The Days Of Creation And Confession Subscription In The OPC

by J. V. Fesko

J. V. Fesko is Pastor of Geneva OPC. in Marietta, Georgia. His Ph.D. is from the University of Aberdeen.

I. Introduction

Within recent years the debate over the so-called “days of creation” has been raging. A flurry of books and articles has surfaced, attempting to define the nature of the debate, exegete relevant passages of Scripture, and examine historical sources to establish the orthodox position on the subject.[1] The variety of the recent publications certainly shows not only the diversity of opinion on the issue but also the various angles from which it can be approached. As the title of this paper suggests, this paper will approach the disputed subject from the vantage point of subscription to the Westminster Standards. Why is this the case? Frankly, there is no need to try to explain or defend the various views on the days of creation. Others have expounded, critiqued, and defended the various views elsewhere and there is therefore no need to revisit this thoroughly trodden ground. Moreover, despite the difference of opinion on this issue, there are few on either side of the debate who question the commitment to the authority of Scripture of any of the advocates of the various views. This is certainly borne out by the positive comments made by Joseph Pipa and David Hall in their recent contribution to the debate when they write: “Fortunately, this conference had a wide and strong commitment to the inerrancy of Scripture and the reformed faith.”[2]

Therefore, for the purposes of this paper, the crux of this issue lies in whether anything but a twenty-four-hour view can be accepted within the OPC. If a minister holds to anything other than a literal six-day view, does this mean that he must take an exception to the Confession? To answer this question we must first establish two issues: (1) the best method of determining the import of what the Westminster Confession states on this issue; and (2) in what way the Confession has been adopted in the OPC. Once we establish these two issues, we can then answer whether or not a minister would be required to take an exception.

II. Methodology Considered: Hall and Original Intent

The first thing we must do is establish the best method of determining the import of what the Confession states on the issue of the days of creation. The debate centers on how the Confession is to be interpreted when it says that

it pleased God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, for the manifestation of the glory of His eternal power, wisdom, and goodness, in the beginning, to create, or make of nothing, the world, and all things therein, whether visible or invisible, in the space of six days, and all very good. (4.1; cf. Larger Catechism 15)

The advocates of the literal six-day view argue that the way to resolve this debate is to determine what the original intent of the divines was when they wrote that the cosmos was created “in the space of six days.” David Hall, for example, argues that “moderns may differ with their views, but it is no longer credible that their original intent is unclear,” to support his claim that the Westminster divines wrote this phrase to convey the idea of six twenty-four-hour days.[3] Hall cites the works of various Westminster divines and their contemporaries to prove his contention. He then determines that

the historical conclusion remains clear, sufficient, unrefuted, and not merely probable. To differ with that view [six twenty-four-hour days] may still be possible, but in candor, it should be admitted as an exception (as for other confessional loci), and promulgated contingent upon presbytery approbation.[4]

Hall’s methodology and conclusion are quite clear. The way to resolve the confessional subscription issue is to determine the original intent of the divines and once this is done, any view contrary to the original intent should be considered as an exception. In other words, original intent is the standard. Implicit in Hall’s methodology is, if a person can find a view other than six twenty-four hour literalism, then this would legitimize the permissibility of other views. We must ask, however, if this is truly the best method for resolving the issue. We must answer, No. Why is this the case? In the end, Hall’s method creates more problems than it solves.

III. Problems with Hall’s Original Intent Method

1. Amyraldianism

Let us take Hall’s methodology and apply it to another doctrine within the Confession and see what results it produces. Let us suppose that a ministerial candidate is before a presbytery for ordination and he is an Amyraldian. The members of the presbytery want to deny this man ordination because not only is it against the pentagonal orthodoxy of Calvinism but it is contrary to the teaching of Scripture and the Westminster Standards. Yet, with Hall’s methodology, this man could not be denied ordination. How so? All this minister has to do is go to the works of Westminster divines to find evidence that there were four-point Calvinists at the assembly and prove that the original intent of the Confession allows for Amyraldianism. This minister would not have to go very far. All he has to do is go to the minutes of the assembly where Edmund Calamy (1600–66) says the following:

I am far from universal redemption in the Arminian sense; but that I hold is in the sense of our divines in the Synod of Dort, that Christ did pay a price for all, absolute intention for the elect, conditional intention for the reprobate in case they do believe,-that all men should be salvabiles, non obstante lapsu Adami…, that Jesus Christ did not only die sufficiently for all, but God did intend, in giving of Christ, and Christ in giving Himself, did intend to put all men in a state of salvation in case they do believe.[5]

