Chris Coldwell (NaphtaliPress) has published Presbyterian & Reformed books since 1987. He is the editor of The Confessional Presbyterian journal, an annual publication containing scholarly articles from a Confessional Presbyterian perspective by men from the many conservative Presbyterian & Reformed denominations today. He has a particular interest in the text of the Westminster Standards, and a critical text of the Larger Catechism is running serially in the journal beginning with the 2007 issue.
Articles on the 1903 Revisions of the Confession of Faith by Murray and Stonehouse
Posted 09-22-2008 at 09:47 PM by NaphtaliPress
Articles by Dr. Stonehouse and John Murray on the 1903 Revisions of the Confession of Faith (PCUSA). From THE PRESBYTERIAN GUARDIAN, Sept. 1937, pp 247-251.
What Was Back of the Revision of 1903? An historical survey of the movement of 1890-1903 for revision of the Confession in the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A.
[The Presbyterian Church of America is faced with the all-important task of adopting its constitution in November. It is committed to the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures, and it does not intend to jeopardize its adherence to Calvinism by tinkering with the Confession of Faith. But the fact remains that not all churches have the same form of the Confession, and the exact form must be determined upon. At the Assembly in June the following charge was given to the Committee on the Constitution in connection with its task of presenting for adoption the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms as the confession of the faith of the church:
“The committee shall take as the basis of its consideration the particular form of the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms which appears in the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A., 1934 edition. The committee shall have power to recommend the elimination, from that form of these Standards, of the changes made in the year of our Lord 1903, but it shall not have power to recommend any other changes. The committee shall also have power to recommend what relation this church shall bear to the Declaratory Statement Of 1903.”
In this issue we are pleased to present an article prepared by Professor John Murray, at our request, in which he marshals the doctrinal objections to the Declaratory Statement and to certain revisions of the Confession which were adopted ill 1903. It will be observed that no exception is made [missing text] whole movement for revision.]
TODAY we are hardly living in a creed-making age. I do not mean that in our time new creeds will not be formulated and old ones changed. The union in Canada, for example, produced a new creed. But I mean that this is not an age of faith in the Bible as the Word of God, and still less an age when men are convinced of the necessity of making a corporate testimony to their common faith through a written confession of faith. Furthermore, our times have very generally lost the conviction of our fathers that creeds were meant to be quite without ambiguity in their testimony to the truths of God’s Word, and without equivocation in their exclusion of heresy. A story was told recently which illustrates the modern attitude. A Methodist advocate of the union in Canada, in apparent commendation of the new creed to a Scottish Presbyterian minister, declared: “The doctrinal basis of union is a most remarkable document. The articles of its creed are so stated that the Calvinist claims they are Calvinistic, and the disciples of Arminius claim them to be Arminian” (Christendom, Summer 1936, p. 674).
It is not strange that zeal for church union has so often gone hand in hand with confusion in theology. Doctrinal uncertainty and theological indifference provide the soil in which agitation for church union takes root and thrives. And wherever organizational reunion is regarded as the supreme task of Christendom, as is so generally the case today, zeal for maintaining the integrity of the Christian message can only be regarded as reactionary. The Presbyterian Church of Canada was asked to forsake its historic Calvinistic position in the interest of union. The proposed union [pasted in Erratum has obscured the last part of column two] … standards of Presbyterianism.
ERRATUM
The last sentence of the first column of this page should read as follows. The proposed union of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. and the United Presbyterian Church would have lowered the testimony to the Reformed Faith both because the formula of subscription required of officers was to be greatly relaxed and because diluted brief creeds were to be received as “interpretative statements, as aids to the faith and witness” of the new church.
And the Cumberland Presbyterian Church, a church which was a militant opponent of historic Calvinism, and had sought to find a middle way between Calvinism and Arminianism, entered into a union with the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. in 1906 only because the latter had lowered its testimony to the Reformed Faith by several revisions of its confession in 1903.
Two Phases of One Movement
In surveying the developments which led to these changes, it is necessary to distinguish two phases of one movement, the former as including the period between 1890 and 1893 and the latter between 1900 and 1903. The earlier proposals were defeated in the presbyteries in 1893 - the famous Briggs heresy trial had filled the church with alarm, and there was some doubt as to the legality of certain steps which had been taken. For a brief period comparative peace prevailed. But the call for revision would not be downed. While the final result in 1903 was a more moderate and less extensive revision of the Constitution than that which had been passed by the Assembly in 1892, it is quite proper to speak of the developments between 1890 and 1903 as one movement. In the main the same specific doctrines of Calvinism were in the center of discussion throughout. Further, the lineup for and against revision continued to show many of the same persons. Dr. Henry Van Dyke was one of the earliest protagonists of union and later became the chairman of Committee on Revision whose report was adopted by the Assembly of 1902. Professor Warfield, on the other side, urged the church in 1890 to retain the Confession in its integrity and in 1900 refused to serve on the Revision Committee. In a letter under the date of June 25, 1900, Dr. Warfield wrote as follows:
“The decisive reason moving me to request release from service on this committee is an unconquerable unwillingness to be connected with the present agitation for a revision of our creedal formulae in any other manner than that of respectful but earnest protest. . . . I cannot think that the violent assault upon certain of our confessional statements - statements which are clearly scriptural and as clearly lie at the center of our doctrinal system - in which the agitation originated, was a fitting occasion for a movement of this kind, or for any action of the church, except the rebuke of the assailants by the courts to which they were directly amenable …. I am thoroughly out of sympathy with the whole movement of which the work of this committee is a part …. It is an inexpressible grief to me to see it [the church] spending its energies in a vain attempt to lower its testimony to suit the ever-changing sentiment of the world about it.”
