though they knew God, they did not honour him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their senseless minds were darkened.

The WC quotes St Paul on those who do not recognize God as being without excuse. The Westminster Confession adds the element of this knowledge nonetheless being insufficient to gain knowledge of the will of God leading to salvation.

Does creation obviously make known the existence of God? I don’t believe so. When one meditates on the vast expanse of the night sky, the deeps of the ocean, the heights of the mountains, there is a deep reverence and awe in the face of such beauty and immensity. Cosmology tells us that the universe began as single point that exploded and continues to explode to this day for 13 billion years, creating the galaxies, planets, the biosphere, plant and animal life as well as human culture and history. In the course of evolution emergent properties arise like life, intelligence, the capacity for self-reflective thought, poetry, and spiritual questing, but all of this could be with or without a Creator God, much less the God of Christian worship.

The God of the New Testament and the Christian tradition is a God of Action, a God who calls a People and seeks Redemption. None of the arguments made by a Thomas Aquinas, for example, to my mind philosophically proves the existence of a Creator God---and certainly not as even Aquinas knew the Christian Triune God. The traditions of China, e.g. Taoism and Confucianism, have I think had a better religious understanding of this impersonal cosmic way of all things (Tao=Way). In other words, through such meditation on Creation one gets a sense I believe of a deep Force at work in the universe but that is not automatically God. It could be a pagan like equation of Spirit with Nature, or more simply a natural process of great beauty and awe. If one already believes for other reasons in the God of the Bible—say through revelation or personal experience—than Creation certainly manifests something of this Creator’s nature and therefore the Creator should be praised, but I don’t think beginning with creation brings one to God.

So while I disagree with the WC that creation gives proof of a Creator, I do agree with it that even assuming one can prove a Creator from the works of creation (which I do not think is possible), then this knowledge is not sufficient to give insight into the will of God, as Christianity understands God, nor of salvation.

WC:

Therefore it pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and in divers manners, to reveal Himself, and to declare that His will unto His Church; and afterwards for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the Church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing; which makes the Holy Scripture to be most necessary; those former ways of God's revealing His will unto His people being now ceased. The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, depends not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God

The Confession notes that the former ways of God revealing himself have now ceased, but it leaves open the question of whether God may continue to reveal himself in a different manner since the writing down of the Bible. The circular logic of that final sentence is hard to get one’s head around. The Holy Scripture’s authority depends on God who being truth is the author of the text. Consequently because God is Truth and wrote the Bible, the Bible is therefore true, to be obeyed since it is the Word of God. And how do we know that God is Truth? Presumably because the Bible tells us so—for our knowledge of creation and providence is insufficient unto saving knowledge of the Divine Will.

It argues from its first principles and makes dogmatic statements from them, not offering any arguments for such a starting ground. And what exactly does it mean to say that God is the author of the Bible? Did God dictate the Bible to the Biblical authors like a boss to her secretary? If so, why are there factual, historical, scientific errors in the Bible? God according to this position could not be wrong—for God is Truth—did the authors then not hear God correctly? Or is God the Author of the Text in that God inspired the writers but not in a dictation model of Revelation?

The next paragraph states:

We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to a high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture. And the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man's salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it does abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God: yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.

This paragraph now sets forth preliminary arguments or proofs for the Bible to be the Word of God: heavenliness of the matter, efficacy of doctrine, majesty of style, etc. There are a few problems with these proofs however: e.g. the consent of all the parts. Modern Biblical studies have shown that there are multiple theologies and worldviews within The Bible, even within any one Book of the Bible itself not to mention between the Books themselves. As a simple example the Priestly (P), Yahwist (J), and Elohist (E) writers of the Pentateuch all express their own unique views of God, humanity, and the purpose of existence. Some books of the Bible even seem to criticize other parts: as for example the Book of Job criticizing perhaps some forms of Proverbial Wisdom Theology (that suffering is a sign of evil action).

The authors of the Westminster Confession also did not have the knowledge of modern biblical studies regarding editorial and form critical layers to a text. Gospel stories show layers from the social world of Jesus (oral culture) to four or more decades later literate context (Gospel stories). And as postmodern currents have shown, no text can ever perfectly have but one meaning and advocate one position without also having within it seeds of opposition to its own point of view (deconstruction), not to mention unconscious meanings, social-cultural co-construction and all the isms of postmodernity. It is possible (and done by many) to give a purely naturalistic—sociological, literary, psychological, ideological—reading of the Biblical text and interpretation as to its causes, purposes, and authors that in no way require a Divine Author/Actor. I think a naturalistic approach is a flawed one ultimately, but neither can it be dismissed out of hand with dogmatic statements.

Nevertheless, the Confession I believe is correct in noting that it is the inward work of the Holy Spirit by bearing witness to and with the Word (of God) in hearts that is the crucial element. As with the creation teaching, I do not believe the Bible alone through its scope, majesty of language, etc. proves itself to be the Word of God. It could be a word of God or perhaps a text with deep spiritual insights just as there is great beauty and depth in nature. For me The Bible (without the Spirit) no more substantiates itself as the Word of God than creation proves there automatically must be a Creator. For the words on the page to be the Word of God, the Word of God (the Logos, the Risen Christ) has to be recognized in the text, which only the eyes of faith can see. The eyes of faith must be directed to see the Word of God in the words of the Bible by the Holy Spirit.

The Spirit Theology of Calvin is very strong here. It is I think the greatest contribution of Calvin and Reformed Theology to the history of Christianity. The Reformation in Calvin (and others) began to ask: how does the individual freed from the meta-narrative of an ecclesial hierarchy or tradition come to understand the Bible or the will of God? If every individual was to receive a copy of the Bible and make an interpretation for him/herself, how are we to know which ones are valid and which ones not? In other words, how then are we to discern the work of the Spirit? A deep paradox is at work here namely the fruits of the Spirit, what signs are given as to one whose way of life and teaching are in accord with the Gospel come from the Scripture, but we need the Spirit within to teach us what the Bible means.