What we see in Calamy’s statement is a clear affirmation of Amyraldianism. We should also note that Calamy was not alone in his affirmation of Amyraldianism. In addition to Calamy, Lazarus Seaman (1607–75), Stephen Marshall (c. 1594–1655), and Richard Vines (c. 1600 56) were in the Amyraldian camp.[6] Some, such as B. B. Warfield (1851–1921), tried to argue that the Confession precludes Amyraldianism by what it says in the following:

Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only. (3.6) 

The Lord Jesus, by His perfect obedience and sacrifice of Himself, which He, through the eternal Spirit, once offered up unto God, hath fully satisfied the justice of His Father; and purchased, not only reconciliation, but an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of heaven, for all those whom the Father hath given unto Him. (8.5) 

To all those for whom Christ hath purchased redemption, He doth certainly and effectually apply and communicate the same; making intercession for them; and revealing unto them, in and by the Word, the mysteries of salvation; effectually persuading them by His Spirit to believe and obey; and governing their hearts by His Word and Spirit; overcoming all their enemies by His almighty power and wisdom, in such manner and ways as are most consonant to His wonderful and unsearchable dispensation. (8.8)

Warfield argues that “there was denied, to be sure, the right to modify the statement of the ordo decretorum so as to make room for their ‘hypothetical universal-ism’ in the saving work of Christ.”[7] Yet, contrary to Warfield’s conclusion, there is nothing in 3.6, 8.5, and 8.8 that explicitly precludes an Amyraldian ordo decretorum. Calamy clearly states that he is “far from universal redemption in the Arminian sense.” Universal redemption, to be sure, is denied by the Confession in 3.6, “Neither are any other redeemed by Christ… but the elect only.” There is nothing, however, in any of these paragraphs that denies a conditional decree providing for the potential redemption of the non-elect.

This conclusion is borne out when we compare what the Confession says on the atonement with another confession that explicitly rejects Amyraldianism. When we compare paragraphs 3.6, 8.5, and 8.8 with the Formula Consensus Helvetica (16 75), written by Francis Turretin and Johannes Heidegger, a massive difference is easily detected. Regarding Amyraldianism, or hypothetical universalism, the Formula Consensus states:

We can not give suffrage to the opinion of those who teach—(I) that God, moved by philanthropy, or a sort of special love for the fallen human race, to previous election, did, in a kind of conditioned willing—willingness—first moving of pity, as they call it—inefficacious desire—purpose the salvation of all and each, at least, conditionally, i.e., if they would believe.[8]

This statement explicitly rejects the idea of a conditional decree. The difference between the Westminster Confession and the Formula Consensus is quite evident. Hence, with Hall’s methodology, we see that the Westminster Confession is open to Amyraldianism because not only is there support from the four Westminster divines, but the Confession does not explicitly reject Amyraldianism. What other problems could arise? Let us consider several others.

2. Natural Theology

The Westminster divines’ views on natural theology are somewhat more lenient and open compared with current views. For example, the Confession attributes much to natural theology, or “the knowledge of God that is available to reason through the light of nature.”[9] All we have to do is examine the standards where they use the phrase, “the light of nature,” to see this. By the light of nature one can demonstrate God’s existence (1.1; 21.1), order circumstances concerning worship and the government of the church (1.6), morally frame his life (10.4), and determine that certain worship practices are unacceptable (20.4). The extent to which the divines accepted traditional Thomistic affirmations regarding natural theology is borne out by the following statement by William Twisse, the prolocutor of the assembly, when he writes:

The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament shows his handy work. And albeit Aristotle, the greatest of Philosophers, maintained the eternity thereof without beginning; yet he confesses ingeniously in his Book De caelo, that all that went before him maintained mundum genitum esse; neither was his discourse of power to raze out that natural instinct hereof, which seems to be graven in the hearts of men, and was the chief ground of that universal acknowledgement of a divine power supreme.

Twisse goes on to comment that

it is well known not only what pains they have taken, but also with what strange success, in far reaching after the nature of the first mover, as appears by Aristotle in the 12th of his Metaphysics.[10]

These types of affirmations regarding natural theology were quite common to sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Reformed theology. In fact, Richard Muller notes that

the Reformed theologians of the orthodox era often drew on the causal, cosmological, and teleological models of Thomas Aquinas’s ‘five ways,’ they also tended to follow patterns of Renaissance logic and to develop the proofs discursively… It is typical, in other words, for the Reformed orthodox to mount the proofs in order to persuade atheists of the truth of Christian theism, and to draw on rhetorical forms such as the argument e consensu gentium (the common agreement of the heathen), rather than to design the proofs as a foundation for theological system.[11]