The Issue Drawn in 1890
The Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. was already an inclusive Church in 1890. The agitation for revision took many forms. Some wanted a change in the formula of subscription. Many spoke for a completely new creed. A widely circulated pamphlet from Scotland declared that the Confession of Faith had become obsolete. And Philip Schaff, Professor in Union Seminary, expressed the views of many in the church, in his radical demands for a new theology and a new creed:
“Let us be honest and confess that the old Calvinism is fast dying out. It has done a great work, and has done it well, but cannot satisfy the demands of the present age …. Every age must produce its own theology. …
“We need a theology and a confession that is more human than Calvinism, more Divine than Arminianism, and more Christian and Catholic than either. … We need a theology and a confession that will not only bind the members of one denomination together, but be also a bond of sympathy between the various folds of the one flock of Christ, and prepare the way for the great work of the future - the reunion of Christendom in the Creed of Christ” (Creed Revision in the Presbyterian Church, 1890, pp. 40, 42).
On the other side, Abraham Kuyper warned from Holland against modification. And the fight in America engaged many able champions of historic Calvinism, among whom the Princeton worthies like Patton and Warfield had a prominent place. And Dr. Shedd, in defending the Westminster doctrine of the Divine decree, which was under attack, defined the issue as follows: “The grave question before all parties is, whether the Presbyterian Church shall adhere to the historical Calvinism with which all its past usefulness and honor are inseparably associated, or whether it shall renounce it as an antiquated system which did good service in its day, but can do so no longer” (Presbyterian and Reformed Review, Jan., 1890, p. 25).
The Second Phase
Between 1900 and 1903 the issues raised by the advocates of revision were vigorously debated, but the factors of the situation had not changed essentially. In a group of addresses delivered before the Presbytery of New York on March 4, 1901, three points of view were represented. President Stewart, of Auburn, demanded an entirely new creed. He said that the Confession “ought to be allowed to tell its story without variation to the end. Revision is a mechanical way for the church of one age to express its faith in terms used by a former and different age.” Professor Herrick Johnson, of McCormick, favored a supplemental restatement on the ground that the Confession of Faith did not, as he contended, represent the faith of the church correctly and adequately. Professor DeWitt, of Princeton, opposed any change in a time of doubt and unbelief, and attacked the changes that had been proposed.
The. Committee on Revision presented its report to the Assembly of 1902. Its recommendations, which coincide with the changes which were finally adopted, were unanimous, except that Professor DeWitt filed his exceptions to certain of the proposals, notably one part of the Declaratory Statement and the change in Chapter XVI. This report included the Brief Statement of the Reformed Faith, which, while not receiving constitutional status, seems to have given a great deal of satisfaction to the parties that had demanded modification of the doctrinal standards of the church. A witness of the Assembly of 1902, writing in The Presbyterian for July 23, 1902, shows that the report of the committee was rushed through. His remarks remind us of recent Assemblies: “The debate too was limited at the outset. And when one of the rank and file began to speak in opposition he was laughed at, and shouts of ‘question!’, ‘question!’ drowned all deliberation. The picture was not a beautiful one of our once calm and deliberative General Assembly.”
During the year that followed the Assembly of 1902 many efforts were made to arrest the movement for revision. The Presbyterian did all in its power to influence the church to vote “no.” In a calm and judicious spirit it analyzed the overtures which had been sent down to the presbyteries, and these discussions are very profitable reading (see the issue of September 10, 1902). Dr. Warfield continued to oppose the changes. Professor Greene, of Princeton, spoke of them as “theologically inaccurate and rhetorically mediocre.” John Fox described them as giving a “clouded and ambiguous standard of doctrine” and as giving peace and comfort to false teachers (issue of April 15, 1903).
But there was no stopping the movement. The presbyteries by an overwhelming majority adopted the overtures. It is perfectly obvious that the only reason which accounts for this final result is that the church had reached a very low ebb. Dr. Henry Van Dyke was promising that theiradoption would usher in an era of peace, in which heresy trials would probably not trouble the church any longer. Dr. Fox, in the article cited above, reproduced vividly the spirit of the time when he compared the revisionists with the importunate widow who by her continual coming had wearied the unjust judge. The general impression which prevailed in the church at that time with respect to the changes was described by Dr. Fox as follows: “We are so thankful they are no worse and so fearful that if rejected something worse will be proposed, that we are willing to vote them through and be done with it.” Truly the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. had reached a low point when “peace” came to be counted as more important than purity.
Afterward
After the deed had been done, it is true, the Princeton professors who had been so active in opposing revision were able to acquiesce in the amendments. While they did no doubt hold that the witness of the Confession had been toned down, they contended that the document still presented a Calvinistic system of doctrine. And a spokesman for the Southern Presbyterians, Dr. F. R. Beattie, while contending that the creed was still Calvinistic, stated that the Declaratory Statement had toned down the clear form of the Reformed system found in the Confession (Union Seminary Review, Oct.-Nov., 1902, pages 10f.).
However, Methodists hailed the changes as breaking down the barriers between them and the Presbyterians. And in the Cumberland Presbyterian Church agitation for union began in 1902, as soon as it appeared that the amendments would be adopted, although its creed and general testimony were in violent opposition to historic Calvinism. The union was consummated in 1906 in spite of the fact that, as Dr. Warfield expressed it, it involved the reception of men who “up to the very moment of their formal acceptance of our standards … have been in open and polemic disharmony with them” (The Presbyterian, March 1, 1905). In a decision of the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Missouri in 1913, which has been brought to my attention by Murray Forst Thompson, Esq., judge Van Valkenburg declared:
“The Cumberland Presbyterian Church had its origin in 1810, through certain ministers of the Presbyterian Church who had separated themselves from the parent organization because of differences in doctrinal belief. The church grew until it embraced many churches, presbyteries, and synods, and a General Assembly. From time to time throughout the succeeding century a reunion of the two churches was considered and desired by both associations. Their form of organization and methods of administration were practically identical. They were kept apart by what seemed to be distinctive and controlling differences in faith. In 1903, the Presbyterian Church, through the authoritative voice of its General Assembly, made such an explicit revision and interpretation of its doctrinal standards as, in the opinion of the General Assembly of both churches, removed all substantial differences between them and rendered their reunion not only possible, but desirable.”
