Following its treatment of the Law (2LCF 19), the 1689 Baptist Confession, following the Savoy, devotes an entire chapter to the Gospel (2LCF 20). However, chapter twenty doesn’t provide us with a definition or description of the gospel. Rather, it addresses the necessity and accessibility of the gospel. In particular, it seeks to answer perennial questions like, How were people saved before the coming of Christ? Can people be converted apart from the gospel? What about those who have never heard the gospel? These and other questions like them remain relevant in our day. Sometimes they’re raised in sincerity. Other times, they’re used as arguments against Christianity. In any case, we need to have answer.
Historical Context
This chapter on the gospel is not found in the Westminster Confession (WCF). The Congregationalists added this chapter to the Savoy Declaration (SD), and the Particular Baptists incorporated it into the Second London Confession (2LCF). The Congregationalists call attention to this addition in their preface to the Savoy:
After the 19th cap. of the Law, we have added a cap. of the Gospel, it being a Title that may not well be omitted in a Confession of Faith: In which Chapter, what is dispersed, and by intimation in the Assemblies’ Confession, with some little addition, is here brought together, and more fully, under one head.1Cited in Philip Schaaf, Creeds of Christendom (Reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1990), 3:715.
According to this statement, they were not disagreeing with or adding to the WCF. They were simply expanding and elaborating on key doctrines already contained in the WCF. And the reason for this expansion is given in the same preface: “A few things we have added for obviating some erroneous opinions, that have been more broadly and boldly here of late maintained by the asserters, than in former times ….”2Ibid., 3:714. Apparently, some erroneous teaching had become more prominent in the eleven years intervening the WCF (1646) and SD (1658).
Whose “erroneous opinions” do they have in view? In his commentary on the Confession, Sam Waldron suggests incipient Deism as the culprit. Technically, Deism did not come into full bloom till the early part of the eighteenth century. Nevertheless, we can locate its inception at the middle of the seventeenth century.3Deism was first given expression by Lord Herbert of Cherbury. In 1624, he published De Veritate (Of Truth) in which he articulated the shared notions of religions. A second work, De Religione Gentilium (Of the Religion of the Gentiles) was published posthumously in 1645. Supplementing Cherbury’s idea of common religious intuitions with John Locke’s empiricism, Matthew Tindal offered a more systematic treatment of Deism in his Christianity as Old as the Creation, or The Gospel, a Republication of the Religion of Nature, first published in 1730.
Deism denies the necessity of special revelation (the gospel) and asserts the sufficiency of natural revelation and human reason for salvation. For example, in his Christianity as Old as the Creation (1730), Matthew Tindal argues, “God designed all Mankind should at all times know, what he wills them to know, believe, profess, and practice; and has given them no other Means for this, but the Use of Reason.”4Christianity as Old as the Creation or The Gospel, a Republication of the Religion of Nature (Newburgh: David Denniston, 1798), 13. Thus, incipient Deism may be the error in view.
But the authors of the Confession may have had other groups in view as well. James Renihan thinks so and has marshaled evidence for seeing the Quakers, Puritans like Richard Baxter, and some Baptists as the parties behind those “erroneous opinions.”5James M. Renihan, “That Strong Hold of Their Common Faith,” Journal of the Institute of Reformed Baptist Studies(2014): 69–94. I think we could also add some strands of Arminianism to this list.6John Owen also addresses this error in his polemic against Arminianism. See chapter XI: “Whether salvation may be attained without the knowledge of, or faith in, Christ Jesus.” In vol. 10 of The Works of John Owen, ed. William H. Goold (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, n.d.), 108–14.
Now, some of these groups affirm the importance of special revelation (unlike the Deists). But they tend to minimize the content of the gospel prior to the incarnation. And they deny or at least question whether faith in the gospel of Christ is essential for salvation.7See “Article XI” of James Arminius’s Apology Against Thirty-One Articles, in volume 2 of The Works of Arminius, trans. James Nichols (1825; Reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1986), 7–9. For a modern dispensation example, see Alan P. Ross’s “The Biblical Method of Salvation: A Case for Continuity,” Continuity and Discontinuity: Perspectives on the Relationship between the Old and New Testaments, ed. John S. Feinberg (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1988), 161–78.
Thus, chapter 20 may be aimed at the Deists and the Quakers, as well as some Arminians, some Puritans (like Baxter), and some Baptists. The Deists and Quakers have a lower view of Scripture, whereas the others have a higher view. What all these views share in common is a belief that some people may be saved through natural theology and a right use of human reason. Today, this position is referred to as “inclusivism.”