Currently; however, Reformed theologians are less willing to accept Twisse’s conclusions and arguably attach less efficacy to the power of natural theology. For example, Van Til writes that “after sin has entered the world, no one of himself knows nature aright, and no one knows the soul of man aright. How then could man reason from nature to nature’s God and get anything but a distorted notion of God?”[12] Twisse’s evaluation of Aristotle’s conclusions can not be classified as “a distorted notion of God.” On the contrarg Twisse says that Aristotle had a “strange success, in far reaching after the nature of the first mover.” A strict reading of the Confession along with reference to the works of the Westminster divines would show a somewhat different picture regarding the acceptance of the results of natural theology. A strict reading of the Confession would demand that anyone not in agreement with these conclusions would be required to take an exception to the Confession, if we use Hall’s methodology. What other issues might arise?

3. The Passive and Active Obedience of Christ

Concerning the Assembly’s debate regarding the imputed obedience of Christ, Thomas Gataker (1574–1654), William Twisse, and Richard Vines (c. 1600–1656) believed that “Christ’s sufferings and death, or passive obedience, alone are imputed to the believer.” When the divines were revising the Thirty-Nine Articles this small minority was able to persuade the Assembly to delete the word “whole” from their revision of the eleventh article: “His whole obedience and satisfaction being by God imputed to us.”[13] Moreover, when we look at chapter 11 in the Confession, we do not find the phrase “whole obedience” anywhere in the chapter, nor do we find the phrase anywhere else in the Confession. We simply find the phrase: “by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them” (11.1). This clearly allows for the position of Gataker, Twisse, and Vines on this subject. With Hall’s methodology we must allow this reading of the Confession.

Frankly, this is a deficiency in the Confession and it is difficult to imagine that a presbytery would ordain a candidate who argued that only Christ’s passive obedience was imputed to the believer. This is why John Owen (1616–91), who exercised great influence upon the composition of the Savoy Declaration (1658), rephrased this deficient portion of the Confession to read: “Christ’s active obedience unto the whole law, and passive obedience in his death for their whole and sole righteousness.”[14] In fact, modern OPC interpretations of this chapter of the Confession spell out what the divines were unwilling to specify. G. I. William-son, for example, writes that “Christ kept the law perfectly and thus worked out a perfect righteousness which he then freely offered to the Father on our behalf for this purpose.”[15] Williamson is talking about the active obedience of Christ which is imputed to the believer. Similarly, John Murray argues that Christ

met both the penal and the preceptive requirements of God’s law. The passive obedience refers to the former and the active obedience to the latter. Christ’s obedience was vicarious in the bearing of the full judgment of God upon sin, and it was vicarious in the full discharge of the demands of righteousness.[16]

Once again, Murray’s affirmation is acceptable according to the Confession, but not demanded by it.

4. Lapsarianism

The third paragraph of the Confession states that the obiectum praedestinationis sub specie aeternitatis is homo creatus et lapsus when the divines write that the elect are “fallen in Adam” (3.6). When we trace the development of this paragraph, we can see that the identification of the infralapsarian obiectum praedestinationis was not a part of the original statement. The paragraph: (1) had its genesis in the Lambeth Articles (1595); (2) was later appropriated by Archbishop James Ussher in the Irish Articles (1615); and (3) was then incorporated in the third paragraph of the Westminster Confession.[17] The statement in its original form in the Lambeth Articles never identified the obiectum praedestinationis, whereas by the time it reached the hands of the Westminster divines, they added the phrase, “fallen in Adam,” to it. In fact, W G. T. Shedd (1820–94) goes as far as to say that the “Westminster Assembly, in common with the Calvinistic creeds previously made, adopted the infralapsarian order.”[18] Once again, a strict reading of the Confession demands that supralapsarians take an exception. Yet, this has never been the case; supralapsarians have never been required to take an exception to the teaching of the Confession on this point. In fact, William Twisse and Samuel Rutherford (1600–61) were two notable supralapsarians at the Assembly. The fact that these supralapsarians were not required to take an exception to the wording of the Confession shows us that a strict original-intent reading of the Confession was not required even by its framers. Moreover, we see this same degree of latitude from the minutes of the Assembly when the divines debated the subject of the number of decrees, whether it was one or multiple decrees. We see the following interchange between Lazarus Seaman (1607–75) and George Gillespie (1613–48):

Mr. Seaman — All the odious doctrine of Arminians is from their distinguishing of the decrees, but our divines say they are one and the same decree. 