Evidently the court agreed with the Cumberland majority that favored union in the belief that the Presbyterian standards had been substantially modified in 1903. So even if the system of doctrine was in fact still essentially Calvinistic, a thoroughly unwholesome and confusing situation had been created, a situation not unlike that which was brought about in Canada. For there, you will recall, the articles of the new creed were so ambiguous that an observer declared: “The Calvinists claim they are Calvinistic, and the disciples of Arminius claim them to be Arminian.”
And there can be no doubt that the advocates of revision in the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. felt that they had gained a great victory. Moreover, the history of that church since 1903 confirms their judgment. The revision of 1903 was a definite step in the direction of toning down the articles which distinguish Arminian from Calvinism, and did much to perpetuate the peace- at-any-price attitude which has proved so disastrous in recent years. _N.B.S.
DR. STONEHOUSE has reviewed certain phases of the history of revision of the Westminster Confession of Faith in the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. The information embodied in that article is presupposed in this one. It is our purpose now to confine our attention to certain revisions and additions of the years 1902-1903, namely, the amendment of Chapter XVI, Section 7, the two additional Chapters (XXXIV and XXXV), and the Declaratory Statement as to Chapter III and Chapter X, Section 3. Our thesis is that these revisions or additions are distinctly in the path of retrogression rather than of progress, that they are very decidedly symbolic of a standpoint that would undermine the very foundations of the Reformed Faith, and that therefore they should find no place in the creed of a church that professes adherence to the System of doctrine contained in the Westminster Confession. It should be understood that the evil we discover in these revisions is often concealed under the statement of some truth. Modern creed-making that has as its purpose the breakdown of a consistent testimony is very accomplished in this art.
Works of Unregenerate Men
Chapter XVI, Section 7 of the Confession of Faith in its unrevised form reads as follows: “Works done by unregenerate men, although, for the matter of them, they may be things which God commands, and of good use both to themselves and others; yet, because they proceed not from a heart purified by faith; nor are done in a right manner, according to the word; nor to a right end, the glory of God; they are therefore sinful, and cannot please God, or make a man meet to receive grace from God. And yet their neglect of them is more sinful, and displeasing to God.”
The revised form as adopted by the Presbyterian Church, in the U.S.A. reads: “Works done by unregenerate men, although for the matter of them they may be things which God commands, and in themselves praiseworthy and useful, and although the neglect of such things is sinful and displeasing unto God; yet, because they proceed not from a heart purified by faith; nor are done in a right manner, according to His Word.; nor to a right end, the glory of God; they come short of what God requires, and do not make any man meet to receive the grace of God.”
The objections to this revised form of the section will immediately appear to any one imbued with the teaching of Scripture on the depravity and inability of the natural man:
(1) There is a manifest difference between saying with the Confession that works done by unregenerate men are “of good use both to themselves and others,” and saying with the revisers that they are “in themselves praiseworthy.” To say the very least, the latter phrase is capable of an interpretation that places the works of unregenerate men in a category to which they do not belong. It is just this the Westminster divines were careful to avoid.
(2) The revision says that the works done by unregenerate men come short of what God requires, yet that the neglect of them is sinful and displeasing to God. But it refrains from saying what is really the central point of the indictment urged by the original Confession, namely, that they are sinful and cannot please God, and therefore that the neglect of them is not simply sinful, but “more sinful and displeasing unto God.” The purpose and effect of this revision is to elevate the works of unregenerate men to a position not accorded them in Scripture, or at least to refrain from bringing to bear upon them the full measure of the divine condemnation. So there has been successfully eliminated from the Confession at least one emphatic assertion of the doctrine of total depravity, and to that extent the enemies of the consistent evangelicalism of the Reformed Faith may be comforted. But comfort to such at this point is fatal.
The New Chapters
Of Chapters XXXIV and XXXV the latter is, in the opinion of the present writer, by far the most objectionable. Consequently we shall devote more attention to it. It d oes not follow, however, that Chapter XXXIV is unobjectionable. On the great topic of the Holy Spirit it is inadequate. It appears to us destitute of that strength that characterizes the Confession as a whole and more especially so when it deals with the efficacy of the Spirit’s work in the application of redemption. At least one statement, because of the unguarded manner in which it is stated, is likely to create a distinctly erroneous impression.
But even apart from such estimates of its character there is the paramount objection that it is superfluous. The doctrine of the Holy Spirit is adequately set forth in the Confession elsewhere, set forth indeed in a way that measures up to the high standards set by this the greatest of Reformed symbols. It is a pity that the addition of this chapter should be allowed to obscure that fact. In a word, it is superfluous to the extent of being distinctly misleading.
The Love of God
Chapter XXXV purports to express more fully than has been done elsewhere in the Confession the doctrine of the church on the subject “Of the Love of God and Missions.” From the standpoint of the Reformed Faith the objections are principally three:
(1) There is a studied omission of the electing love of God, and therefore of the distinction between the love of God that is unto salvation and the general benevolence of God that is unto all but is not of itself saving. Such an omission is fatal. It is impossible to give creedal statement to the Reformed doctrine of the love of God without explicit enunciation of the particular love of God. This objection gathers all the more strength when it is remembered that the topic is not only “the Love of God” but “the Love of God and Missions,” in other words, the love of God as it is directly related to the missionary work of the church.
It is true that the missionary who has an intelligent love of the gospel and zeal for the salvation of men does not forget the benevolence that God exhibits to all, nor does he fail to impress upon men the witness it bears to the goodness of God. But the chief message of the missionary, the message that pre-eminently constrains him to preach to the lost, is the message of that love that sent the Son of God into the world, the love that is electing and effectively redemptive. This revision, then, omits what a Reformed consciousness in the performance of its paramount duty precisely demands.
