“Old Paths, New Shoes” (The Westminster Conference 2008: Wed 09 Dec 08)

The Westminster Conference took place at the new venue of the Whitefield Memorial Tabernacle, home of – and we were generously hosted by – the American Church in London (why Americans need their own church in London, we may never know).

As usual, there were three papers on the first day.

What can we learn from the Puritans?
Iain Murray

The first part of this paper was sadly marred by a steady stream of late arrivals walking through a door at the front of the hall and having to find chairs at the back. The point of entry was pretty firmly fixed, but surely approximately fifteen per cent of the attendees cannot have been providentially detained for anything up to forty five minutes?

Having identified the Puritans (at least for the purposes of this paper), Iain Murray focused on several key issues:

I They were a converting movement, recognising that saving conversion was fundamental to true Christianity.

II They recognised the place of discipline and structure in the Christian life. They recognised the necessary connection between the indicatives of grace and the imperatives of duty, and focused on sin as the great obstacle to usefulness in the Christian life. Scripture reading and meditation, secret prayer, praise in prayer and song, and watchfulness were central elements of this focus. There is no blessing without effort.

III The sanctification of the Lord’s day. They considered “Sabbath breaking” the mark of an unconverted man, and believed in the vital consequences of observing the Lord’s day with subsequent blessings or cursings.

IV They stressed the importance of true unity. They were themselves an example of it, and stressed the dangers of disunity.

V They perceived the dangers of Roman Catholicism. They knew it was not merely political and military, but a spiritual threat: its doctrine misdirects men with regard to salvation and a happy eternity. It is an often subtle spiritual peril.

VI They believed in the power of the Word of God preached. They preached in dependence on the power of God’s Spirit to convict, convert and cultivate grace. They aimed at the consciences and hearts of their hearers, seeking always to be “hissing hot.” They asked the question, “By what means can I best win souls?” (Traill).

The discussion focused primarily on the matter of Roman Catholicism and its dangers.

The recovery of the Reformed vision
John J Murray

This paper was substantially read, which – especially in the post lunch slot – did not make it always easy to concentrate. Nevertheless, the substance was excellent.

The ‘Reformed vision’ was likened to a thread of truth, a stream of truth, the fire of truth.

I What is the Reformed vision, and what is its origin? The answer involved tracing the triumph of the doctrines of grace from the struggles of immediately post-apostolic times through the centuries to the present day. Calvin gave it high (highest?) expression in his convictions, expressed powerfully and at length, making the Lord God the object of profound religious reverence. It is a vision with God in his glory at its heart.

II Why did it need to be recovered in the twentieth century? We were pointed primarily to the spread of Arminianism (semi-Pelagianism) on the one hand, and the advance of liberalism on the other as reasons why the Reformed vision was obscured.

III How was it recovered? From 1900-1950 most evangelicals had no clear-cut gospel and little sense of church history. From the 1950s, a prophetic note was struck under Lloyd-Jones: the problem lay not just in the world, but in the church. In this period the truths loved and preached in past days were rediscovered, the doctrine of God was made central once more, and momentum developed through key men – Westminster Chapel and the Puritan Conference became a rallying point. The movement was, though, met with opposition.

IV Lessons to be learned. We must go on recovering the doctrine of a glorious God who is to be glorified in all things. We must contend against doctrinal indifferentism – theological illiteracy opens the door to error. We must recover a Biblical and vigorous apologetic. We must recover and promote a commitment to true church reform. We must recover our confidence in the gospel, and show the stomach for the fight of faith.

Themes in the discussion included the focus on the church (John J. Murray made some pithy and helpful challenges here).

The life and legacy of E. F. Kevan
Paul Brown

It is difficult to summarise a biographical paper. We were treated to a sweep of Kevan’s life, getting a glimpse into his development as a Christian, a preacher, and a theologian. Gradual shifts in certain convictions (e.g. toward open communion) were evident.

The focus lay on his work at London Bible College, his high standards, evident love for his students, and his commitment to recognised academic qualifications (bringing him into some conflict with Lloyd-Jones for example). His work ethic was plain throughout. Some of his writing work was brought in, although his seminal work on The Grace of Law did not receive as much attention as I had hoped.

This paper was more of a report of his life than a critique. It is clear that he was a good and godly man, albeit with a mixed legacy. Of whom, though, can that not be said?

The discussion reflected the less-polemic nature of the paper, being more of a factual question-and-answer. The issue of antinomianism was raised for the third time in the day. Again, it is a shame that this was not developed, as it is a pressing matter.