Harrison Perkins discusses the theology and historical context of James Ussher with particular attention to the development of the confessional understanding of the covenant of works. Ussher was the Church of Ireland Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of All Ireland between 1625 and 1656. He was a prolific scholar and significant church leader.

Perkins is the author of Catholicity and the Covenant of Works: James Ussher and the Reformed Tradition (Oxford University Press). In this book, he demonstrates how Ussher used the covenant of works to inform many of the most important features of his theology. While the covenant of works is most closely identified with the Reformed tradition, Perkins makes the case that when the interconnectedness of the various doctrines is explained, there is a deep catholicity undergirding it. Ussher constructed his understanding of the covenant from traditional teachings that he appropriated from the ancient and medieval church.

Perkins is pastor of London City Presbyterian Church in London and lecturer at Edinburgh Seminary in Edinburgh, Scotland.

Participants: Camden Bucey, Glen Clary, Harrison Perkins

Dr. John Bower speaks about constructing a critical edition of the Westminster Confession of Faith using four historical authoritative texts and several other sources. Bower has done a tremendous service to the church and the academy. Both will benefit greatly from his careful scholarship. With Chad Van Dixhoorn, Dr. Bower is co-editor of Principal Documents of the Westminster Assembly published by Reformation Heritage Books. The Westminster Confession of Faith: A Critical Text and Introduction appears in that series.

Participants: Camden Bucey, John Bower

After having created Adam in his image and placing him in the Garden of Eden, God entered into a covenant with him (Gen. 2:16–17). In Westminster Confession of Faith 7.1, the divines wrote,

The distance between God and the creature is so great, that although reasonable creatures do owe obedience unto him as their Creator, yet they could never have any fruition of him as their blessedness and reward, but by some voluntary condescension on God’s part, which he hath been pleased to express by way of covenant.

There are several important things to note in this passage. First, upon creation and prior to the establishment of the covenant, Adam already knew God and owed him obedience merely from the fact that he was created in God’s image. God did not owe Adam anything, and Adam could in no way place God into his debt. Second, the type of fruition that the covenant affords is that of God as “blessedness and reward.” Adam already owed God personal, perfect, exact and entire obedience, though God voluntarily condescended to establish the covenant of works by which Adam could consummately come to know God in glory. In other words, he could ascend God’s holy hill (Psalm 24) through the gratuitous means God provided.

Westminster Confession of Faith 7.1 is not describing covenant as the means by which God ontologically or metaphysically condescends to creation. God does not assume new properties, attributes, or characteristics to do so. Neither does the confession speak of the covenant as the means by which Adam comes to know God generally—as if Adam would not even know that God existed apart from a covenant. The covenant is the means by which he may come to know God specifically as his blessedness and reward.

Participants: Camden Bucey, Jeff Waddington, Jim Cassidy

Alan D. Strange, Imputation of the Active Obedience of Christ in the Westminster Standards. Explorations in Reformed Confessional Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2019. Pp. xviii + 154. $10.00 (paperback).

The rush of books, articles, reviews, and even a hymnal that has flowed from the pen (or, more likely, keyboard) of Dr. Alan D. Strange has been a most appreciated and welcomed gift to the church. His latest work is no exception as it takes up the vital gospel issue of the imputation of the active obedience of Christ—“no hope without it,” voiced the dying Machen. Strange’s focus is primarily historical, investigating the Westminster Assembly and the Westminster Standards, but this does not keep him from skillfully integrating this history with precise dogmatic formulations, warm pastoral exhortations, penetrating polemical argumentations, and judicious ecclesiastical implications—a truly masterful feat that is both academic and devotional, for both the classroom and the coffeehouse.

Strange’s stated aim is to advance the argument that “while the Assembly may never have explicitly affirmed active obedience in what it finally adopted, nonetheless, the Westminster documents, taken as a whole, tend to affirm it” (2). He seeks to accomplish this by carefully considering both the original intent of the framers of the Westminster Assembly and the animus imponentis, that is, the way in which subsequent ecclesiastical assemblies have understood the Standards (128-29). In his own words:

It is my contention, however, that a few lacunae remain which, when examined, will fill in the picture and permit us to see more clearly that the Assembly affirmed active obedience when it specifically addressed the issue. Although the final language of the Assembly’s documents may not have reflected it as some other formulations do (such as the Savoy Declaration of 1658), they reflect a two-covenant structure that affirms (indeed, that entails and requires…) the doctrine of active obedience. Furthermore, I will argue that the original intent of the Westminster divines favors active obedience, as does the interpretation and application of those standards over the years of those churches that have adopted them (in other words, the animus imponentis favors such an affirmation). Moreover, the Assembly’s constitution as a body to give advice to Parliament rather than as a ruling body of the church materially affected how it did its work; consideration of this is relevant in a variety of controversies, including the question of whether the Assembly affirmed active obedience. (3)