(2) But not only is definition of the particular love of God studiously omitted. When the extent of God’s love is mentioned it is expressly universalized. In Section I the love of God is described as infinite and perfect love and in Section II it is said that “in the Gospel God declares His love for the world.” There is, of course, a scriptural sense in which God’s love for the world is declared in the gospel. But in the context in which this is stated in this section it is calculated to teach a doctrine of God’s love entirely different from and at variance with, Scripture teaching and Reformed standards.
(3) In Section II there is careful omission of any mention of the efficacious grace of the Holy Spirit. The reply might be given that this phase of truth is sufficiently expressed in the preceding chapter and in the Confession elsewhere. This reply is not an answer to the objection. Why is the reference to the work of the Holy Spirit in Section II left on the plane of merely suasive influence? Why, we peremptorily ask, in a creedal statement that purports to set forth the official teaching of a Reformed Church on the subject of the love of God and missions should there be omission of the very thing that alone offers any real encouragement to the missionary, namely, the love of God coming to expression in the efficacious grace of the Holy Spirit?
In brief, the objection to this chapter is that it is not Reformed, indeed, that there is nothing distinctly Reformed in it. The subject treated of lies close to the very heart of the Reformed Faith. How possibly can a formulation so destitute of Reformed truth on so vital a subject be defended in Reformed Confession? There is. no defense.
The Declaratory Statement
The Declaratory Statement is in three parts - an introduction and two paragraphs, the first of which deals with Chapter III of the Confession, and the second with Chapter X, Section 3. It is to the teaching of these two paragraphs that exception must be taken. We heartily concede in principle the right and even duty of a Reformed Church to declare certain aspects of revealed truth, which under certain circumstances and conditions may call for more explicit statement. Protection against heresy and preservation of integrity as well as testimony to the truth often require it. It is not, then, to the idea of declaratory statement that exception is taken, but to the kind of declaratory statement herein made.
In the first paragraph the Declaratory Statement reads: “With reference to Chapter III of the Confession of Faith: that concerning those who are saved in Christ, the doctrine of God’s eternal decree is held in harmony with the doctrine of His love to all mankind, His gift of His Son to be the propitiation for the sins of the whole world, and His readiness to bestow His saving grace on all who seek it.”
It is true, of course, that there is an important sense in which we may speak of God’s love to all mankind. It is true also that we must speak in the language of 1 John 2:2 of Christ as the propitiation for the sins of the whole world. But when, as in the Declaratory Statement, it is said that “the doctrine of God’s eternal decree is held in harmony with the doctrine of His love to all mankind, His gift of His Son to be the propitiation for the sins of the whole world (italics ours), then the manifest implication is a doctrine of universal atonement, and universal atonement is in direct conflict with the teaching of the Confession. So what in view of the construction of the sentence and the collocation of the clauses is the straightforward interpretation of the Declaratory Statement cannot be held in harmony with the teaching of the Confession, and in particular with the teaching of Chapter III. The Declaratory Statement, therefore, brings contradiction into the creedal formulation of the doctrine of the Church.
Is it not apparent that here, as in Chapter XXXV, the settled policy and bias at work is the elimination or toning down of what is after all in this regard the distinctive feature of the Westminster Confession, namely, its consistent and all-pervasive particularism? It is just this that has made it both precious and offensive, precious to friends, offensive to foes. It is just precisely that that both the Declaratory Statement and Chapter XXXV would tone down or nullify.
The Salvation of Infants
The second paragraph of the Declaratory Statement deals with what the Confession says in Chapter X, Section 3. “Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, who worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth.” This is an adequate statement, but much misunderstood and maligned. The Declaratory Statement adds to this what is intended to remove all objection. The first sentence reads: “With reference to Chapter X, Section 3, of the Confession of Faith, that it is not to be regarded as teaching that any who die in infancy are lost.” This is perfectly correct. The framers of the Confession with evident intention left the question of the extent of the election of infants dying in infancy entirely open. If any believe that all infants dying in infancy are elect and therefore regenerated and saved then, so far as the statement of the Confession is concerned, they are at liberty to do so. If any suspend judgment on this question, then the Confession leaves them at liberty to do so. If any believe that not all infants dying in infancy are elect, then they are left by the Confession at liberty to do so. It is an exceedingly careful statement that allows for diversity of position on the extent of infant salvation.
But when the Declaratory Statement proceeds to say, “We believe that all dying in infancy are included in the election of grace, and are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, who works when and where and how he pleases,” it departs from the magnificent care exhibited in the reserved statement of the Confession.* [*It should be noted that the subject with which the Confession is dealing in this chapter is not the topic of infant salvation, but that of “Effectual Calling.”].
There have been Reformed theologians of the highest repute who held to the position expressed in the Declaratory Statement. Dr. Charles Hodge for example (SystematicTheology 1, pp. 26, 27) is unambiguous in his argument for the salvation of all infants dying in infancy. Other Reformed theologians of equal distinction scrupulously refrained from taking any such position. It is apparent, therefore, that there is surely room for difference of judgment in this matter. Our objection to the Declaratory Statement is that it incorporates into the creed of the church what is, to say the least, a highly debatable position, and therefore a position that should never be made part of creedal confession.
The Declaratory Statement epitomizes the entire difference of spirit and genius between the most distinguished of Reformed creed-makers, the. Westminster divines, and modern ecclesiastics. The former were insistent upon dogmatic definiteness on questions that belong to the integrity of the Reformed Faith and therefore lie close to the heart of the Christian religion. In modern times the trend is in the opposite direction. The doctrines that lie at the very heart of our Faith are by vague, cryptic, ambiguous statement thrown into indefiniteness and. obscurity. The purpose of the Westminster Confession was to state truth precisely to the exclusion of error; the genius of modern creed-making appears to be the power to devise enough elasticity to include error.
It is just such an indictment that bears against all the revisions we have considered, and therefore makes repudiation of them mandatory upon those who wish to bear an untarnished testimony to the truth.
Scanned and corrected by Chris Coldwell, November 19, 2002.