The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.[12] Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word. VII. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all:[15] yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.[16]

The Confession tries to overcome this difficulty with the notion that those things necessary to the Glory of God and the salvation of humanity are clearly set down in Scripture and yet acknowledges that the inner illumination of the Spirit is necessary for the saving understanding of such things. It would seem that without the Spirit one may have “non-saving” knowledge of the Scriptures as it were. I agree with that statement—that if one approaches the Bible with a penitent humble heart that desires belief (or is at least open to it) then the Bible means something different and affects one differently than if one comes to the text with a preconceived notions of what the Bible says and means and is all about, particularly one that excludes the realm of faith.

The clause “or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture” is very intriguing. The door is creaked open just a bit in the acknowledgement that not all things in the Scripture perhaps even those most important are entirely clear and yet the door it seems is not to be opened too wide by asserting (without evidence) that such issues may be deduced. What exactly is good and necessary consequence? Different people could read that very differently and claim inner illumination for their interpretations?

The WC I believe is struggling with the need for the Bible to be the authority and guide—as opposed historically to the Roman Church or the Anglican Church of England hierarchy—meaning the Bible must be in some measure objectively true but recognizing that the Bible has to touch individual and communal hearts as well. On the objective side of the text the Article continues:

The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical;[17] so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them.

Again the dogmatic and mythic nature of this assertion must either be believed or not. Textual criticism has shown that the oldest manuscripts of the Biblical text are much later than the texts themselves were written. The manuscripts contain mistakes as well as inconsistencies with one another. What does it mean with such knowledge to say God kept the Scriptures pure? I could understand it to metaphorically mean that the most important matters have been maintained—the matters concerning God’s will and salvation—but I’m fairly confident that is not what the original authors meant by the word pure.

Also not mentioned in this Calvinist-Puritan text is that what constitutes the Bible, who decided which books were included and excluded was made not by the Bible but by the Church Hierarchy. The Confession states that “traditions of men” can not add to the revealed text, meant of course as a criticism of Roman Catholicism. I certainly think there were/are many non-Biblical and incorrect traditions added by men, but the Confession misses that it was the tradition that grounded the text itself. The Scriptures are not just a dictation to reveal the Glory of God and teach salvation of humanity—although I believe they certainly include that as well—but also a record of the journey of a relationship between God and humanity, a relationship I believe in whatever way this makes sense, that has changed both partners. The older notion of salvation being about the redemption of the whole world seems missing in this Confession and the salvation is of human beings alone.

In a related manner, the Confession seems to me a very modernist document. It assumes that the original context of the Bible—in this case the revealed and pure one—is the universal context for all humans in all times and places. This uni-context explains why:

The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.

The assertion that the Bible’s full sense is one not manifold leaves open human interpretations, perhaps guided by the Spirit perhaps not or perhaps partially so guided, to become the de facto meaning of what is taught to be a non-human revealed text. Chapter 3 and others outlines what this one and not manifold sense is: predestination to ever lasting life for some, damnation for others; that this choice is free of God’s and is manifest both God’s ultimate sovereign justice (damnation) and mercy (saved) to the world. This reading of the Scripture, which again may be the fullest, is it be must admitted not the only one. It would not represent the teaching of The Eastern Orthodox Churches among others.

To put it bluntly, what is taught as the infallible rule of scripture is one interpretative lens for understanding the Bible. The teaching of divine election and majesty of God therefore splits the difference of the Bible being the final authority and guide and need for inner illumination. The inner illumination it is decided beforehand must point to the teaching of (double) predestination and utter sovereignty of God.

Chapter 1 of the Westminster Confession ends:

The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.

I agree with this statement; Hans Kung said that the Bible must be the soul of all theology. We must trust as a Church in the Holy Scripture speaking within the text and guiding us from within to understand that text. What I disagree with is the unilateral decision beforehand as to what the Scriptures say and teach and that such teaching is only one, a standard imposed for all times and places. I believe the Church and individual Christians must forever be continuing to delve into the Scriptures and that it is our only guide as to being Christians. I’m not deciding from the beginning that there may not be other revelations or that Christianity is the final revelation for all beings—I’m also not assuming that may not be the case—I simply do not think we know. Nor more importantly does it matter. That is a question, if it is ever answered (which I think it won’t be), would be answered at the end of the journey not in the beginning or middle. I prefer the notion of a hermeneutic circle: no beginning and no end. A theology that relies too heavily on the Bible as only objective truth runs the risk of idolatry in my understanding. There are never objects without subjects and never subjects without being in relationship.

Even within the Calvinist tradition I strongly agree with the notion of the sovereign relationality of God---a God who chooses freely to covenant with a people and those people then out of love take upon themselves commandments/discipline and the works of justice, communion, and reconciliation to symbolize what we have heard from this God who has chosen us. But I can’t accept the double predestination inherent in this text. Like Barth I think Calvin gave a great and holy emphasis to the God’s election of us in Christ—focused on God not our being elected but God electing us. But when it moves to a more hardened position of some are elected to bliss as a sign of God’s mercy and others to hell as a sign of God’s justice serious problems emerge. Or that the election of Christ was only for the saved (Limited Atonement) and not for the entire universe.

In conclusion, what I can take from this confession is a strong sense of the activity the faithfulness of God (not our faith) in electing us in Christ from before the foundation of the world and the Bible as revelation being the medium through which the Word can speak to us (in words).

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download