Westminster Standards

Remind me again, what is so wrong with the system of doctrine taught in the Westminster Confession of Faith. Is it, its view of the authority of Scripture? Is it because, the authority of the Bible is so practical that it is said to be the only infallible rule for faith (theology) and life (morality and piety)? Are we offended by it singularity of thought regarding the doctrine of God; its unwavering devotion to the supreme sovereignty of the God?

Is Westminster too narrow or too well focused? It is true that it does not blink or wink when following the biblical evidence. If we are helpless in our salvation, and God shares his sovereignty with no one, then we are saved solely by God’s energy, by His grace and mercy. God provides all the necessary elements for our salvation. We are thereby robbed of our right to boast. We cannot say, “I discovered Jesus and liked what I found, so I trusted him for my salvation.” No,  according Westminster (and the gospel) Jesus claimed us before we ever believed and while we were still hostile to the very notion of God’s saving work.

While at Louisville Presbyterian Theological Seminary, I was taught that Westminster's theology was fundamentally flawed because it was not supported by Scripture. It made God’s revelation into a system, when, such a revelation, from such a Source, cannot be systematized. The Bible I was taught was a human document within the history of all human religions. If we find God there, it is because God is dimmly reflected in all human endeavors. While I disagreed with much of what I taught in seminary, I at first hearing agreed with their dismissal of the Covenant theology taught in Westminster. While I was not a Calvinist when I began seminary, I was well on my way to become Reformed by the time I graduated. (This happened despite their best efforts to confuse and corrupt my mind and soul.)

It was the insipid alternative to Westminster theology that my liberal teachers offered and the valid easy believe-ism of my Jesus People theology that drove me to consider the teaching of John Calvin, and, from there to reconsider Westminster’s Ordo Salutis.- order of salvation. Liberalism teaches Universal salvation. Liberalism (not "Liberal Christianity") teaches that our inherent goodness must be inflamed; by a process they call “raising consciousness.” Through this socio-political form of sanctification they hope to conform all true believers into the image and likeness of some future being that will be the echatological self actualized human creature. They must first rid all humanity of its –isms and phobias. This basically meant to you keep nagging people till they can stop saying “God the Father” or till we all stop using Styrofoam cups, or till we all agree that homosexuality is a celebratory gift from God to some of humanity. In other words, we will save the world through "good" thoughts and, if that fails, they will take your property away from you in court. 

Beyond its crystal statement on the authority of Scripture, its eloquent and comprehensive description of God, its fine Christology, it is most persuasive in its view of the application of Christ’s redemptive work. It begins with an effectual call by God’s Holy Spirit to us. That call is effectual because God supplies the faith necessary to hear and believe it. The call is to the cross where God’s covenant of redemption is sealed in the willing sacrifice of His own Son, who justifies us before a righteous God. He does not merely provide a means for our salvation; he secures it on our behalf. We are thereby adopted into His family and become sons and daughters of God, joint heirs with Christ. The redemptive work of Christ, though final and, in a sense, finished, still continues in the works of Sanctification and Glorification.

If we are to renew a Reformed body, my brothers and sisters, we must revisit the theology of Westminster.