What Was Back of the Revision of 1903? An historical survey of the movement of 1890-1903 for revision of the Confession in the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A.
[The Presbyterian Church of America is faced with the all-important task of adopting its constitution in November. It is committed to the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures, and it does not intend to jeopardize its adherence to Calvinism by tinkering with the Confession of Faith. But the fact remains that not all churches have the same form of the Confession, and the exact form must be determined upon. At the Assembly in June the following charge was given to the Committee on the Constitution in connection with its task of presenting for adoption the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms as the confession of the faith of the church:
“The committee shall take as the basis of its consideration the particular form of the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms which appears in the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A., 1934 edition. The committee shall have power to recommend the elimination, from that form of these Standards, of the changes made in the year of our Lord 1903, but it shall not have power to recommend any other changes. The committee shall also have power to recommend what relation this church shall bear to the Declaratory Statement Of 1903.”
In this issue we are pleased to present an article prepared by Professor John Murray, at our request, in which he marshals the doctrinal objections to the Declaratory Statement and to certain revisions of the Confession which were adopted ill 1903. It will be observed that no exception is made [missing text] whole movement for revision.]
TODAY we are hardly living in a creed-making age. I do not mean that in our time new creeds will not be formulated and old ones changed. The union in Canada, for example, produced a new creed. But I mean that this is not an age of faith in the Bible as the Word of God, and still less an age when men are convinced of the necessity of making a corporate testimony to their common faith through a written confession of faith. Furthermore, our times have very generally lost the conviction of our fathers that creeds were meant to be quite without ambiguity in their testimony to the truths of God’s Word, and without equivocation in their exclusion of heresy. A story was told recently which illustrates the modern attitude. A Methodist advocate of the union in Canada, in apparent commendation of the new creed to a Scottish Presbyterian minister, declared: “The doctrinal basis of union is a most remarkable document. The articles of its creed are so stated that the Calvinist claims they are Calvinistic, and the disciples of Arminius claim them to be Arminian” (Christendom, Summer 1936, p. 674).
It is not strange that zeal for church union has so often gone hand in hand with confusion in theology. Doctrinal uncertainty and theological indifference provide the soil in which agitation for church union takes root and thrives. And wherever organizational reunion is regarded as the supreme task of Christendom, as is so generally the case today, zeal for maintaining the integrity of the Christian message can only be regarded as reactionary. The Presbyterian Church of Canada was asked to forsake its historic Calvinistic position in the interest of union. The proposed union [pasted in Erratum has obscured the last part of column two] … standards of Presbyterianism.
ERRATUM
The last sentence of the first column of this page should read as follows. The proposed union of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. and the United Presbyterian Church would have lowered the testimony to the Reformed Faith both because the formula of subscription required of officers was to be greatly relaxed and because diluted brief creeds were to be received as “interpretative statements, as aids to the faith and witness” of the new church.
And the Cumberland Presbyterian Church, a church which was a militant opponent of historic Calvinism, and had sought to find a middle way between Calvinism and Arminianism, entered into a union with the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. in 1906 only because the latter had lowered its testimony to the Reformed Faith by several revisions of its confession in 1903.
Two Phases of One Movement
In surveying the developments which led to these changes, it is necessary to distinguish two phases of one movement, the former as including the period between 1890 and 1893 and the latter between 1900 and 1903. The earlier proposals were defeated in the presbyteries in 1893 - the famous Briggs heresy trial had filled the church with alarm, and there was some doubt as to the legality of certain steps which had been taken. For a brief period comparative peace prevailed. But the call for revision would not be downed. While the final result in 1903 was a more moderate and less extensive revision of the Constitution than that which had been passed by the Assembly in 1892, it is quite proper to speak of the developments between 1890 and 1903 as one movement. In the main the same specific doctrines of Calvinism were in the center of discussion throughout. Further, the lineup for and against revision continued to show many of the same persons. Dr. Henry Van Dyke was one of the earliest protagonists of union and later became the chairman of Committee on Revision whose report was adopted by the Assembly of 1902. Professor Warfield, on the other side, urged the church in 1890 to retain the Confession in its integrity and in 1900 refused to serve on the Revision Committee. In a letter under the date of June 25, 1900, Dr. Warfield wrote as follows:
“The decisive reason moving me to request release from service on this committee is an unconquerable unwillingness to be connected with the present agitation for a revision of our creedal formulae in any other manner than that of respectful but earnest protest. . . . I cannot think that the violent assault upon certain of our confessional statements - statements which are clearly scriptural and as clearly lie at the center of our doctrinal system - in which the agitation originated, was a fitting occasion for a movement of this kind, or for any action of the church, except the rebuke of the assailants by the courts to which they were directly amenable …. I am thoroughly out of sympathy with the whole movement of which the work of this committee is a part …. It is an inexpressible grief to me to see it [the church] spending its energies in a vain attempt to lower its testimony to suit the ever-changing sentiment of the world about it.”
The Issue Drawn in 1890
The Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. was already an inclusive Church in 1890. The agitation for revision took many forms. Some wanted a change in the formula of subscription. Many spoke for a completely new creed. A widely circulated pamphlet from Scotland declared that the Confession of Faith had become obsolete. And Philip Schaff, Professor in Union Seminary, expressed the views of many in the church, in his radical demands for a new theology and a new creed:
“Let us be honest and confess that the old Calvinism is fast dying out. It has done a great work, and has done it well, but cannot satisfy the demands of the present age …. Every age must produce its own theology. …
“We need a theology and a confession that is more human than Calvinism, more Divine than Arminianism, and more Christian and Catholic than either. … We need a theology and a confession that will not only bind the members of one denomination together, but be also a bond of sympathy between the various folds of the one flock of Christ, and prepare the way for the great work of the future - the reunion of Christendom in the Creed of Christ” (Creed Revision in the Presbyterian Church, 1890, pp. 40, 42).