Mr. Gillespie — When that word is left out, is it not a truth, and so every one may enjoy his own sense.[19]

Gillespie’s suggestion apparently met with the approval of the Assembly because though the third chapter is titled “Of God’s Eternal Decree,” and the third chapter contains the words, “By the decree of God” (3.3), the Larger Catechism states God has elected angels and men by an “eternal and immutable decree,” yet in the very next question it asks, “How doth God execute his decrees [plural] ? A. God executeth his decrees … “ In other words, the Standards oscillate back and forth between decree and decrees so that “everyone may enjoy his own sense,” as Gillespie suggested,[20] We have seen, then, that Hall’s strict original intent formula does not stand up to close scrutiny on this issue. Rather, a loose reading was permitted by the original authors and is demanded by Presbyterian denominations now, unless they want to follow a strict reading and demand that supralapsarians take an exception to the confession.

5. Theonomy

What about theonomy and the Westminster Confession? The Confession follows the classical threefold division of the Law and divides it into the moral, ceremonial, and civil or judicial categories (see 19.3-4). The crucial point that we must note is what the divines have to say regarding the judicial law: “To them also, as a body politic, He gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the state of that people, not obliging any other now, further than the general equity thereof may require” (19.4). The key phrases in this paragraph are “judicial laws, which expired” and “not obliging any other now,” or no longer binding. Sinclair Ferguson notes that a “primafacie reading of these words suggests that the fundamental affirmation of the Confession is that the Mosaic judicial laws have expired.”[21] Greg Bahnsen, on the other hand, argues the exact opposite. He writes: “Whatever 19.4 may mean, it cannot be understood as abrogating, say, the death penalty for blasphemers, and so forth.”[22] Which of the two statements is correct? Space does not allow a full exposition of the subject; one can simply read what Bahnsen and Ferguson have written on the subject. Nevertheless, it appears that Ferguson’s analysis is the correct one, given the actions of the Assembly, Had the divines intended what Bahnsen argues, then we would expect to see them act upon those intentions. Yet, when given the opportunity, the divines did not execute several anti-Trinitarians.[23] Therefore, the teaching of theonomy at this point, at least as it comes from the pen of Bahnsen, conflicts with the plain reading of the Confession and even the actions of the divines. This means, according to Hall’s methodology, that theonomists, at least those of Bahnsen’s stripe, would have to take an exception to the Confession.

6. Summary Regarding the Problems with Hall’s Methodology

It is quite clear that the methodology of Hall regarding the primacy of original intent is wanting and opens the door to a host of theological problems. The overall problem is that Hall’s method has a great deal of similarity to the method of interpreting Scripture. Obviously, we want to arrive at the original intent of the authors of Scripture, ultimately God, and stick with those conclusions. Yet, this is not the way to interpret and apply a confession of faith. Scripture is inerrant and infallible whereas a confession of faith is not. Indeed, the Confession admits this very fact (see 31.4). What method should be employed, then, in determining the import of the Confession, especially as it relates to subscription? The best method must examine the original intent, but it must also examine the animus imponentis that the adopting body places on the Confession.

IV. The Preferred Method: Determining the Animus Imponentis

We must determine what animus imponentis a church places upon the Westminster Standards. The animus imponentis is literally the “spirit in which it is imposed,” or the spirit in which the Confession is imposed upon a subscriber. Charles Hodge explains that

the two principles which, by the common consent of all honest men, determine the interpretation of oaths and professions of faith, are, first, the plain, historical meaning of the words; and secondly, the animus imponentis, that is, the intention of the party imposing the oath or requiring the profession.[24]

If we state this principle in contemporary nomenclature, we might say that, yes, the historical meaning of the Confession is taken into consideration, but what is ultimately binding is the interpretation placed upon the document by the church that adopts the confession. Some might balk at this proposition because it appears to ignore the original intent and convey the idea that it would open the door to a reader-response theory of confession subscription. A person could read any view out of the Confession. This fear is unwarranted because it is not the individual but the church who decides how to interpret the Confession.[25] If we return to our hypothetical situation of the Amyraldian ministerial candidate who tries to appeal to the works of the Westminster divines and the lack of an explicit rejection of a conditional decree, the ordaining body can legitimately respond:

Yes, you are correct. The four divines you mention are Amyraldians and the confession could be read in a manner that allows for Amyraldianism. Nevertheless, this denomination has adopted the confession in such a manner that we do not recognize the legitimacy of Amyraldianism.

In fact, this is the type of response that can be used with all of the potential problem areas that are produced with an original-intent-only method like Hall proposes. While this is a hypothetical response, it is a legitimate practice that was exercised by the Westminster divines and another confession of faith, namely; the Apostles’ Creed.

