The Conditionalist Faith of Our Fathers, vol. 2

VI. Princeton’s Hendry-Reinterprets “Westminster’s” Statements

One of the more recent portrayals of changing concepts in Presbyterian ranks was issued in 1960 by Dr. GEORGE STUART HENDRY, ³⁶ professor of systematic theology at Princeton Theological Seminary. In this impressive paperback (John Knox Press) Professor Hendry presents “a contemporary interpretation” of The Westminster Confession for Today, as it is titled. First of all, the fundamental declaration should be noted as to the supremacy of the Word over that of any confession or creed: CFF2 1005.4

“The Word of God is the only infallible rule of faith and life. No other document-not even one published under the best auspices of the church-can be regarded in the same light.” ³⁷ CFF2 1006.1

So, on the premise of “this cornerstone of Protestant faith” (the Holy Bible), Hendry builds his “present-day interpretation of the Westminster Confession of Faith.” ³⁸ On this premise he explains the many contemporary calls for revision, including re-examination of the question of the immortality of the soul. The reason for this needed reinterpretation is stated thus, on a summarizing page: CFF2 1006.2

“Although the [Westminster] Confession is formally accepted by Presbyterian Churches, many individuals have called for revision, others for an entirely new Confession.” ³⁹ CFF2 1006.3

And the reason given is this:
“The crux of the difficulty is that the Confession comes from the 17th century, an age of legalism, individualism, and clearly defined boundaries between good and evil. Today, new insights from the Bible and new social, economic, and political conditions require us to reinterpret ancient truths.” ⁴⁰ CFF2 1006.4

That gets the matter before us. CFF2 1006.5

1. ANGLICAN ORIGIN OF PRESBYTERIAN CONFESSION

The significance of this “reinterpretation” can best be understood in the light of Hendry’s illuminating “Introduction.” After alluding to the ancient Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds, and the Reformation attempt to draw up a “Protestant” confession, Hendry comes to the Westminster Confession, “held by the Presbyterian Church as their principal ‘standard.’” ⁴¹ He explains that the Confession was originally drawn up by “an assembly of divines,” commissioned in 1643 “by the English Parliament in order to prepare a scheme for uniformity of religion in the recently united kingdom of England and Scotland.” ⁴² CFF2 1006.6

This assignment was “completed” in 1646, and was likewise “adopted by the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland in 1649.” ⁴³ It was subsequently “brought to America by the early settlers, and was adopted by the General Synod of the Presbyterian Church in 1729,” and then by the United Presbyterian Church, and finally the Presbyterian Church in the United States. Dr. Hendry then wryly observes: CFF2 1007.1

“It is surely one of the ironies of history that Presbyterian Churches throughout the English-speaking world should hold as their standards a group of documents which were almost entirely the work of episcopally ordained clergymen of the Church of England.” ⁴⁴ CFF2 1007.2

2. PRESENT-DAY RESERVATIONS RE THE CONFESSION

But, Hendry continues, “the [Westminster] Confession of Faith was not intended to serve as a text for instruction in the Christian faith.” That, he says, was the “function” of “the two Catechisms which accompanied it.” ⁴⁵ But, “since the Catechisms have largely fallen into disuse,” he states that this catechetical “function has tended to devolve on the Confession.” Now comes the crucial point: “The propriety of using the Confession as the basis of an exposition of the church’s faith at the present day” demands “further consideration” because, frankly CFF2 1007.3

“the Confession no longer holds the same place in the mind of the church as it did in the past.... CFF2 1007.4

“While most Presbyterian Churches on both sides of the Atlantic continue formally to accept the Confession, they do so with certain expressed and unexpressed qualifications and reservations. ⁴⁶ CFF2 1007.5

Some have “introduced changes in the text of the Confession itself,” by alteration, elimination, or addition. Some have “taken formal action to define the sense,” so as to “preclude certain inferences.” Others have adopted “brief statements of faith” as “interpretations of, and supplements to,” the Confession. ⁴⁷ CFF2 1007.6

