The following is a transcript from the PCA trial proceedings in which Dr Robert Letham was asked a series of questions. The overall subject matter of the trial is not relevant to our interests here. What is of interest, however, are Letham’s modified statements regarding the orthodoxy of hypothetical universalism in relation to the Westminster Confession and Assembly debates.1
For each section, a question is asked of Letham, to which he answers. His answers are prefaced with an “A.”
5 Q: One of the reasons we’ve asked you to testify, Dr. Letham, is your expertise
6 on the Westminster Assembly and you’ve written that English Calvinism was a
7 heterogeneous creature. You’ve used the term generic Calvinism a few times in your book.
8 What do you mean by that and what do you mean by saying “the Assembly within–within
8 limits was inclusive rather than exclusive?
10 A: Yeah, well, the term generic Calvinism is not mine but comes from B. B.
11 Warfield who described the Assembly as representing a generic Calvinism in his book
1 (inaudible) the Westminster Assembly and Its Work. And I think Warfield was correct. For
13 example, there’s a number of reasons for saying that. Firstly, the aim of the Westminster
14 Assembly originally, of course, was to defend the doctrine of the Church of England from all
15 false calumnies and dispersions. But after a few months, the civil war, which was raging,
16 wasn’t going too well and so Parliament turned to the Scots for help. And as a pri–, the
17 price for this was the signing of the Solemn League and Covenant. And from then on the
18 task of the Assembly began to be, to unite the church and the three kingdoms, that is
19 England and Wales, which is one, Scotland and Ireland. So its aim was to unite the Church
20 within the parameters of reformed theology. And so that, that–that whole activity of the
21 assembly was under the direction, the supervision of Parliament. And Parliament’s interest
22 was in preserving the unity of the kingdom, the three kingdoms. That in turn led to a–a
23 concern to accommodate various parts of the reformed community. Second, there’s the
1 question of hypothetical universalism. Now, some have identified this with Amyraldianism.
2 It’s not quite accurate. Amyraut, the French reformed theologian whose books were
3 actually read by many members of the assembly during its se–sessions, Amyraut argued
4 that Christ died on the cross with the intention of atoning for all, or making universal
5 atonement. But God made a decree to save his elect and to apply that salvation by the Holy
6 Spirit. So it’s an internal conflict, you might say, between the father and the son and the
7 decrees of God.2 Now, hypothetical3 universalism in its English context was rather
8 different. It owed its, one of its leading expositions to John Davenant, who was a member of
9 the British delegation at the Synod of Dort. John Preston was another advocate and in on
10 the floor of the Assembly it came to voice (inaudible) Edmund Calamy and at least four
11 others. Now this idea was that there was one decree, a decree, which on the one hand was
12 conditional and to all so that Christ was offered to all people for an salvation promise to all
13 people on condition that they believed. But there was another aspect to that decree that
14 God’s–also decreed absolutely to save his elect. To grant the Holy Spirit to them and to
15 give them faith. Now there was a quite a lengthy debate on this in–August 1645;
16 caused significant controversy. But and–and the Westminster Assembly of course did
17 not, we may say, teach hypothetical universalism of course as a clear doctrine of definite
18 atonement, perseverance of the saints and so on and so forth. But the hypothetical
19 Calvinists, hypothetical universalists, should I say, continue to play an active part in the
20 Assembly and the Confession itself was worded in such a way that they could accept it in
21 good conscience and interpret its–its–its statements without, without prejudice. Chapter
22 7, section 3 of the Confession, man by his fall having made himself incapable of life by that
23 covenant, the covenant of works, the Lord was pleased to make a second commonly called
1 the covenant of grace whereby, note this, he freely offers unto sinners life and salvation
2 by Jesus Christ requiring of them faith in him that they may be saved. So, there you have
3 the conditional promise of the gospel. And promising to give onto all those that who are
4 ordained onto eternal life his Holy Spirit to make them willing and able to believe. Now, a
5 hypothetical universalist could accept that in good conscience. I’m not saying, mark you,
6 that the Westminster Assembly teaches hypothetical universalism. But because it was, its
7 task was to provide the basis for unity in the three kingdoms, it was careful to word its
8 statements in a way which allowed for different views to be accommodated within the
9 broad consensus of reformed theology, within what Warfield calls generic Calvinism.
Transcript of Proceedings June 3-4, 2011 (Transcribed from an Audio recording) PCA v. Leithart. 352-355. Available from http://pnwp.org/images/resources/final-leithart-trial-transcript.pdf; Internet; accessed 15 October 2011.
* * * * * *
Cross-Examination:
3 Q: Okay. Concerning your use of Warfield’s generic Calvinism, you say that the
4 and you use the political illustration to bolster the idea that the Westminster Assembly and
5 the Westminster divines intended to be inclusive and intended their standards to be
6 inclusive, to have an–an inclusive effect. Now, obviously you wouldn’t believe or would
7 you believe that the Westminster divines intended the Confession and Catechisms to be so
8 inclusive as to include people who deny crucial aspects of them?
9 A: No, well I have it–In–in that book I–I–I point out that there were
10 boundaries to what was acceptable doctrine. They excluded Roman Catholic, Roman
11 Catholicism. They opposed at certain points to Lutheranism, particularly on the
12 sacraments, by implication the extra-Calvinistic (inaudible), there’s a hint of that,
13 Arminians, of course, Amyraldianism in distinction from hypothetical universalism,
14 antinomianism obviously.
15 Q: Okay, so there are positions that despite the desire for inclusiveness on the
16 part of the divines, there are positions that would have been nonetheless excluded if those
17 positions were contrary to or contradictory of the Westminster standards themselves.
18 A: If they were, yes.
19 Q: If they were.
20 A: There were as we pointed out a whole range of–of viewpoints, wi–as Van
21 Dixhoorn points out, constantly changing and fluctuating alliances, various views on the
22 decrees which were included in–indeed views which, I think, if were affirmed in a
23 theological exam certainly in the North American Presbyterian denomination to which I
1 belong, the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, would not been accepted for licensure.
2 (inaudible) They were included at Westminster Assembly, hypothetical universalism for
3 one.
Transcript of Proceedings June 3-4, 2011 (Transcribed from an Audio recording) PCA v. Leithart. 368-369. Available from http://pnwp.org/images/resources/final-leithart-trial-transcript.pdf; Internet; accessed 15 October 2011.
____________________
1This is not my transcription but the one supplied at the URL site as indicated. I have retained the numbering system for easy verification. I have made minor formatting revisions. I have also made some minor spelling corrections.
2Letham’s claim that this entailed a intra-Trinitarian conflict is, of course, absurd.
3The original has ‘Hypothetically.’