Chapter one of the Confession already underscores the inadequacy of general revelation and necessity of special revelation (see 1.1). Chapter seven links the gospel to the “covenant of grace,” which God promised to Adam, and which has Christ as its object (see 7.2, 3). Chapters ten and fourteen identify God’s Word as the instrument and God’s Spirit as the agent of saving faith (10.1–4; 14.1, 2). Here in chapter twenty, the Congregationalists expand on these biblical themes to address inclusivism. The Baptists follow their lead.8The example of our Puritan forefathers justifies the need for occasional expansions, revisions, or additions to a confession of faith when contemporary attacks against the Scriptures warrant a response from the church. The lesson for us is that we should not assume our Puritan forefathers have said the last word on every important topic. Errors may arise today that warrant further refinements or expansions to our own Baptist Confession of Faith.
Paragraph one locates the earliest revelation of the gospel just after mankind’s fall into sin. Paragraph two denies that the gospel is revealed through natural or general revelation. The third paragraph stresses God’s sovereignty in the availability of gospel revelation to the nations. Finally, the sufficiency of the gospel when accompanied by the Spirit is affirmed in paragraph four.
The Beginning of the Gospel (20.1)
The covenant of works being broken by sin, and made unprofitable unto life, God was pleased to give forth the promise of Christ, the seed of the woman, as the means of calling the elect, and begetting in them faith and repentance; in this promise the gospel, as to the substance of it, was revealed, and [is] therein effectual for the conversion and salvation of sinners.1
1Gen. 3:15 with Eph. 2:12; Gal. 4:4; Heb. 11:13; Luke 2:25, 38; 23:51; Rom. 4:13-16; Gal. 3:15-22
Since Deists and other inclusivists assume the gospel was not available until Christ came into the world, they argue that natural revelation is sufficient for salvation. Our Puritan forefathers first respond to this error by tracing the origin of the gospel (redemptive special revelation) to the first promise God gives Adam and Eve immediately after the fall in connection with His curse on the Serpent.9Paragraph one does not explicitly refer to Adam and Eve, but it does refer to Christ as “the seed of the woman” and give Genesis 3:15 as the proof text. That promise is found in Genesis 3:15, which has been called the Protoevangelium (‘first gospel’).
God says to the Serpent, “I will put hostility between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed. He will strike your head, and you will strike his heel” (HCSB). Thomas Goodwin, a Congregationalist pastor, and framer of both the WCF and Savoy, expresses the typical Puritan understanding of this text:
This was the first promise of the Messiah, who is said to be ‘the Lamb slain from the beginning of the world,’ that is, from the fall (as John viii. 44, from the beginning is taken), and this spoken as in relation to these worlds here, prophesying ‘thou shalt bruise his heal.’ And this is also the fundamental promise upon which the faith of the whole church lived before the flood, and after for two thousand years, till it was in Isaac and his seed renewed to Abraham in other terms ….”10Thomas Goodwin, Of Christ the Mediator, in vol. 5 of The Works of Thomas Goodwin (Reprint, Eureka, CA.: Tanski Publications, 1996), p. 811. Matthew Henry’s comments are also representative of the Puritan interpretation of this passage: “A gracious promise is here made of Christ, as the deliver of fallen man from the power of Satan.” A Commentary on the Whole Bible (Reprint, Old Tappan, N.J.: Fleming H. Revell, n.d.), 1:30.
In modern times modernists and some evangelicals have challenged this traditional interpretation. For example, critical scholars see the passage as nothing more than an ancient explanation of why men hate snakes.11Herman Gunkel writes, “The myth belongs to the category of myths and fairy tales very common in antiquity and among primitive peoples which tell us how certain animals came by their unusual characteristics, ‘why the flounder has its oblique mouth, the donkey its long ears, and the bear its stumpy tail.’” Genesis, trans. Mark E. Biddle (Macon, GA: Mercer University, 1997), 21. While evangelical scholars reject such a trivial interpretation, many still fall far short of seeing any gospel in the text. For example, John Walton argues that Genesis 3:15 portends nothing more than “a continual, unresolved conflict between humans and the representatives of evil.”12John H. Walton, Genesis in The NIV Application Commentary, ed. Terry Muck (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001), 226.
To support his view, Walton offers three arguments. First, the term “seed” should be understood in a collective sense as a reference to humanity.13Ibid., 225-26. Second, the use of the same verb translated “bruise” for the action of the “seed” and the “serpent” fails to support an interpretation of victory for either side.14Ibid., 226, 34. Third, neither the OT nor NT refers to this verse as a reference to the Promised Messiah.15Ibid., 234-36.
If Walton’s view is correct, then we must reject this paragraph in our Confession. More importantly, we must revise our thinking about the origin of the gospel. But there are good reasons for maintaining the Puritan and traditional understanding of Genesis 3:15. Below is a defense of the Protoevangelium.
