What Was Jesus Doing?
The Extent, Intent & Effect of the Atonement—Lesson Nine
“The Westminster Confession of Faith”
Events Leading Up to the Assembly
To understand the significance of the Westminster Assembly, we need to understand the historical events leading up to it. The following section from a Wikipedia article on the “Monarchy of the United Kingdom” summarizes the period pertinent to our study:
“The reign of the second Tudor king, Henry VIII, was one of great political change. Religious upheaval and disputes with the Pope over granting him a divorce led the monarch to break from the Roman Catholic Church and to establish the Church of England (the Anglican Church). Henry VIII's son and successor, the young Edward VI, continued with further religious reforms but his early death in 1553 precipitated a succession crisis. He was wary of allowing his Catholic elder half-sister Mary to succeed, and therefore drew up a will designating Lady Jane Grey as his heiress. Jane's reign however lasted only nine days; with tremendous popular support, Mary deposed her, and declared herself the lawful Sovereign. Mary I pursued disastrous wars in France and attempted to return England to Roman Catholicism, in the process burning Protestants at the stake as heretics. She died in 1558, and was succeeded by her half-sister Elizabeth I. England returned to Protestantism, and continued its growth into a major world power by building its navy and exploring the New World.
Elizabeth's death in 1603 ended Tudor rule in England. Since she had no children, she was succeeded by the Scottish monarch James VI, who was the great-grandson of Henry VIII's older sister. James VI ruled in England as James I after what was known as the "Union of the Crowns". Although England and Scotland were in personal union under one monarch—James I became the first monarch to style himself "King of Great Britain" in 1604—they remained separate kingdoms. James I's successor, Charles I, experienced frequent conflicts with the English Parliament related to the issue of royal and parliamentary powers, especially the power to impose taxes. He provoked opposition by ruling without Parliament from 1629 to 1640 (the "Eleven Years' Tyranny"), unilaterally levying taxes, and adopting controversial religious policies (many of which were offensive to the Scottish Presbyterians and the English Puritans). In 1642, the conflict between King and Parliament reached its climax and the English Civil War began. The war culminated in the execution of the king, the overthrow of the monarchy, and the establishment of a republic known as the Commonwealth of England. In 1653, Oliver Cromwell, the most prominent military and political leader in the nation, seized power and declared himself Lord Protector (effectively becoming a military dictator, but refusing the title of king). Cromwell ruled until his death in 1658, when he was succeeded by his son Richard. The new Lord Protector had little interest in governing; he soon resigned. The lack of clear leadership led to civil and military unrest, and for a popular desire to restore the monarchy. In 1660, the monarchy was restored when Charles I's son Charles II was declared king.”
During the war between the English Parliament and Charles I, an appeal was made to the Scots by Parliament to support their effort. As a condition for their participation in the war, the Scots demanded that the English reform the Church of England, bringing it into nearer agreement with the Church of Scotland (Presbyterian) and the Reformed Churches on the continent. While the war was still in progress, an assembly was convened by Parliament on July 1, 1643 for this purpose. The assembly actually served as an advisory board of Parliament, who selected its members and directed its activities. In addition, an allowance of four shillings was provided by Parliament to defray the expenses of the delegates.
The assembly was supposed to consist of 30 laymen and 121 clergy. There were four factions represented—the Episcopalians, who usually didn't attend since they were authorized to do so by the king; the Presbyterians, which included most of the Puritans; the Independents, who were mainly “congregationalists”; and the Erastians, who favored the state's authority over ecclesiastical matters. Day to day, an average of some 70 members participated.
The first task given to the assembly was a revision of the Thirty-Nine Articles. In October, 1643, however, Parliament directed the assembly to abandon this project and instead to set about to establish an entirely new set of documents, including a new Confession of Faith. This task was finally completed in 1649. Although it was adopted by the Church of England soon afterwards, it was revoked in 1660 during the “Restoration”. However, they were wholly embraced by the Church of Scotland, and continue to be used by Presbyterian Churches today.
In 1658, the Congregationalist Church in England modified this confession, removing those parts at odds with their view of church government and inserting their own, producing the “Savoy Declaration”. In 1689, the Baptists in England further modified the Confession by inserting their own views concerning baptism and ecclesiology, producing the “Second London Confession of Faith”.
The Assembly and the Atonement
It should come as no surprise that many of the same disagreements that had surfaced at the Synod of Dordt in 1619, and later in Amyraut's teachings, reappear at this assembly. Such was almost inevitable, since, in some cases, the same people were involved. For instance, the same John Cameron who taught Amyraut at the Protestant Academy in Saumur ended his career as Principle of Glasgow College where John Davenant was his pupil. Davenant, who served as one of the English delegates at Dordt and pushed for a more universal view of the atonement there, also served as a member of the Westminster Assembly where he did the same.