On the other side, Abraham Kuyper warned from Holland against modification. And the fight in America engaged many able champions of historic Calvinism, among whom the Princeton worthies like Patton and Warfield had a prominent place. And Dr. Shedd, in defending the Westminster doctrine of the Divine decree, which was under attack, defined the issue as follows: “The grave question before all parties is, whether the Presbyterian Church shall adhere to the historical Calvinism with which all its past usefulness and honor are inseparably associated, or whether it shall renounce it as an antiquated system which did good service in its day, but can do so no longer” (Presbyterian and Reformed Review, Jan., 1890, p. 25).
The Second Phase
Between 1900 and 1903 the issues raised by the advocates of revision were vigorously debated, but the factors of the situation had not changed essentially. In a group of addresses delivered before the Presbytery of New York on March 4, 1901, three points of view were represented. President Stewart, of Auburn, demanded an entirely new creed. He said that the Confession “ought to be allowed to tell its story without variation to the end. Revision is a mechanical way for the church of one age to express its faith in terms used by a former and different age.” Professor Herrick Johnson, of McCormick, favored a supplemental restatement on the ground that the Confession of Faith did not, as he contended, represent the faith of the church correctly and adequately. Professor DeWitt, of Princeton, opposed any change in a time of doubt and unbelief, and attacked the changes that had been proposed.
The. Committee on Revision presented its report to the Assembly of 1902. Its recommendations, which coincide with the changes which were finally adopted, were unanimous, except that Professor DeWitt filed his exceptions to certain of the proposals, notably one part of the Declaratory Statement and the change in Chapter XVI. This report included the Brief Statement of the Reformed Faith, which, while not receiving constitutional status, seems to have given a great deal of satisfaction to the parties that had demanded modification of the doctrinal standards of the church. A witness of the Assembly of 1902, writing in The Presbyterian for July 23, 1902, shows that the report of the committee was rushed through. His remarks remind us of recent Assemblies: “The debate too was limited at the outset. And when one of the rank and file began to speak in opposition he was laughed at, and shouts of ‘question!’, ‘question!’ drowned all deliberation. The picture was not a beautiful one of our once calm and deliberative General Assembly.”
During the year that followed the Assembly of 1902 many efforts were made to arrest the movement for revision. The Presbyterian did all in its power to influence the church to vote “no.” In a calm and judicious spirit it analyzed the overtures which had been sent down to the presbyteries, and these discussions are very profitable reading (see the issue of September 10, 1902). Dr. Warfield continued to oppose the changes. Professor Greene, of Princeton, spoke of them as “theologically inaccurate and rhetorically mediocre.” John Fox described them as giving a “clouded and ambiguous standard of doctrine” and as giving peace and comfort to false teachers (issue of April 15, 1903).
But there was no stopping the movement. The presbyteries by an overwhelming majority adopted the overtures. It is perfectly obvious that the only reason which accounts for this final result is that the church had reached a very low ebb. Dr. Henry Van Dyke was promising that theiradoption would usher in an era of peace, in which heresy trials would probably not trouble the church any longer. Dr. Fox, in the article cited above, reproduced vividly the spirit of the time when he compared the revisionists with the importunate widow who by her continual coming had wearied the unjust judge. The general impression which prevailed in the church at that time with respect to the changes was described by Dr. Fox as follows: “We are so thankful they are no worse and so fearful that if rejected something worse will be proposed, that we are willing to vote them through and be done with it.” Truly the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. had reached a low point when “peace” came to be counted as more important than purity.
Afterward
After the deed had been done, it is true, the Princeton professors who had been so active in opposing revision were able to acquiesce in the amendments. While they did no doubt hold that the witness of the Confession had been toned down, they contended that the document still presented a Calvinistic system of doctrine. And a spokesman for the Southern Presbyterians, Dr. F. R. Beattie, while contending that the creed was still Calvinistic, stated that the Declaratory Statement had toned down the clear form of the Reformed system found in the Confession (Union Seminary Review, Oct.-Nov., 1902, pages 10f.).
However, Methodists hailed the changes as breaking down the barriers between them and the Presbyterians. And in the Cumberland Presbyterian Church agitation for union began in 1902, as soon as it appeared that the amendments would be adopted, although its creed and general testimony were in violent opposition to historic Calvinism. The union was consummated in 1906 in spite of the fact that, as Dr. Warfield expressed it, it involved the reception of men who “up to the very moment of their formal acceptance of our standards … have been in open and polemic disharmony with them” (The Presbyterian, March 1, 1905). In a decision of the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Missouri in 1913, which has been brought to my attention by Murray Forst Thompson, Esq., judge Van Valkenburg declared:
“The Cumberland Presbyterian Church had its origin in 1810, through certain ministers of the Presbyterian Church who had separated themselves from the parent organization because of differences in doctrinal belief. The church grew until it embraced many churches, presbyteries, and synods, and a General Assembly. From time to time throughout the succeeding century a reunion of the two churches was considered and desired by both associations. Their form of organization and methods of administration were practically identical. They were kept apart by what seemed to be distinctive and controlling differences in faith. In 1903, the Presbyterian Church, through the authoritative voice of its General Assembly, made such an explicit revision and interpretation of its doctrinal standards as, in the opinion of the General Assembly of both churches, removed all substantial differences between them and rendered their reunion not only possible, but desirable.”
Evidently the court agreed with the Cumberland majority that favored union in the belief that the Presbyterian standards had been substantially modified in 1903. So even if the system of doctrine was in fact still essentially Calvinistic, a thoroughly unwholesome and confusing situation had been created, a situation not unlike that which was brought about in Canada. For there, you will recall, the articles of the new creed were so ambiguous that an observer declared: “The Calvinists claim they are Calvinistic, and the disciples of Arminius claim them to be Arminian.”
And there can be no doubt that the advocates of revision in the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. felt that they had gained a great victory. Moreover, the history of that church since 1903 confirms their judgment. The revision of 1903 was a definite step in the direction of toning down the articles which distinguish Arminian from Calvinism, and did much to perpetuate the peace- at-any-price attitude which has proved so disastrous in recent years. _N.B.S.