1. The “the woman’s seed” is a reference both to the Messiah and to the people of God whom the Messiah represents.
First, the Hebrew term translated “seed” (זֶרַע) may be used as a numerical singular (i.e., an individual) or as a collective noun (i.e., a community).16The term seed is used elsewhere in the OT to refer to an individual (Gen. 15:3; 19:32, 34; 21:13; 1 Sam. 1:11; 2 Sam. 7:12) or to a collective group, especially the descendents of Abraham (Gen. 5:5, 13; 16:10; 21:12; 22:17; 24:60; 28:14; 32:12; 48:19; Num. 14:24; Isa. 14:20; Isa. 48:19; 54:3; 61:9; 66:22).16 The English term “offspring” provides a good modern equivalent (cf. ESV, NET). Second, the reference, in this case, would not merely be to her biological offspring, but ultimately to her spiritual offspring—those who align themselves with her in enmity against the Serpent. Conversely, the Serpent’s “seed” are the ungodly who align themselves with Satan (cf. John 8:44; 1John 3:7, 15).17See James E. Smith, What the Bible Teaches About the Promised Messiah (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1993), 40-41.
Third, the entire verse speaks of three levels of conflict. Since the first level parallels two individuals(the Serpent vs. the woman) and the second two collectives (the Serpent’s seed vs. the woman’s seed), then we would expect a similar parallel at the third level. The Serpent (individual) is listed as the representative of his seed, but the woman is not mentioned. Instead, the parallel is conveyed by the singular masculine pronoun “He” (הוּא),18The Vulgate is unjustified in its use of the feminine singular pronoun (ipsa), which gave rise to the Romish interpretation that Mary would bruise the head of the serpent. a reference to “some great champion from among the seed of the woman mentioned on level two.”19Smith, 41.
Fourth, Eve seemed to understand the “seed” as including the promise of an individual deliverer to whom she would give birth (Gen. 4:1, 25).20Some use this as an argument against a Messianic interpretation of the passage, reasoning that since Eve thought it would be an immediate descendent, it cannot refer to a distant descendent. However, this reasoning overlooks the nature of prophecy. The timing of a prophecy’s fulfillment is often intentionally vague so as to leave God’s people in a state of constant expectation (cf. 1 Pet. 1:10-12).
Fifth, the Septuagint (Greek translation of the OT) interprets the promise as referring to an individual male offspring of the woman by using the masculine singular pronoun “he” (αὐτός) to refer to the neuter noun “seed” (τοῦ σπέρματος).
Sixth, the NT writers take the promised “seed” as a reference to Christ (Gal. 3:16, 19; 4:4) and as a reference to the people of God (Rom. 4:13, 16; 16:20; Gal. 3:29).
2. The “seed of the woman” does not merely combat the “serpent,” but he is victorious.
What about the claim that neither is victorious since the same verb (שׁוּף) is used for the action of the Serpent as well as the woman’s seed?21Some have suggested emending the second verb (from שׁוּף to שָׁאַף = ‘to gasp, to pant, to long for’) in keeping with the Vulgate’s rendering with two different verbs (conterero = ‘to crush’/insidior = ‘to lie in ambush’). However, the fact that the LXX uses the same verb (τηρέω) to translate both actions would seem to discount this option.
Some commentators have noted that a wound in the head is more lethal than a wound in the heel. However, I’m not so sure we should rule out the possibility that a strike to the heel could be lethal. The grammar leaves open that possibility. Even so, there are other considerations that lead to the conclusion that the woman’s offspring is ultimately victorious.
First, the struggle depicted is the result of God’s curse on the Serpent (cf. v. 14). It’s hard to conceive of God cursing His archenemy without a resultant victory in view.22As Gordon Wenham remarks, “[T]his is a curse on the serpent, not on mankind, and something less than a draw would be expected.” Genesis 1-15 in The Word Biblical Commentary (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1987), 80.
Second, we could interpret the Serpent’s posture described in 3:14 as a consequence of God’s curse. In the ancient Near East and in Scripture, crawling on one’s belly and eating dust is a symbol of defeat (Psa. 72:9; Micah 7:17).
Third, Adam responds to God’s curse upon the Serpent by naming his wife “Eve” (חַוָּה), which means “life” because she would be “the mother of all living” (3:20). The placement of this verse immediately after the curse makes it unlikely that Adam is merely calling attention to Eve’s role in biological procreation. It is much more likely that Adam is responding to the promise regarding her “seed” and regarding her as the one through whom life (as communion with God) would be restored and death would be defeated. Thus, Bruce Waltke is justified when he remarks, “Adam’s naming of Eve is the beginning of hope.”23Genesis: A Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001), 95; Cf. C. F. Keil, The Pentateuch (Reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986), 1:106; H. C. Lenski, Exposition of Genesis (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1942), 1:177.
Fourth, there are OT and NT references that allude to Genesis 3:15 and depict it as a promise of victory over evil (Isa. 65:25; Luke 3:23-4:13; Rom. 16:20; Rev. 12:9-17; 20:2, 7-10).