A number of men were influenced by Davenant's thinking and this school of thought was represented at the Westminster Assembly by such men as Arrowsmith, Sprigge, Pritte, Carlyle, Burroughs, Strong, Seaman and Calumy. These men in general agreed to an absolute decree of predestination for the elect, but a general and conditional decree of all men. They defended a universal atonement in the sense of intention as well as sufficiency, i.e., that the atonement was intended for all as well as sufficient for all. Flowing from the cross were general blessings that came to all, and a certain common grace that was the possession of all who came under the preaching. And, in connection with these views, they defended the idea also of an offer of the gospel to all in which God expressed His intention and willingness to save all
In his Introduction to the Minutes of the Westminster Assembly, A. F. Mitchell writes: “The same care was taken to avoid the insertion of anything which could be regarded as indicating a preference for supralapsarianism; and for this purpose, the words, "to bring this to pass, God ordained to permit man to fall," were changed into "they who are elected, being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ," etc. Did these divines mean to follow an opposite policy in regard to the point on which Calumy, Arrowsmith, Vines, Seaman, and other disciples of Davenant, or according to Baillie of Amyraut, differed from the more exact Calvinists? After repeated perusal of their debate, I cannot take upon myself certainly to affirm that they did, though I admit that this matter is not so clear as the others above referred to. No notes of the debate in its latest stage are given nor is a vote of dissent respecting it found in these Minutes. Calumy, who spoke repeatedly in the debate on the Extent of Redemption, avowed that he held, in the same sense as the English divines at the Synod of Dort, "that Christ by his death did pay a price for all, with absolute intention for the elect, with 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." Seaman Vines, Marshall, and Harris in part at least, agreed with him. And though I cannot find that Dr. Arrowsmith took part in this debate, yet he was attending the Assembly, was a member of the Committee on the Confession, and in his writings has repeatedly expressed his leaning toward the same opinion.”
Statements from the Confession
The following statements are the pertinent ones dealing with the matter of the extent of the atonement. They clearly set forth the Reformed position:
From Chapter Eight, “Of Christ the Mediator”:
V. 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.
VI. Although the work of redemption was not actually wrought by Christ till after his incarnation, yet the virtue, efficacy, and benefits thereof were communicated into the elect, in all ages successively from the beginning of the world, in and by those promises, types, and sacrifices wherein he was revealed, and signified to be the seed of the woman, which should bruise the serpent's head, and the Lamb slain from the beginning of the world, being yesterday and today the same and for ever.
VIII. 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.
From Chapter Three, “Of God’s Eternal Decree”:
VI. As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so hath he, by the eternal and most free purpose of his will, foreordained all the means thereunto. Wherefore they who are elected being fallen in Adam are redeemed by Christ, are effectually called unto faith in Christ by his Spirit working in due season; are justified, adopted, sanctified, and kept by his power through faith unto salvation. Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only.
Thoughts on the Confession
At first glance, these statements seem consistent with the narrower view of Christ’s death—i.e. that it was only designed for the elect and effectually saves the elect. However, upon closer inspection, it’s not so clear that this is the case at all. It is remarkable, not only for what it says, but also for what it does not say!
At second glance, while the Confession affirms that God through the Redemption in Christ saves the elect and the elect alone—a point that no one at the assembly, Reformed or Amyraldian, disagreed with—it does not strictly limit the atonement to only that! It left enough “wiggle room” so that the Amyraldians could sign the document without surrendering their convictions. Consider the following excerpt from an article by Herman Hanko, Professor of Church History and New Testament at Protestant Reformed Seminary:
“As was true of the doctrine of God's eternal decrees, so it was also true of this doctrine that much debate swirled around it in the discussions on the floor of the Assembly. All agreed that the atonement of Christ was sufficient for all -- as the Canons (of Dordt) also express it (II, 3). But the question was, whether the divine intention was determined in its extent by the sufficiency of the atonement or by its efficacy. The latter was the view that prevailed in the Assembly, while the former was defended strongly by those who supported Amyrauldianism. That is, the view that prevailed was that the extent of the atonement, in God's intention, was limited to the elect alone for whom the suffering of Christ was efficacious. The Amyrauldians argued that the atonement was universal in God's intention, because its extent was determined by its sufficiency and it was sufficient for all men everywhere. Not only did such Amyrauldians as Seaman, Vines, Marshall and Calamy defend this proposition, but Richard Baxter did the same. Shaw speaks of this in quoting from Baxter.
The celebrated Richard Baxter, who favoured general redemption, makes the following remark upon this and another section of our Confession: "Chap. III, sec. 6, and chap. VIII, sec. 8, which speak against universal redemption, I understand not of all redemption, and particularly not of the mere bearing the punishment of man's sins, and satisfying God's justice, but of that special redemption proper to the elect, which was accompanied with an intention of actual application of the saving benefits in time. If I may not be allowed this interpretation, I must herein dissent."
Universalists, following Baxter, have since the time of the writing of this creed insisted that the creed left room for their position. Subsequent to the adoption of the creed, a great deal of argumentation has appeared in support of this idea (that the Westminster does not specifically exclude universalism) because of the mention of the "offer" in the Westminster Confession. Schaff claims that the idea of the offer contradicts, or at least leaves open, the question of the extent of the atonement as limited to the elect as this is taught in III, 6 and VIII, 8. Mitchell and Struthers claim that the Davenant men accepted the strict statement of the atonement because the articles on the offer left room for their view. And so the argument has continued until the present.”
It has been claimed by some (e.g. Curt Daniel) that those holding to Limited Atonement comprised about 2/3rds of the delegates, with those holding to a more Universal view or a Dualist view comprised the remaining 1/3rd. So, no one is surprised that a strong statement regarding the atonement referencing the elect is to be found in the Confession. However, it’s somewhat surprising that the statements are as ambiguous as they are, allowing those men, such as Davenant, to support and sign them without surrendering their conviction as regarding the atonement having a universal aspect. But, then, considering other statements in the Confession (e.g. death of infants), perhaps that’s not too surprising!