Shall W e Include the Revision of 7903 in
Our Creed? A consideration of the theological character of certain amendments to the doctrinal standards of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A.
By JOHN MURRAYDR. STONEHOUSE has reviewed certain phases of the history of revision of the Westminster Confession of Faith in the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. The information embodied in that article is presupposed in this one. It is our purpose now to confine our attention to certain revisions and additions of the years 1902-1903, namely, the amendment of Chapter XVI, Section 7, the two additional Chapters (XXXIV and XXXV), and the Declaratory Statement as to Chapter III and Chapter X, Section 3. Our thesis is that these revisions or additions are distinctly in the path of retrogression rather than of progress, that they are very decidedly symbolic of a standpoint that would undermine the very foundations of the Reformed Faith, and that therefore they should find no place in the creed of a church that professes adherence to the System of doctrine contained in the Westminster Confession. It should be understood that the evil we discover in these revisions is often concealed under the statement of some truth. Modern creed-making that has as its purpose the breakdown of a consistent testimony is very accomplished in this art.
Works of Unregenerate Men
Chapter XVI, Section 7 of the Confession of Faith in its unrevised form reads as follows: “Works done by unregenerate men, although, for the matter of them, they may be things which God commands, and of good use both to themselves and others; yet, because they proceed not from a heart purified by faith; nor are done in a right manner, according to the word; nor to a right end, the glory of God; they are therefore sinful, and cannot please God, or make a man meet to receive grace from God. And yet their neglect of them is more sinful, and displeasing to God.”
The revised form as adopted by the Presbyterian Church, in the U.S.A. reads: “Works done by unregenerate men, although for the matter of them they may be things which God commands, and in themselves praiseworthy and useful, and although the neglect of such things is sinful and displeasing unto God; yet, because they proceed not from a heart purified by faith; nor are done in a right manner, according to His Word.; nor to a right end, the glory of God; they come short of what God requires, and do not make any man meet to receive the grace of God.”
The objections to this revised form of the section will immediately appear to any one imbued with the teaching of Scripture on the depravity and inability of the natural man:
(1) There is a manifest difference between saying with the Confession that works done by unregenerate men are “of good use both to themselves and others,” and saying with the revisers that they are “in themselves praiseworthy.” To say the very least, the latter phrase is capable of an interpretation that places the works of unregenerate men in a category to which they do not belong. It is just this the Westminster divines were careful to avoid.
(2) The revision says that the works done by unregenerate men come short of what God requires, yet that the neglect of them is sinful and displeasing to God. But it refrains from saying what is really the central point of the indictment urged by the original Confession, namely, that they are sinful and cannot please God, and therefore that the neglect of them is not simply sinful, but “more sinful and displeasing unto God.” The purpose and effect of this revision is to elevate the works of unregenerate men to a position not accorded them in Scripture, or at least to refrain from bringing to bear upon them the full measure of the divine condemnation. So there has been successfully eliminated from the Confession at least one emphatic assertion of the doctrine of total depravity, and to that extent the enemies of the consistent evangelicalism of the Reformed Faith may be comforted. But comfort to such at this point is fatal.
The New Chapters
Of Chapters XXXIV and XXXV the latter is, in the opinion of the present writer, by far the most objectionable. Consequently we shall devote more attention to it. It d oes not follow, however, that Chapter XXXIV is unobjectionable. On the great topic of the Holy Spirit it is inadequate. It appears to us destitute of that strength that characterizes the Confession as a whole and more especially so when it deals with the efficacy of the Spirit’s work in the application of redemption. At least one statement, because of the unguarded manner in which it is stated, is likely to create a distinctly erroneous impression.
But even apart from such estimates of its character there is the paramount objection that it is superfluous. The doctrine of the Holy Spirit is adequately set forth in the Confession elsewhere, set forth indeed in a way that measures up to the high standards set by this the greatest of Reformed symbols. It is a pity that the addition of this chapter should be allowed to obscure that fact. In a word, it is superfluous to the extent of being distinctly misleading.
The Love of God
Chapter XXXV purports to express more fully than has been done elsewhere in the Confession the doctrine of the church on the subject “Of the Love of God and Missions.” From the standpoint of the Reformed Faith the objections are principally three:
(1) There is a studied omission of the electing love of God, and therefore of the distinction between the love of God that is unto salvation and the general benevolence of God that is unto all but is not of itself saving. Such an omission is fatal. It is impossible to give creedal statement to the Reformed doctrine of the love of God without explicit enunciation of the particular love of God. This objection gathers all the more strength when it is remembered that the topic is not only “the Love of God” but “the Love of God and Missions,” in other words, the love of God as it is directly related to the missionary work of the church.
It is true that the missionary who has an intelligent love of the gospel and zeal for the salvation of men does not forget the benevolence that God exhibits to all, nor does he fail to impress upon men the witness it bears to the goodness of God. But the chief message of the missionary, the message that pre-eminently constrains him to preach to the lost, is the message of that love that sent the Son of God into the world, the love that is electing and effectively redemptive. This revision, then, omits what a Reformed consciousness in the performance of its paramount duty precisely demands.
(2) But not only is definition of the particular love of God studiously omitted. When the extent of God’s love is mentioned it is expressly universalized. In Section I the love of God is described as infinite and perfect love and in Section II it is said that “in the Gospel God declares His love for the world.” There is, of course, a scriptural sense in which God’s love for the world is declared in the gospel. But in the context in which this is stated in this section it is calculated to teach a doctrine of God’s love entirely different from and at variance with, Scripture teaching and Reformed standards.