Finally, earlier I said we shouldn’t rule out the possibility that the Serpent’s striking of the Offspring’s heel could be a mortal wound. What if the Offspring’s death were the very means by which He struck the Serpent a mortal blow and secured the victory! While that detail may have remained a riddle in the OT, it became a reality in the NT. In the words of Hebrews 2:14:
Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil (ESV).
3. The piety of antediluvian believers presupposes some revelation of gospel hope.
If Genesis 3:15 is not the gospel in seed form, then many generations lived without any hope. Without gospel hope, what would have motivated Seth’s descendents to “call upon the name of the Lord” (Gen. 4:26)? What would have motivated Enoch to “walk with God” (Gen. 5:22-24)? What would have led Noah’s father Lamech to hope for relief from the curse (Gen. 5:29)? According to the author of Hebrews, antediluvian saints were motivated by a faith that consisted of “the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen” (11:1-7). And the things “hoped for” and “not seen” were revealed to them by way of “promise” (v. 39).
4. The necessity of the gospel for salvation requires the revelation of the gospel at the beginning of post-fall history.
Since there have been regenerate believers from the beginning of human history (cf. Matt. 23:35; Heb. 11:4ff.) and since there is no salvation apart from the gospel (see below), then we must assume a revelation of the gospel from the beginning of human history.
In light of the arguments given above, we must reject the attempt of Walton and others who want to deprive Genesis 3:15 of its gospel character.24At best, Walton’s view represents an overemphasis upon progressive revelation, which is common among biblical theologians today, especially of the dispensational type. At worst, his view represents a capitulation to the skepticism of critical scholarship. While we must not read too much NT theology back into the text, we’re certainly warranted to see the promise of eternal life in seed form. The comments of James Smith eloquently convey a balanced understanding of the passage:
Genesis 3:15 is the seed from which the Old Testament promise of a coming Savior grew like a mighty tree. Here is the fountainhead of the Messianic stream which over the centuries would swell to a mighty river fed by an ever-increasing number of conceptual tributaries. Here is the mother prophecy which gave birth to all the rest. Herein is “the germ of promise which unfolds in the history of redemption.” The passage stands sphinx-like at the entrance of the Temple of sacred history. The solution to the riddle of the sphinx begins to emerge in Old Testament literature; but it is fully solved only in Jesus Christ.25The Promised Messiah, 38. For additional studies that helpful expound the messianic implications of Genesis 3:15, see Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., The Messiah in the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995), 37–42; Michael Rydelnik, The Messianic Hope: Is the Hebrew Bible Really Messianic? NAC Studies in Bible and Theology, ed. E. Ray Clenenden (Nashville, TN: Broadman and Holman, 2010), 129–45; Gerhard Van Groningen, Messianic Revelation in the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1990), 97–115.
The Necessity of the Gospel (20.2)
This promise of Christ, and salvation by him, is revealed only by the Word of God;1 neither do the works of creation or providence, with the light of nature, make discovery of Christ, or of grace by him, so much as in a general or obscure way;2 much less that men destitute of the revelation of Him by the promise or gospel, should be enabled thereby to attain saving faith or repentance.3
1Acts 4:12; Rom. 10:13-15 2Ps. 19; Rom. 1:18-23 3Rom. 2:12a; Matt. 28:18-20; Luke 24: 46, 47 with Acts 17:29, 30; Rom. 3:9-20
Natural revelation gives men a sufficient knowledge of God so as to leave them no basis to plead ignorance.26“Let it be clear what the force of the testimony of Scripture is. It is not that men may know God; nor that they potentially know God and will come to know him if they will use their reason aright. It is not that men by natural revelation have a certain vague notion of some undefined deity. It is rather that men are immediately confronted with a clear and unavoidable revelation of the true and living God.” Samuel Waldron, A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith (Darlington, England: Evangelical Press, 2016), 47–48. As Paul will go on to argue, all men have an innate knowledge of God (Romans 1:21) and his moral law (1:32; 2:14-15) that is sufficient to condemn them at the Day of Judgment (2:1-3; 12, 16).
However, though creation, providence, and conscience are sufficient to leave men inexcusable, “yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God and his will which is necessary unto salvation” (2LCF 1.1). The book of nature makes us aware of God and his law, but it cannot inform us of his gospel. Like an X-ray machine, general revelation is adequate to reveal man’s disease, but it cannot provide a remedy. This fact makes special revelation “most necessary.”
Not all would agree. We’ve already identified some “inclusivists” in the days the Confession was written. But throughout church history, there have been others who’ve denied the necessity of special revelation and have allowed for the salvation of some heathen through the light of nature. For example, Justin Martyr (circa A.D. 100) argued in his First Apology,
We have been taught that Christ is the first-born of God, and we have declared above that He is the Word of whom every race of men were partakers; and those who lived reasonably are Christians, even though they have been thought atheists; as, among the Greeks, Socrates and Heraclitus, and men like them;…27Justin Martyr, First Apology in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, edited and translated by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, in The Master Christian Library, version 5 [CD-ROM] (Albany, Or.: Ages Software, 1997), 326.