But before arriving in Westminster Abbey in the 17th century, Strange excavates the ancient and medieval church to find seeds of the doctrine of Christ’s active obedience. While some (like Norman Shepherd) have denied any such antecedents, Strange demonstrates that such denial is wrongheaded. In the early church, Irenaeus’s recapitulation theory, anticipated by Justin Martyr, included Christ obeying where Adam disobeyed, and Athanasius’s reasoning for the incarnation expressed the positive need for Christ to fulfill the law “that stood in danger of never being fulfilled because of the sin of Adam and his progeny” (22). In the medieval church, theologians such as Hugh, Lombard, Alexander of Hales, Aquinas, Duns Scotus, and Biel contended that Christ had no need to merit anything for himself, which implies that what he did merit, he merited for us. 

Strange further observes that any historical survey of the doctrine of active obedience must consider not only the doctrine of Christ, but also the doctrine of the Holy Spirit. In fact, it was when the Westminster divines were addressing the latter at the Assembly that the debate about active obedience commenced. The doctrine of the Holy Spirit did not come into its own until the Reformation—most notably with Calvin, whom Warfield knighted “the theologian of the Holy Spirit.” This explains why “the imputation of the active obedience of Christ, which is distinctly the work of the Holy Spirit, received comparatively little attention until the Reformation”: the church had yet to enjoy the proper categories by which to understand the doctrine more robustly (29-30).

In the Reformation, the seeds of active obedience are found in Luther and Melanchthon, which eventually bloomed in their successors, like Martin Chemnitz, and in the Formula of Concord (3.14-15). Calvin may not have clearly distinguished the active from the passive obedience of Christ, but there is considerable evidence that he “does teach a doctrine of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness that includes what later writers distinguished into Christ’s active and passive obedience” (35). This would be stated more explicitly by his successor, Theodore Beza, as well as in the Heidelberg Catechism 60-61 and the Belgic Confession article 22. Johannes Piscator “became the first, particularly in response to the affirmation of Beza, to argue that the imputation of Christ’s righteousness was restricted to His obedience in making satisfaction for the sins of His people” (38). But many Reformed theologians rose to oppose him and affirm active obedience, including the international French Reformed synods of Privas (1612) and Tonneins (1614). Lastly, the Irish Articles of 1615, the most immediate antecedent to Westminster, explicitly affirmed Christ’s active obedience in articles 30, 34, and 35.

This brings us to the heart of Strange’s book in which the debate over active obedience at the Westminster Assembly in 1643 is carefully documented and analyzed within its historical, political, and ecclesiastical context. The Assembly’s original task was not to draft a new confession of faith, but to revise the Thirty-Nine Articles, in which only a single article, article 11, treated justification. This article “had to bear the entire weight of all the major aspects of the doctrine of justification.” The divines, therefore, had relatively brief space, putting precision at a premium (51-52). In this context, the word whole (to qualify Christ’s obedience) carried significant weight as short hand for affirming active obedience.

A heated and drawn-out debate ensued over that weighty word, whole, but when it finally came to a vote, only three or four men out of fifty voted against affirming active obedience. Furthermore, their reasons for opposing it were not owing in the least to a desire “to introduce any element of human merit or works (as a part of our faithfulness) into the equation of our justification” (61). Rather, the minority opposition was mainly owing to fear of antinomianism, “the main theological error among Protestants” at that time (56-57). Yet, despite the potential misuse of the affirmation of active obedience, the Assembly affirmed it anyway, for they believed such “to be at the heart of the gospel” (58).

Thus, the Assembly in its initial debate overwhelmingly affirmed active obedience. Why then is the precise language of whole obedience absent from the Standards they later drafted? Strange answers,

[A]ctive obedience was affirmed in the revision of article 11 in 1643, and there is no reason to suppose that it was not also affirmed in WCF 11 and in the other relevant chapters of the WCF, even though the specific wording of revised article 11 never again appears. It is my contention that it did not need to appear in that form because the wording of WCF 11.3 and 8.5 did everything that the revision of article 11 by the addition of the word whole was intended to do (and arguably more). (67)

Strange supports his thesis with a survey of the Westminster Standards to demonstrate the ubiquitous presence of active obedience, despite the absence of the exact wording of whole obedience. Furthermore, he provides a global perspective of the Standards in terms of its covenant theology, showing how the system of doctrine contained therein falls apart when active obedience is denied. He correctly points out that those who deny active obedience today will “not stop at a mere denial of active obedience; they would likely have problems with the whole theological scheme of Westminster, of which active obedience is merely an important plank” (136). In other words, active obedience is not something one can reject without doing substantial damage to the whole system, and those who do “are wanting as Reformed theologians” (136-37).