In the appendix to the Shorter Catechism the divines include the Ten Commandments, the Lord’s Prayer, and the Apostles’ Creed. The divines decided to include the Creed because “it is a brief sum of the Christian faith, agreeable to the word of God, and anciently received in the churches of Christ.”[26] Now, what is important to note about the inclusion of the Apostles’ Creed is the animus imponentis that the divines use concerning the phrase, “He descended into hell.” It is commonly known that the original intent of the phrase meant to convey the idea that Christ literally descended into hell.[27] The divines were aware of the original intent but were not satisfied with this doctrinal affirmation. The minutes to the assembly record that when the divines were composing the Larger Catechism they came to the following conclusion regarding this questionable phrase:

Q. Wherein consisted Christ’s humiliation after his death? A. Christ’s humiliation after his death consisted in his being buried, and continuing in the state of the dead, and under the power of death till the third day; which hath been otherwise expressed in these words, He descended into hell. (Larger Catechism 50; emphasis added)[28]

The divines understood that Christ’s descent into hell was when He was subjected to death, not that Christ literally descended into hell. Moreover, we should also note that there is an asterisk by this very phrase in the quotation of the Apostles” Creedthat states, “*i.e. Continued in the state of the dead, and under the power of death till the third day.”[29] We see, then, that the divines imposed a different interpretation upon this phrase of the Apostles” Creed, one quite different from the original intent. Now, while the Apostles’ Creed was not a confession that the divines required ministers to subscribe to, their alteration of the original intent of the Creed provides us with an example of how the principle of the animus imponentis is generally employed.

We have seen that when it comes to confession subscription, not only does a person have to take into consideration the original historical meaning of the document, but also the animus imponentis of the adopting body. Therefore, with this foundational issue established, we must turn to the task of determining: (1) the original intent of the Westminster Confession regarding the days of creation; and (2) what animus imponentis the OPC has placed upon the Confession.

V. The Historical Meaning of “In the Space of Six Days”

When we turn to the Confession and read that the cosmos was created “in the space of six days,” we must determine what this phrase means before we can move forward in our discussion. The six-day literalists argue that this phrase only conclusion is not necessarily so. It has been demonstrated elsewhere that this phrase was used to specifically refute the idea of an instantaneous creation, which was first promulgated by Augustine.[30] Thus we can safely conclude that the divines explicitly reject the doctrine of instantaneous creation. Whether or not the divines intended to advocate the twenty-four-hour view exclusively, however, remains to be seen for several reasons. First, the Confession does not explicitly state that the days were twenty-four hours in length. During the writing of the Confession, for example, the divines considered including the length of the Sabbath day but ultimately decided not to:

Ordered—’which from the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ was the last of the week, and from the resurrection to the end of the world the first of the week.’ 

Resolved upon the Q., These words, ‘consisting of 24 hours,’ shall be waived in this place.[31]

Perhaps the divines deleted this reference to the length of the Sabbath because there was disagreement regarding its length. Perhaps this reasoning stands behind why the divines did not explicitly specify the length of the days of creation. They could have stated, “in the space of six days, consisting of 24 hours each.” Some might counter that this is implicit because all of the Westminster divines held that the days were twenty-four hours long. Yet, this is not so. John Lightfoot (1602–75), for example, believed that the first day of creation was thirty-six hours long. He writes:

Twelve hours did the heavens thus move in darkness, and then God commanded and there appeared light to his upper Horizon, namely to that where Eden should be planted (for to that place especially is the story calculated) and there did shine other twelve hours, declining by degrees with the motion of the heavens to the other Hemisphere, where it enlightened other twelve hours also, and so the first natural day to that part of the world was six and thirty hours long, so long was Joshua’s day, Josh. 10. And so long was our Savior clouded under death.[32]

The point is, Lightfoot did not believe that all of the days were twenty-four hours in length. Perhaps there were other divines of the same opinion. This is circumstantial at best, but it is nonetheless important information regarding why we do not see a specific length of the days of creation stated. We should also take note of the extended title of Lightfoot’s work, “Few, and New Observations upon the Book of Genesis. The most of them certain, the rest probable, all harmless, strange, and rarely heard before.” This is significant because Lightfoot had no problem putting forth new, probable, and even strange observations. His work was published in 1642 with no comments recorded in the minutes of the assembly regarding this work which indicates that his probable, strange, and rarely heard-of views concerning creation were of no great concern to the Assembly, contrary to what the twenty-four-hour advocates might want us to believe.