This is now the official position of the Roman Catholic Church as articulated by Vatican II. In section 16 of Lumen Gentium (Light of the Nations), we read,
Those also can attain to everlasting salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and, moved by grace, strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience….28“Lumen Gentium” in The Documents of the Vatican II, edited by Walter M. Abbott, S.J., translation editor, Very Rev. Msgr. Joseph Gallagher (New York: The America Press, 1966), 35.
This view can even be found among early Protestants, such as Ulrich Zwingli,29See The Latin Works of Huldreich Zwingli, trans. Samuel Macauley Jackson (Philadelphia, PA: The Heidelberg Press, 1922), 200–01, 271–72. It’s important to keep in mind that Zwingli did not base this belief in the conversion of pious heathen on the efficacy of general revelation but rather on the election of God. Moreover, he would have affirmed the need for the application of Christ’s atoning work. and later Protestants, such as Augustus Strong.30Augustus Strong, Systematic Theology (Valley Forge, Pa.: Judson Press, 1985), 842-43. It’s a common view today among modernists and religious pluralists. Some contemporary evangelicals, including Clark Pinnock,31Clark Pinnock, “Toward an Evangelical Theology of Religions,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 30, no. 3 (1990): 359-68; “An Inclusivist View,” in Four Views on Salvation in a Pluralistic World, ed. Dennis L. Okholm and Timothy R. Phillips (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010). have adopted the position as well.32For a helpful discussion and refutation, see Robert L. Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1998), 1085-93.
However, at no place does the Scripture ever attribute saving efficacy to general revelation. Some have argued that the Gentiles in Romans 2:14 who “do instinctively the things of the law” are in fact accepted of God. But as John Murray points out, verse 14 is answering a question raised by verse 12: “If the Gentiles are without the law, how can they be regarded as having sinned?”33John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans in The New International Commentary on the New Testament, ed. F. F. Bruce (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968), 1:72. Or more importantly, how can they justly “perish without the law”? Verses 14 and 15 answer that question by affirming that the Gentile possesses the moral law constitutively, that is, written upon his conscience. Thus, far from extending hope to those who never heard, the passage vindicates God’s justice in their damnation.34Ibid, 1:70-79.
Furthermore, the Bible is quite clear in making faith in the gospel of Christ a prerequisite for salvation. The following passages are a few examples:
Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6, ESV).
Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life (1 John 5:12, ESV).
And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved (Acts 4:12, ESV).
For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!” But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?” So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ (Rom. 10:13–17, ESV).
According to these texts, special revelation, that is, the gospel of Christ, is a sine qua non of salvation. Thus, both the Confession35The Confession also addresses this issue in 10:4 (Of Effectual Calling): “[M]uch less can men that receive not the Christian Religion be saved; be they never so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature, and the Law of that Religion they do profess.” See also 2LCF 1:1. and the Scripture teach the insufficiency of general revelation and the need for special revelation.
Excursus: What about those mentally incapable?
In chapter 10 (Of Effectual Calling), the Westminster divines and our Baptist forefathers assert that those elect persons who are incapable of hearing, understanding, and responding to the gospel are effectually called apart from the gospel. They explicitly identify elect babies who die in infancy, and they probably have the severely mentally impaired in mind when they speak of other “elect persons … incapable of being outwardly called” (10.3).
How do we harmonize chapter 10.3 and chapter 20? Some believe the biblical evidence is not clear on this issue and it would have been better if the Confession had remained silent.36See Waldron, A Modern Exposition, 175–78. Waldron does believe the Bible provides general stands of teaching on the goodness of God to give grieving parents hope. If one agrees with the Confession’s stance on the mentally incapable,37Those who argue for the salvation of elect infants include the following: Charles Hodge, Systematic. Theology, 3 volumes (Reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989), 26–27; C. H. Spurgeon, “Infant Salvation,” Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit (London: 1861); John MacArthur Jr., Safe in the Arms of God: Truth from Heaven about the Death of a Child (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2003); R. Albert Mohler, Jr., “The Salvation of the ‘Little Ones’: Do Infants who Die Go to Heaven?” (July 16, 2009), accessed December 1, 2021: https://albertmohler.com/2009/07/16/the-salvation-of-the-little-ones-do-infants-who-die-go-to-heaven; John Piper, “What Happens to Infants Who Die?” (March 9, 2010), accessed December 1, 2021: https://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/what-happens-to-infants-who-die; Chad Van Dixhoorn, Confessing the Faith: A Reader’s Guide to the Westminster Confession of Faith (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 2014), 153–55. he can treat such cases as an exception and not the rule. After all, that’s precisely what the Confession itself appears to do. After allowing for the salvation of the mentally incapable, the Confession adds:
[M]uch less can men that receive not the Christian Religion be saved; be they never so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature, and the Law of that Religion they do profess (10.4).