The bulk of the book has been concerned with the original intent of the framers of the Westminster Assembly, but Strange concludes with an important consideration of the animus imponentis in the final chapter. To give just a cursory overview: both the PCA and OPC have had committees address the broader question of justification in which active obedience was affirmed. This is on par with judicatories in both denominations requiring the affirmation of limited atonement, despite the original intent being unclear. “Similarly,” says Strange, “the recent reports of committees erected by such bodies also testify that an animus has developed in the church that reads our standards to require the affirmation of active obedience, even as they routinely require the affirmation of the doctrine of limited atonement” (134). A similar animus is also evidenced in the PCA, OPC, RCUS, OCRC, URCNA, and RPCNA who have received committee reports that “have either condemned FV [Federal Vision] and NPP [New Perspective on Paul] errors or have adopted statements that reaffirm and highlight confessional statements that militate against positions of at least some of their supporters” and affirm active obedience (137n10).

The compact size of this book would be a false indication of its massive achievement in historical and confessional theology. In a word, it punches well above its weight-class, especially in contemporary debates concerning justification, like Federal Vision. Strange’s thesis that the Westminster Assembly and Standards affirm the imputation of the active obedience of Christ is carefully and persuasively argued. This volume will be of great service to the church in her task to guard the good deposit of the gospel.

Dr. Alan D. Strange has graced Christ the Center on numerous occasions, including an interview on the book reviewed above:

• The Imputation of Active Obedience in the Westminster Standards
• History and the Life of the Church
• The Spirituality of the Church in the Ecclesiology of Charles Hodge
• Charles Hodge and the Spirituality of the Church
• Confessional Subscription and the Animus Imponentis

Dr. Alan Strange discusses the Westminster Assembly and the Westminster Standards and whether they affirmed the imputation of Christ’s active obedience as necessary for our justification. Strange has written, The Imputation of the Active Obedience of Christ in the Westminster Standards, which is published by Reformation Heritage Books in their Explorations in Reformed Confessional Theology series.

In the book, Strange gives a survey of church history before and during the Reformation to see how the Assembly relates to the tradition before it. He reflects on the relation of imputation to federal theology, modern challenges to the doctrine, and important rules for interpreting the confessional document.

Dr. Strange is professor of church history at Mid-America Reformed Seminary in Dyer, Indiana.

Links

Strange, “The Imputation of the Active Obedience of Christ“

Participants: Alan Strange, Camden Bucey

Dr. Whitney Gamble speaks about antinomianism and the Westminster Assembly. She has written Christ and the Law: Antinomianism at the Westminster Assembly, which is part of the Studies on the Westminster Assembly series published by Reformation Heritage Books. Dr. Gamble is associate professor of biblical and theological studies at Providence Christian College. She holds a PhD in historical and systematic theology from the University of Edinburgh, Scotland, a master of theological studies from Reformed Presbyterian Theological Seminary in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and a B.A. in biblical studies from Geneva College in Beaver Falls, Pennsylvania. Along with seventy other leading scholars from around the world, she is contributing a chapter in the forthcoming multi-volume series, The History of Scottish Theology, published by Oxford University Press. Dr. Gamble is also a frequent guest on The White Horse Inn podcast.

Participants: Camden Bucey, Jim Cassidy, Whitney Gamble

Today we welcome Chad Van Dixhoorn to speak about his book, God’s Ambassadors: The Westminster Assembly and the Reformation of the English Pulpit, 1643–1653 in which he describes how the assembly brought much-needed reform to the theology and practice of pulpit ministry. Dr. Van Dixhoorn is Associate Professor of Church History at Reformed Theological Seminary in Washington, D.C. He is a graduate of Westminster Theological Seminary (MDiv, ThM) and the University of Cambridge (PhD). He was featured on Christ the Center episode 134 and episode 342 and in episode 507 with his wife, Emily.