Second, though Hall presents the views of twenty one Westminster divines to prove the legitimacy of a twenty-four-hour view, we must remember that there were 109 divines who sat in on the assembly.[33] If Hall’s documentation is completely accurate, which there is some doubt, then he has established, at best, that nineteen percent of the divines held this view.[34] This is not even close to a simple majority which would confirm that this was the dominant view. Third, we know next to nothing about many of the divines.[35] They either never published anything on the subject or nothing was published about them. Who is to say what they believed concerning the length of the days of creation? Therefore, we can conclude that, yes, it is possible that the divines intended a twenty-four-hour view in the Confession, but this is not demanded by a strict reading of the Confession and the supporting evidence. Nevertheless, as we established earlier, original intent is not the only factor that is taken into consideration. We must turn to the second factor—the animus imponentis of the OPC regarding the phrase “in the space of six days.”

VI. The Animus Imponentis of “In the Space of Six Days” in the OPC

When the Westminster Standards were adopted, what animus imponentis did the founders of the OPC place on this phrase in the Confession? Admittedly, the founders of the OPC in their adopting act never directly addressed this issue, as it was not an issue of major contention in 1936 as it is now. Yet we can determine that the founders of the OPC did not read a twenty-four-hour view into this phrase of the Confession to the exclusion of all other views. J. Gresham Machen, the founding father of the OPC, held to the Day-Age view regarding the days of creation: “It is certainly not necessary to think that the six days spoken of in that first chapter of the Bible are intended to be six days of twenty-four hours each. We may think of them rather as very long periods of time.”[36] If the twenty-four-hour view was the intended animus imponentis of the OPC, then this would have required that J. Gresham Machen immediately take an exception to the Westminster Confession when the OPC first adopted it. This, of course, never happened. Why is this the case? Undoubtedly because the OPC has never, since its inception, placed a twenty-four-hour view upon this phrase in the Confession to the exclusion of other views. We see further support of this idea, for example, when we read what E. J. Young, another OPC minister and professor of Old Testament at Westminster Theological Seminary, writes concerning the length of the days of creation: “The length of the days is not stated. What is important is that each of the days is a period of time which may legitimately be denominated יוֹם (“day”).”[37] This further confirms that the OPC has never insisted that “in the space of six days” refers exclusively to the twenty-four-hour view. With the animus imponentis of the OPC regarding the phrase “in the space of six days” established, we may now return to our original question.

VII. Is an Exception Necessary?

If a minister holds to anything other than a literal six-day view, does this mean that he must take an exception to the Confession? Before we answer this question, let us first consider a similar issue regarding a questionable doctrine, the teaching of the Confession, and Confession subscription in the OPC. When the issue of pre-millennialism arose in the OPC, consideration was given to amending the Confession to allow for a premillennial reading. Machen, however, saw no need to revise the Confession. John Muether observes that Machen believed that a premillennialist could receive and adopt the Confession in good faith. He then goes on to quote Machen: “For the reasonable interpretation of the meaning of the ordination vow, so far as the return of Christ is concerned, we must have confidence in our brethren.”[38] The standards are quite clear on this point. “What shall immediately follow after the resurrection? A. Immediately after the resurrection shall follow the general and final judgment of angels and men” (Larger Catechism 88). This answer precludes premillennialism, yet Machen saw no need to amend it, nor did he see the need to require that premillennialists take an exception to the teaching of the Standards. This goes a long way in determining how the OPC should treat the issue of whether or not ministers who do not hold a twenty-four-hour view should take an exception to the Confession.

So, then, must a minister take an exception to the Confession if he does not hold to a twenty-four-hour view on the days of creation? The immediate answer to this question is, No. Given the lack of an explicit twenty-four-hour reading of the original intent of the Confession, plus the animus imponentis of the OPC on the debated phrase, a minister should not be required to take an exception.[39] A minister should not have to take an exception to an interpretation of the Confession that has never been adopted by the OPC. This, however, brings up a second issue. Namely, should the OPC adopt a new animus imponentis regarding the length of the days of creation? Certainly there are those who would like to see the OPC do this, exclude all other views on the length of the days of creation except for the twenty-four-hour view. If the OPC adopts a new and tighter animus imponentis on this issue, then the very same problems that Hall’s method produces surface once again. If the denomination strictly interprets this phrase of the Confession, then why not a strict interpretation on all of the other issues that we saw above? This, as we could imagine, would embroil the denomination in theological conflict for years to come.