Thus, the Confession does not place the heathen who are mentally capable in the same category as those who are not.
The Sovereignty of the Gospel (20.3)
The revelation of the gospel unto sinners, made in divers times and by sundry parts, with the addition of promises and precepts for the obedience required therein, as to the nations and persons to whom it is granted, is merely of the sovereign will and good pleasure of God;1 not being annexed by virtue of any promise to the due improvement of men’s natural abilities, by virtue of common light received without it, which none ever did make, or can do so;2 and therefore in all ages, the preaching of the gospel has been granted unto persons and nations, as to the extent or straitening of it, in great variety, according to the counsel of the will of God.
1Matt. 11:20 2Rom. 3:10-12; 8:7, 8
The purpose of this paragraph is to uphold God’s absolute freedom in deciding to whom and at what time He is pleased to reveal the gospel. Apparently, some were teaching a view in which God was obligated to reveal the gospel to those who responded positively to “common light” (i.e., natural revelation). Sometimes the centurion Cornelius is used as an example to support this teaching (Acts 10:1ff.).
However, Cornelius was responding to special revelation (Acts 10:2, 22), not natural revelation. I am not aware of any passage of Scripture in which God promises to reveal the gospel to those who respond positively to general revelation. Indeed, one wonders, “What kind of positive response counts?” If a heathen man is tempted to steal another man’s ox, but decides to refrain because his conscience tells him so, is God now obligated to bring the gospel to that individual? The Puritans didn’t think so. In their view, the Scriptures represent God as completely free to reveal the gospel to whomever He wishes and whenever He wishes (Matt. 11:20).
Nevertheless, the example of Cornelius does raise two important questions: (1) Does God promise to reveal more of the gospel to sinners when they begin to respond to the little gospel light they have? (2) What is the nature of such a pre-conversion response?
When we read the account of Cornelius, it does appear that he has responded positively to the light he had prior to his conversion (Acts 10:2, 4, 7-8, 31, 33). And it does appear that God did send Cornelius more light because of Cornelius’ response to the light he had (Acts 10:4-6; 31-32; 11:13-14).38Robert Reymond remarks, “[S]ince Cornelius was seeking God sincerely and genuinely in God’s providence and at the Spirit’s prompting, God took steps to get the gospel to him” (1091). God did the same thing for the Gentile Magi (Matt. 2:1-12).
Thus, it does appear that God sometimes gives more gospel light to those who respond to the gospel light they have (cf. Matt. 10:15-29; John 7:16, 17). In the account of Cornelius, Peter seems to suggest that God’s equity would incline him to this (Acts 10:34-35).
But how do we classify Cornelius’ pre-conversion response to special revelation? According to Hebrews 11:6, “without faith it is impossible to please God.” Yet, in some limited sense, it appears that Cornelius had pleased God prior to his conversion (10:4, 31).39Some allege that the “devout” and “God-fearing” Cornelius was already a converted man, prior go Peter’s witness. However, the following evidence proves that he was not yet saved: (1) Peter told “devout men” (Acts 2:5) at Pentecost that they had to repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:37-38). Thus, being “devout” is not the same as being saved; (2) Peter promises Cornelius “forgiveness of sins” if he will believe the message of the gospel (Acts 10:43, and also “shall be saved” in 11:14); (3) The Jewish Christians who heard about Peter’s work among Cornelius’ household responded by saying (11:18): “Then God has granted the Gentiles repentance unto [that leads to] life.”
Do we credit this “positive” response to God’s common grace?40In a qualified sense, God was pleased when wicked Ahab responded with a degree of “meekness” to God’s threat of judgment (1 Kings 21:29). Yet, Ahab’s response did not result in conversion. Or do we credit this “positive” response to God’s special grace? If the latter, then we may view this as part of God’s effectual calling whereby He savingly draws men to Jesus Christ (John 6:44). In summary, God may give more gospel light to those who respond to a little gospel light. However, God is the one who ultimately determines when and to whom any gospel light comes. That is his sovereign prerogative. That may not answer all of our questions. But as Paul exhorts us in Romans 9, we must not charge God with injustice. God has the right to decide on whom to show mercy and on whom to withhold it (9:14–15). As with some other difficult doctrines in Scripture, we must be willing to live with a degree of mystery (Rom. 11:33–36).
The Sufficiency of the Gospel (20.4)
Although the gospel be the only outward means of revealing Christ and saving grace, and is, as such, abundantly sufficient thereunto;1 yet that men who are dead in trespasses may be born again, quickened or regenerated, there is moreover necessary an effectual insuperable work of the Holy Spirit upon the whole soul, for the producing in them a new spiritual life; without which no other means will effect their conversion unto God.2
1Rom. 1:16, 17 2John 6:44; 1 Cor. 1:22-24; 1 Cor. 2:14; 2 Cor. 4:4, 6
This paragraph begins by affirming the gospel’s sufficiency to convert. All we need to know to be saved has been revealed in the gospel. But the gospel’s sufficiency does not discount the need for the Holy Spirit’s work of illumination, conviction, and regeneration. Although power tools are valuable resources for the construction worker, they are useless without a power supply.