3. PROPRIETY OF TAKING “EXCEPTION” EXPLAINED

Speaking of the anomaly of accepting and at the same time criticizing the Confession, Dr. Hendry appeals to the “central principle of the Reformed faith,” “that the Word of God is the only infallible rule of faith and practice,” and that “no other document—not even one produced under the best ecclesiastical auspices—can be regarded in the same light.” ⁴⁸ The Reformers’ “break with the Roman Church” was because the humanly devised Roman Church “‘dogmas’” were held to be “‘divinely revealed,’” and therefore “‘infallible and irreformable.’” The Westminster Confession, on the contrary, “explicitly and emphatically” affirms that “‘all decrees of councils’ and ‘doctrines of men’ are subject to the judgment of ‘the Supreme judge’”—the “‘Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.’” Therefore creeds and confessions are “open to correction.” ⁴⁹ Hendry then states: CFF2 1008.1

“Immunity from criticism is the last thing its authors would claim for the Confession. Their main endeavor is to refer us to the Word of God; i f continued study of the Word of God (and it has been under continuous study in the church during the three centuries that have elapsed since the Confession was drawn up) leads us to take exception to some statements in the Confession, this is not to show disrespect for it; an the contrary, it is to treat it with the highest degree of respect.” ⁵⁰ CFF2 1008.2

This highly important and illuminating statement explains certain modern trends and actions in Presbyterian ranks. CFF2 1008.3

4. PRESENT-DAY “JOURNEY” MAY REQUIRE REVISION OF “MAP.”

Dr. Hendry discusses how “acceptance” of the Confession can properly be “combined with exception to some of its statements”—that acceptance of a “system of doctrine” “does not imply acceptance of every single doctrine in it.” ⁵¹ Even the “ordination formula” of the Church of Scotland declares the propriety of “recognising liberty of opinion on such points of doctrine as do not enter into the substance of the faith.” And Hendry adds, “Doctrines are not faith,” but are “statements of faith in propositional form.” Professor Hendry interestingly compares “faith” to “a journey, or a pilgrimage,” while “doctrine may be then compared to a map.” ⁵² Then he adds: CFF2 1008.4

“New conditions under which the journey of faith has to be made, require that the maps of doctrine, which did good service to our forefathers in their journey, must be revised and amended i f they are to fulfil that service for us.” ⁵³ CFF2 1009.1

5. DOGMATISM IN “SHADOWY REGION BEYOND DEATH.”

He points out that the Westminster Confession was “a product of the seventeenth century,” and consonant with the understanding and temper of the times, that it was “excessively legalistic,” ⁵⁴ as was characteristic of the period. Moreover, it was designed “to prepare a form of church government” rather than to determine “matters of doctrine.” It was more “a constitutional than a confessional document.” ⁵⁵ Furthermore, it sought to give “categorical answers to all questions.” And this, significantly, was CFF2 1009.2

“particularly evident in the two final chapters, in which the Confession takes us, so to speak, on a conducted tour of the shadowy region beyond death, and not only does it know how to distinguish the stages of the journey we shall have to take there, but it predicts the issue of the final judgment with a confidence hardly befitting those who will be neither judge nor jury, but judged.” ⁵⁶ CFF2 1009.3

Everything, Hendry explains, is presented in “terms of black and white,” with no “intermediate shades of gray.” And it deals with election in such a manner that “it becomes impossible to follow it.” ⁵⁷ CFF2 1009.4

6. NOT NEW CONFESSION, BUT ADJUSTMENTS OF OLD

Dr. Hendry’s own attitude is clearly stated thus:
“Should any reader interpret these observations as a plea to the church to consider whether the time has not come to trade in the Confession for a new one, the writer would not take serious exception. He would point out, however, that until a new and better Confession is forthcoming, we must continue to use the old one, with such adjustments and repairs as may be necessary to keep it in a roadworthy condition. The present commentary has been written in the belief that the Confession of Faith, if it is treated with care and discrimination, can still render valuable service to the traveler on the road of faith.” ⁵⁸ CFF2 1010.1

7. IMMORTALITY OF SOUL DERIVED FROM PLATO

With this indispensable background before us we are now prepared for Professor Hendry’s discussion of the crucial chapter thirtyfour-“of the state of man after death, and of the resurrection of the dead,” and the area of “eschatology” and its “limitations” as to defining and spelling out “the last things.” ⁵⁹ “Christian hope,” Hendry says, is “founded on faith in Christ,” and “especially His resurrection.” He then warns of the “danger of wishful thinking” as concerns “continuance after death.” ⁶⁰ And he adds: CFF2 1010.2

“The inexorable finality with which death closes off all earthly prospects and severs all earthly ties has prompted men to seek some way to prove to themselves that death is not the absolute end and to discover some prospect of a continuance after death.” ⁶¹ CFF2 1010.3