VIII. Conclusion

Throughout this paper we have seen the major reasons why Hall’s method of Confession interpretation and subscription are found wanting. Rather than decide confessional subscription issues on the basis of original intent alone, we must also consider the animus imponentis of the adopting body. This is necessary because the authors, as we have seen, were not inerrant or infallible. Moreover, we must realize that the divines themselves never intended to have ministers subscribe to the ipsissima verba of the confession, as is evident from the various views on Amyraldianism and lapsarianism, for example. The Confession was and is a consensus document. Though Ferguson’s comments pertain specifically to theonomy and the Confession, his conclusions are nonetheless applicable to the debate over the length of the days of creation:

Nothing could be more wrong-headed in approaching the Confession than to adopt the hermeneutical principle that it is open to one, exclusive, narrowly delimited interpretation in each of its statements. For the Confession is a self-consciously consensus document, containing theological accommodations expressed to encompass differing views within generic Calvinism—even on issues about which individual Divines might feel strongly.[40]

If the OPC adopts a twenty-four-hour view to the exclusion of all other views, then the OPC will begin to turn the Confession into the very thing that it never was intended to be—the confession of one particular strand of Reformed theology rather than a consensus document. On the days of creation, those in favor of the twenty-four-hour view might succeed. If they do, the question we will then face is, Which strand of Reformed theology will eventually triumph? The supra- or infralapsarians, the theonomists or non-theonomists, the classical apologetes or presuppositionalists, the pre-, a-, or postmillennialists, hymn singers or exclusive psalmists, redemptive-historical or traditional preachers? The list could go on indefinitely, as could the theological debates. Or, we can simply continue in the tradition of the founder of the OPC, J. Gresham Machen, and have confidence in our brethren. Given the possible conflict that could ensue, the latter seems to be the wiser of the two paths.

Moreover, who is to say that all 109 of the divines would have rejected the framework or day-age views regarding the days of creation? Who is to say how many of the divines would read the works of Van Til and agree with him on natural theology? Who is to say that the Assembly would have rejected the teaching of theonomy? If we adopt one strand of Reformed theology to the exclusion of all others, we in effect make a decision for the divines that they have not made. It seems better to let the Confession continue to be a consensus document and allow the various strands of Reformed theology to exist under the umbrella of the Westminster Standards as they always have.