(3) In Section II there is careful omission of any mention of the efficacious grace of the Holy Spirit. The reply might be given that this phase of truth is sufficiently expressed in the preceding chapter and in the Confession elsewhere. This reply is not an answer to the objection. Why is the reference to the work of the Holy Spirit in Section II left on the plane of merely suasive influence? Why, we peremptorily ask, in a creedal statement that purports to set forth the official teaching of a Reformed Church on the subject of the love of God and missions should there be omission of the very thing that alone offers any real encouragement to the missionary, namely, the love of God coming to expression in the efficacious grace of the Holy Spirit?
In brief, the objection to this chapter is that it is not Reformed, indeed, that there is nothing distinctly Reformed in it. The subject treated of lies close to the very heart of the Reformed Faith. How possibly can a formulation so destitute of Reformed truth on so vital a subject be defended in Reformed Confession? There is. no defense.
The Declaratory Statement
The Declaratory Statement is in three parts - an introduction and two paragraphs, the first of which deals with Chapter III of the Confession, and the second with Chapter X, Section 3. It is to the teaching of these two paragraphs that exception must be taken. We heartily concede in principle the right and even duty of a Reformed Church to declare certain aspects of revealed truth, which under certain circumstances and conditions may call for more explicit statement. Protection against heresy and preservation of integrity as well as testimony to the truth often require it. It is not, then, to the idea of declaratory statement that exception is taken, but to the kind of declaratory statement herein made.
In the first paragraph the Declaratory Statement reads: “With reference to Chapter III of the Confession of Faith: that concerning those who are saved in Christ, the doctrine of God’s eternal decree is held in harmony with the doctrine of His love to all mankind, His gift of His Son to be the propitiation for the sins of the whole world, and His readiness to bestow His saving grace on all who seek it.”
It is true, of course, that there is an important sense in which we may speak of God’s love to all mankind. It is true also that we must speak in the language of 1 John 2:2 of Christ as the propitiation for the sins of the whole world. But when, as in the Declaratory Statement, it is said that “the doctrine of God’s eternal decree is held in harmony with the doctrine of His love to all mankind, His gift of His Son to be the propitiation for the sins of the whole world (italics ours), then the manifest implication is a doctrine of universal atonement, and universal atonement is in direct conflict with the teaching of the Confession. So what in view of the construction of the sentence and the collocation of the clauses is the straightforward interpretation of the Declaratory Statement cannot be held in harmony with the teaching of the Confession, and in particular with the teaching of Chapter III. The Declaratory Statement, therefore, brings contradiction into the creedal formulation of the doctrine of the Church.
Is it not apparent that here, as in Chapter XXXV, the settled policy and bias at work is the elimination or toning down of what is after all in this regard the distinctive feature of the Westminster Confession, namely, its consistent and all-pervasive particularism? It is just this that has made it both precious and offensive, precious to friends, offensive to foes. It is just precisely that that both the Declaratory Statement and Chapter XXXV would tone down or nullify.
The Salvation of Infants
The second paragraph of the Declaratory Statement deals with what the Confession says in Chapter X, Section 3. “Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, who worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth.” This is an adequate statement, but much misunderstood and maligned. The Declaratory Statement adds to this what is intended to remove all objection. The first sentence reads: “With reference to Chapter X, Section 3, of the Confession of Faith, that it is not to be regarded as teaching that any who die in infancy are lost.” This is perfectly correct. The framers of the Confession with evident intention left the question of the extent of the election of infants dying in infancy entirely open. If any believe that all infants dying in infancy are elect and therefore regenerated and saved then, so far as the statement of the Confession is concerned, they are at liberty to do so. If any suspend judgment on this question, then the Confession leaves them at liberty to do so. If any believe that not all infants dying in infancy are elect, then they are left by the Confession at liberty to do so. It is an exceedingly careful statement that allows for diversity of position on the extent of infant salvation.
But when the Declaratory Statement proceeds to say, “We believe that all dying in infancy are included in the election of grace, and are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, who works when and where and how he pleases,” it departs from the magnificent care exhibited in the reserved statement of the Confession.* [*It should be noted that the subject with which the Confession is dealing in this chapter is not the topic of infant salvation, but that of “Effectual Calling.”].
There have been Reformed theologians of the highest repute who held to the position expressed in the Declaratory Statement. Dr. Charles Hodge for example (SystematicTheology 1, pp. 26, 27) is unambiguous in his argument for the salvation of all infants dying in infancy. Other Reformed theologians of equal distinction scrupulously refrained from taking any such position. It is apparent, therefore, that there is surely room for difference of judgment in this matter. Our objection to the Declaratory Statement is that it incorporates into the creed of the church what is, to say the least, a highly debatable position, and therefore a position that should never be made part of creedal confession.
The Declaratory Statement epitomizes the entire difference of spirit and genius between the most distinguished of Reformed creed-makers, the. Westminster divines, and modern ecclesiastics. The former were insistent upon dogmatic definiteness on questions that belong to the integrity of the Reformed Faith and therefore lie close to the heart of the Christian religion. In modern times the trend is in the opposite direction. The doctrines that lie at the very heart of our Faith are by vague, cryptic, ambiguous statement thrown into indefiniteness and. obscurity. The purpose of the Westminster Confession was to state truth precisely to the exclusion of error; the genius of modern creed-making appears to be the power to devise enough elasticity to include error.
It is just such an indictment that bears against all the revisions we have considered, and therefore makes repudiation of them mandatory upon those who wish to bear an untarnished testimony to the truth.
Scanned and corrected by Chris Coldwell, November 19, 2002.
Total Comments 0
Comments
Recent Blog Entries by NaphtaliPress
- Articles on the 1903 Revisions of the Confession of Faith by Murray and Stonehouse (09-22-2008)
- The Meaning of "Psalm" in the Westminster Standards (03-22-2008)
- John Brown of Wamphray:Singing of Psalms, Hymns and Spiritual Songs 2 (03-11-2008)
- The Westminster Directory for Public Worship and Lining of the Psalms (11-18-2007)
- John Brown of Wamphray: Singing of Psalms, Hymns & Spiritual Songs in Public Worship (10-07-2007)