In the same manner, the preacher must rely upon the power of the Holy Spirit to employ the gospel as the instrument of salvation in the hearts of those who hear. The most eloquent preaching in the world without the Spirit’s blessing cannot affect the salvation of sinners. This great truth reminds us of the need for intercessory prayer in addition to the proclamation of the gospel (1 Tim 2:1–4).41Tom Ascol helpfully underscores this point in his exposition of chapter 20: “Just as Christians are stewards of the gospel, we are also depended on god’s Spirit to make our proclamation of the gospel effectual in those who hear our message…. So, we must not only preach, we must also pray. The gospel is the only message that saves. And that message only saves when it is powerfully owned by the sovereign Spirit to grant new life to those who hear.” Thomas K. Ascol, “The Gospel and the Extent of Its Grace,” The Confessing Baptist: Essays on the Use of Creeds in Baptist Faith and Life, ed. Robert Gonzales Jr. (Conway, AR: Free Grace Press, 2021), 187).
Practical Lessons
What are some practical lessons we can draw from this study?
1. Beware of any natural theology that’s untethered from Scripture.
The errant views addressed in this chapter have one thing in common: too high a view of natural theology and too low a view of the Scriptures. This is especially true of the Quakers and the Deists. They placed a great deal of confidence in man’s ability to know God through creation and in the light of nature (reason, intuition, and conscience). Thus, natural revelation became sufficient to know God and his will for humanity, and “special revelation” was no longer needed. That doesn’t mean they denied any value in Scripture. But they tended to view the value of Scripture in terms of the natural theology it contained.
The Enlightenment simply took the matter one step further. Not only was the term “special” no longer necessary. Now the term “revelation” was viewed as obsolete. And what we’re left with is just the term “natural.”
But these errors did not spring up in a vacuum overnight. I would suggest that a tendency to place too much confidence in the results of natural theology and the ability of human reason is what paved the way for the minimizing and eventual rejection of Scripture.
This is a danger we need to be aware of today. The current revival of interest in the natural theology of our Reformed and Puritan forefathers may bear some positive fruit. However, we must beware that our interest in natural revelation doesn’t erode our commitment to the supremacy of Scriptures (sola Scriptura). Moreover, should we choose to engage in natural theology, let us always do with an open Bible in hand.42Thus, Herman Bavinck remarks, “Even when Christians do theology, from the very beginning they stand with both feet on the foundation of special revelation. They are Christ-believers not only in the doctrine of Christ but equally in the doctrine of God. Standing on this foundation, they look around themselves, and armed with the spectacles of Holy Scripture, they see in all the world a revelation of the same God they know and confess in Christ as their Father in heaven.” God and Creation, vol. 2 of Reformed Dogmatics, trans. John Vriend (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004), 75. A little later, he writes, “Now the Reformation indeed adopted this natural theology along with its proofs but, instead of treating it prior to the doctrine of faith, incorporated it in the doctrine of faith…. Soon, however, Protestant theology started taking the road of rationalism. Whereas natural theology was initially an account, in the light of Scripture, of what Christians can know concerning God from creation, it soon became an exposition of what nonbelieving rational persons could learn from nature by the power of their own reasoning” (78). Bavinck’s entire section on epistemology and the knowledge of God (58–91) is worth reading. Such a commitment would have preserved Adam and Eve (and the whole human race) from a world of trouble!
2. Preach the gospel from the Old Testament
“Moses wrote about me,” Jesus told the Jewish leaders (John 5:46). He went on to say, “Abraham rejoiced to see my day. He saw it and was glad” (John 8:56). To his own disciples Jesus would say after his resurrection: “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?” (Luke 24:25–26). Thus, according to Jesus, he himself is revealed in the pages of the Old Testament as the object of saving faith!
This conviction gave rise to creedal statements like Article VII of the Thirty-Nine Articles of Anglican Church (1571):
The Old Testament is not contrary to the New: for both in the Old and the New Testament everlasting life is offered through Christ, who is the only Mediator between God and man, being both God and man. Wherefore they are not to be heard which feign that the old Fathers did look only for transitory promises.43Creeds of Christendom, 3:491-92.
And sharing that conviction, the Congregationalists and Particular Baptists felt constrained to add a chapter to the Westminster Confession.