Notes

1. Most recently, for example, we have the following: William S. Barker, “The Westminster Assembly on the Days of Creation: A Reply to David W. Hall,” WTJ 62 (2000): 113-20; Mark D. Futato, “Because It Had Rained: A Study of Gen 2:5–7 with Implications for Gen 2:4–25 and Gen 1:1–2:3, ” WTJ 60 (1998): 1-21; James B. Jordan, Creation in Six Days: A Defense of the Traditional Reading of Genesis One (Moscow: Canon Press, 1999); Robert Letham, “‘In the Space of Six Days’: The Days of Creation from Origen to the Westminster Assembly,” WTJ 61 (1999): 149-74; Joseph A. Pipa and David W. Hall, eds., Did God Create in Six Days? (Taylors: Southern Presbyterian Press, 1999).
2. Pipa and Hall, preface to Did God Create in Six Days?, n.p.
3. David W. Hall, “What Was the View of the Westminster Assembly Divines on Creation Days?,B.XST|| in Pipa and Hall, D/d God Create in Six Days?, 41.
4. Ibid., 52.
5. Alexander Mitchell and John Struthers, eds., Minutes of the Sessions of the Westminster Assembly of Divines (Edinburgh: William Blackwood and Sons, 1874), 152.
6. B. B. Wartield, “The Westminster Assembly and its Work,” in The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield (ed. Ethelbert D. Warfield et al.; 10 vols.; 1931; repr., Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981), 6:56.
7. Ibid.
8. Formula Consensus, §6, in A. A. Hodge, Outlines of Theology (1860; repr., Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1991), 657.
9. Richard A. Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms: Drawn Principally from Protestant Scholastic Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1985), 302, q. v. theologia naturalis.
10. William Twisse, The Riches of God’s Love Unto the Vessels of Mercy (Oxford: 1653), 1:188. The types of statements that Twisse approves of and commends Aristotle for are the following: “The first mover, then, exists of necessity; and in so far as it exists by necessity its mode of being is good, and it is in this sense a first principle” (Aristotle, Metaphysics, in Great Books of the Western World, [ed. Mortimer J. Adler et al.; trans. W. D. Ross; 54 vols.; Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1971], 8:602 [Meta. 12.7.10]). For the views of other divines on the same subject see, Warfield, “Westminster Assembly,” in Works, 6: 196–203.
11. Richard A. Muller, “Sources of Reformed Orthodoxy: The Symmetrical Unity of Exegesis and Synthesis,” in A Confessing Theology for Postmodern Times (ed. Michael Horton; Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2000), 53. C f. John Platt, Reformed Thought and Scholasticism: The Arguments for the Existence of God in Dutch Theology, 1575–1650 (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1982).
12. Cornelius Van Til, Introduction to Systematic Theology (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1974), 72.
13. William Barker, Puritan Profiles: 54 Contemporaries of the Westminster Assembly (Fearn: Christian Focus Publications, 1996), 158.
14. Ibid., 176.
15. G. I. Williamson, The Westminster Confession of Faith for Study Classes (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1964), 105.
16. John Murray, Redemption Accomplished and Applied (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955), 22.
17. See Philip Schaff, Creeds of Christendom (1931; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1990), 3:523ff. On the Standards’ infralapsarian stance see J. V Fesko, Diversity within the Reformed Tradition: Supra- and Infra-lapsarianism in Calvin, Dort, and Westminster (Greenville: Reformed Academic Press, forthcoming), chs. 8–9; Robert Shaw, An Exposition of the Westminster Confession of Faith ( 1845; repr., Fearn: Christian Focus Publications 1980), 56; A. A. Hodge, The Confession of Faith: A Handbook of Christian Doctrine Expounding the Westminster Confession (1869; repr., London: Banner of Truth, 1958), 70; Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology (1880; repr., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 2:317; cf. B. B. Warfield, “Predestination in the Reformed Confessions,” in Studies in Theology (ed. Ethelbert D. Warfield et al.; New York: Oxford University Press, 1932), 230.
18. W. G. T. Shedd, “The Meaning and Value of the Doctrine of Decrees,” The Presbyterian and Reformed Review 1 (1890): 4.
19. Mitchell and Struthers, Minutes, 151.
20. See D. A. S. Fergusson, “Predestination: A Scottish Perspective,” SJT 46 (1993): 465.
21. Sinclair Ferguson, “An Assembly of Theonomists? The Teaching of the Westminster Divines on the Law of God,” in Theonomy: A Reformed Critique (ed. William S. Barker and Robert Godfrey; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990), 326.
22. Greg L. Bahnsen, Theonomy in Christian Ethics (Nutley: The Craig Press, 1977), 540.
23. See S. W. Carruthers, The Everyday Work of the Westminster Assembly (ed. J. Ligon Duncan III; 1943; Greenville: Reformed Academic Press, 1994), 142–43. Also, for example, John Biddle (1616–62), a Socinian and considered the father of Unitarianism, was arrested but never executed (see John Owen, Vindicae Evangelicae: The Mystery of the Gospel Vindicated and Socinianism Examined, “an The Works of John Owen [1850 53; repr., Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1991], 12:3).
24. Charles Hodge, “Adoption of the Confession of Faith,” in Discussions on Church Polity (London: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1878), 319.
25. Hodge, “Adoption of the Confession,” 318.
26. Westminster Confession of Faith (1646; repr., Glasgow: Free Presbyterian Publications, 1995), 319.
27. We see this view expressed in the following: “We know that this his only begotten Son came down from the heavens…, was crucified and died, and descended into the lower parts of the earth” (Socrates, Ecclesiastical History 2.2, 37 [NPNF2 2:37, 61]). Cf. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion (ed. John T McNeill; trans. Ford Lewis Battles; 2 vols.; LCC; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960), 2.16.8.
28. Cf. Mitchell, Minutes, 365.
29. Westminster Confession, 319.
30. See Letham, “In the Space of Six Days,” 154–57; Barker, “Westminster Assembly and Creation,” 114ft.
31. Mitchell and Struthers, Minutes, 216.
32. John Lightfoot, A Few, and New Observations upon the Book of Genesis. The most of them certain, the rest probable, all harmless, strange, and rarely heard before (1642), 2.
33. See Westminster Confession, 15–16.
34. See Barker, “Westminster Assembly on the Days of Creation,” 113–20 passim.
35. See James Reid, Memoirs of the Westminster Divines (1811; repr., Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1982), 128, 131,192, 234, passim.
36. J. Gresham Machen, The Christian View of Man (1937; repr., Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1999), 115.
37. E.J. Young, Studies in Genesis One (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1964), 104.
38. John Muether, “Confidence in Our Brethren: Creedal Subscription in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church,” in The Practice of Confessional Subscription (ed. David W. Hall; Oak Ridge: Covenant Foundation, 1997), 304.
39. Even according to the definition of strict or full subscription a minister should not be bound to adhere to the twenty-four-hour view or take an exception. Morton Smith, for example, writes that “full subscription does not require the adoption of every word of the Confession and Catechisms, but positively believes that we are adopting every doctrine or teaching of the Confession and Catechisms” (The Subscription Debate: Studies in Presbyterian Polity [Greenville: Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary, n.d.], 6). Whether or not God created in six twenty-four-hour days does not affect the central doctrine of creatio ex nihilo; it is simply a variation on the amount of time that the creation took.
40. Ferguson, “An Assembly of Theonomists?” 346.