Links

• The Minutes and Papers of the Westminster Assembly, 1643-1653
• Confessing the Faith: A Reader’s Guide to the Westminster Confession (Banner of Truth Trust, 2014)
• Confessing the Faith: Study Guide

Participants: Camden Bucey, Chad Van Dixhoorn, Jim Cassidy

Chad and Emily Van Dixhoorn visit Christ the Center to speak about Confessing the Faith: Study Guide. This is a helpful guide to Confessing the Faith: A Reader’s Guide to the Westminster Confession (Banner of Truth Trust, 2014), which is itself a thorough help for understanding the Westminster Confession of Faith. Emily Van Dixhoorn graduated from Brown University as a math major and from Westminster Theological Seminary with an MAR. Dr. Chad Van Dixhoorn is Associate Professor of Church History at Reformed Theological Seminary in Washington, D.C. He is a graduate of Westminster Theological Seminary (MDiv, ThM) and the University of Cambridge (PhD). He is the editor of The Minutes and Papers of the Westminster Assembly, 1643-1653 and he was featured on Christ the Center episode 134 and episode 342. Chad and Emily have five children.

Participants: Camden Bucey, Chad Van Dixhoorn, Emily Van Dixhoorn, Glen Clary

Dr. Chad B. Van Dixhoorn visits Christ the Center to speak about his forthcoming book, Confessing the Faith: A Reader’s Guide to the Westminster Confession (Banner of Truth Trust, 2014). The book is a thorough help for understanding the Westminster Confession, useful for pastors and for Christians seeking to deepen their knowledge of Reformed doctrine. Today, Dr. Van Dixhoorn discusses questions concerning the Confession’s treatment of the doctrine of Scripture, of Salvation, of the Church, and more. Dr. Van Dixhoorn is a graduate of Westminster Theological Seminary (MDiv, ThM) and the University of Cambridge (PhD). He has taught theology at the University of Nottingham, and has held three fellowships at the University of Cambridge, where he has researched the history and theology of the Westminster assembly and taught on the subject of Puritanism. A former British Academy Postdoctoral Fellow, in 2013 he was elected a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society. Van Dixhoorn has lectured at RTS DC since 2008 where he teaches church history and practical theology. Van Dixhoorn has served as associate minister of Cambridge Presbyterian Church and Grace Presbyterian Church in Vienna, VA, where he preaches weekly. He and his wife Emily have five children. He is also the editor of The Minutes and Papers of the Westminster Assembly, 1643-1653 and he was featured on Christ the Center episode 134.

Participants: Camden Bucey, Chad Van Dixhoorn, Jeff Waddington, Jim Cassidy

Dr. Alan Strange comes to the program to discuss the animus imponentis. Animus imponentis is a legal term that refers to the meaning of the words of an oath or confession that is intended by the body imposing the oath or confession. The concept clarifies what it means for officers of a modern church to subscribe to a confession composed by men who lived several centuries ago. On today’s episode, Dr. Strange explains the animus imponentis in greater detail and applies it to the issue of the days of creation, the topic of an OPC committee of which Dr. Strange was a part. Dr. Strange is Professor of Church History, Registrar, and Theological Librarian at Mid-America Reformed Seminary in Dyer, Indiana. He recently completed a Ph.D. from the University of Wales. Conference talks on the animus imponentis: http://www.pncnopc.org/audio/audio-presbytery/2009-animus-imponentis-conference/ “What is the ‘System of Doctrine?'” – Charles Hodge: http://www.pcahistory.org/documents/subscription/hodge.html OPC report on the creation days: http://opc.org/GA/CreationReport.pdf

Participants: Adam York, Alan Strange, Camden Bucey, Jim Cassidy

It’s often argued that because of the political climate, the Scottish commissioners to the Westminster Assembly had full rein over the Westminster Assembly and the confessional documents it produced. In this episode, we are pleased to welcome Dr. Wayne Spear to analyze this common perception. Dr. Spear looks specifically at the influence of the Scottish commissioners upon the ecclesiology of the Westminster Assembly. Dr. Spear has published an excellent book with Reformation Heritage Books entitled, Covenanted Uniformity in Religion: The Influence of the Scottish Commissioners upon the Ecclesiology of the Westminster Assembly. Dr. Spear is Professor Emeritus of Systematic Theology at Reformed Presbyterian Theological Seminary in Pittsburgh, PA. Dr. Spear has authored Talking to God: The Theology of Prayer; Faith of Our Fathers: A Commentary on the Westminster Confession of Faith; “The Westminster Confession of Faith and Holy Scripture,” in To Glorify and Enjoy God (Co-author); “Augustine’s Doctrine of Biblical Infallibility,” in Inerrancy and the Church; and, “The Westminster Assembly’s Directory for Church Government,” in Pressing Toward the Mark (Co-author).

Participants: Camden Bucey, Jeff Waddington, Nick Batzig, Wayne Spear