However, as preachers and teachers, it’s not enough for us to remind our people of the bare fact the Old Testament reveals Christ. We must be committed to expounding Christ and the gospel from the Old Testament.44For some helpful tips on preaching Christ from the Old Testament, see Edmund Clowney, Preaching Christ in All of Scripture (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2003); Sidney Greidanus Preaching Christ from the Old Testament: A Contemporary Hermeneutical Method (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999); and Dennis Johnson, Him We Proclaim: Preaching Christ from All the Scriptures (Phillipsburg, PA: Presbyterian and Reformed, 2007).
3. Behold the church’s urgent task of missions.
The belief that the heathen can be converted through a positive response to general revelation does not provide a good motivation for the urgency of missions. And if our preaching the gospel to the heathen may only increase their condemnation, perhaps we should leave them in their relative obscurity.
However, if the preaching of the gospel is necessary to the salvation of the heathen, that places a great deal of obligation and urgency on the church. Affirming God’s sovereign prerogative to decide “when” and “to whom” the gospel may go is not enough. For that same sovereign Lord has commanded the church to take the gospel to the all the nations (Matt 28:18–20).
Indeed, it is the Puritan conviction that the gospel is necessary for salvation that propelled William Carey to India. “How shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard?” (Rom. 10:14) is the verse on the title page of Carey’s famous Enquiry into the Obligations of Christians to Use Means for the Conversion of the Heathens. And in that Enquiry, Carey carefully expounds the doctrine found in chapter 20 of our Confession and concludes:
These things are loud calls to Christians, and especially to ministers, to exert themselves to the utmost in their several spheres of action, and to try to enlarge them as much as possible.45William Carey, An Enquiry into the Enquiry into the Obligations of Christians to Use Means for the Conversion of the Heathens(Leicester, England: Ann Ireland, 1792), 66.
4. Consider the occasional need to supplement our Confession.
The Second London Confession and chapter 20 are reminders that it’s legitimate and sometimes needful to revise and supplement our creeds and confessions. Now I realize that in making a statement like that I run the risk of being labeled a “troubler” and “disturber of the peace.”
However, the fact remains that the 2LCF is a revision of the WCF and SD. Moreover, chapter 20 of the SD and 2LCF is an addition to the WCF. And in the case of chapter 20, it’s not as if the Congregationalists and Baptists were disagreeing with their Presbyterian brothers. Rather, they simply believed that certain truths in the WCF needed more emphasis and clarity.
Someone asks, “What doctrine of the Confession could possibly need more clarity?” I’m glad you asked. In my opinion, the doctrine we discussed in the point above could use greater clarity: namely, the church’s evangelistic and missionary task.46I articulate this burden more fully in “Is the 1689 Baptist Confession Sufficiently Missional?” (July 23, 2019), It Is Written, accessed December 1, 2021: https://bobgonzal.es/index.php/2019/07/23/is-the-1689-baptist-confession-sufficiently-missional/.
I’m not suggesting the Puritans didn’t believe in evangelism and missions. Nor am I claiming that the Puritans did not do evangelism and missions. Neither am I suggesting that the Confession does not address evangelism and missions. These are implied in chapter 20 and elsewhere in the Confession.47The work of evangelism and missions can be inferred from the Confession’s teaching on the necessity of special revelation for salvation (2LCF 1.1; 20.2), the need for Bible translations (2LCF 1.8), and the “ministry of the Word” (10.3, 4; 14.1; 26.10, 11). However, what I would argue is that the Confession’s affirmation of evangelism and missions is more implicit than explicit. Given the importance and urgency of evangelism and missions,48I tend to agree with John Frame who sees missions as essential mark of the true church. Writes Frame, “A church that is not preoccupied with reaching the unsaved is not merely a weak church, it is not properly a church at all.” Evangelical Reunion: Denominations and the Body of Christ (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1991), 139. I believe the Confession could be strengthened by a more explicit affirmation of the church’s calling. For that reason, let me commend to you Tom Nettles’ “Suggested Addition” to chapter 20 of the 2LCF.49Tom J. Nettles, “A Suggested Addition to the Second London Confession,” Founders Journal 61 (Summer 2005): 22–26. I also like the statement in Bethlehem Baptist Church’s “Elders’ Affirmation of Faith”: “We believe that the commission given by the Lord Jesus to make disciples of all nations is binding on His Church to the end of the age. This task is to proclaim the Gospel to every tribe and tongue and people and nation, baptizing them, teaching them the words and ways of the Lord, and gathering them into churches able to fulfill their Christian calling among their own people. The ultimate aim of world missions is that God would create, by His Word, worshippers who glorify His name through glad- hearted faith and obedience. Missions exists because worship doesn’t. When the time of ingathering is over, and the countless millions of the redeemed fall on their faces before the throne of God, missions will be no more. It is a temporary necessity. But worship abides forever. Worship, therefore, is the fuel and the goal of missions” (Article 13). Accessed December 2, 2021: https://bethlehem.church/elder-affirmation-of-faith/.
Leave a Reply