Then he specifies, pointing out the Platonic origin of the “immortality of the soul” theory:
“One of these, which is of great antiquity and which is endorsed by the Confession, is the theory of the immortality of the soul; according to this theory it is only the body that dies, the soul does not die; indeed, the soul is incapable of dying, ‘having an immortal subsistence’—this argument is derived from Plato, who reasoned that since only things that are composed of parts can fall to pieces, the soul, being a simple and uncompounded essence, as he thought, cannot be dissolved.” ⁶² CFF2 1010.4

That statement should not be forgotten-“this argument is derived from Plato.” CFF2 1010.5

8. REASONS FOR QUESTIONING INNATE IMMORTAL-SOULISM

Hendry explains the matter in this way: “The idea of the immortality of the soul was received in the Christian church very early, and there it was combined with the idea of the resurrection of the body.” Thus the common concept of the “immortality of the soul provides a basis” for the “continuing identity of the individual.” ⁶³ But he adds: CFF2 1011.1

“On the other hand, however, there are several reasons which have led many people to question whether the immortality of the soul should be considered an integral part of the Christian hope.” ⁶⁴ CFF2 1011.2

Dr. Hendry then lists these three considerations:
(1) The Bible “gives no support to the idea that the soul is immortal, i.e., incapable of dying.” Such a position “would tend to blur the distinction, so important in the Bible, between man, who has his ‘appointed time’ (Job 7:1), and God, ‘who only hath immortality’ (1 Timothy 6:16).” ⁶⁵ It likewise conflicts with the Biblical portrayal —of man and death. CFF2 1011.3

(2) “If death means the separation of an immortal soul from a mortal body, and if the soul is the bearer of the self, man cannot really be said to die at all; he merely ‘shuffles off this mortal coil.’ This hardly seems to accord with the Biblical attitude toward death.... CFF2 1011.4

“From the Biblical point of view the theory of the immortality of the soul looks like a sophisticated attempt to take the sting out of death.” ⁶⁶ CFF2 1011.5

(3) It is “too fragile” to support hope in the “life to come CFF2 1011.6

“The idea of the immortality of the soul is too fragile and precarious a foundation to support the hope of the life to come. The Christian hope is based, not on human prospects for survival, but on the promises of God, which are more sure.” ⁶⁷ CFF2 1011.7

Such are Hendry’s points. CFF2 1011.8

9. “IMMEDIATE” REWARD AT DEATH WOULD NULLIFY JUDGMENT

Noting the problem of the “intermediate state” — the “interval” between the end of one’s own life and the “end of the world” — Dr. Hendry writes: CFF2 1011.9

“The focus of the Christian hope in the New Testament is on the end of the world; the coming of Christ, the resurrection of the dead, the last judgment, and the final disposition of mankind all belong here.” ⁶⁸ CFF2 1012.1

Hendry next raises this question, and then observes:
“Does the individual come into the enjoyment of this hope immediately at his own death, or does he have to wait for the end of the world? The Confession answers that the soul passes to its final and eternal destiny immediately after death, while the body awaits the end of the world; the soul has only to wait for its reunion with the body.” ⁶⁹ CFF2 1012.2

But Dr. Hendry says pointedly:
“The obvious objection to this ingenious theory is that, if the souls of the righteous and the souls of the wicked are assigned to their appointed places immediately after death, there would seem to be no meaning left to the last judgment (which is the theme of the next chapter); for if the sentences are already executed on the souls, what need is there for them to be pronounced on the souls-reunited-with-theirbodies?” ⁷⁰ CFF2 1012.3

Hendry summarily disposes of the Roman Catholic limbus in fantium and limbus patrum for unbaptized infants and Old Testament saints: CFF2 1012.4

“These conceptions deserve to be repudiated, not merely because they lack a basis in Scripture (a lack they share with some of the notions advanced by the Confession), but because they detract from the finality of death and the decisiveness and sufficiency of the work of Christ.” ⁷¹ CFF2 1012.5

Hendry concludes this section by stating that “the Christian hope does not look for a mere continuation of the present form of existence.” Again, “The life of the world to come is of a different order” from the present life, and “in passing from this side to that we must ‘be changed.’” And this involves the “resurrection of the body.” ⁷² CFF2 1012.6

Such are some of the considerations in Dr. Hendry’s contemporary interpretation. It too recognizes the Platonic, nonBiblical, traditional basis for Immortal-Soulism. It is a significant statement, now used in seminaries and officers’ training classes. CFF2 1012.7