The Real Philosophy of Presbyterianism

The Real Philosophy of Presbyterianism.

By Douglas J. Douma

 

[A speech given Oct 21, 2026 at the Presbyterian Scholars Conference, Harbor House, Wheaton College]

 

What is the real philosophy of Presbyterianism? When we think of Presbyterianism and philosophy we might be led to discussions of Scottish Common Sense Realism, or of Francis Hutcheson’s Moral Sense Theory, or of Presuppositionalism. There are many Presbyterians who have written on philosophy: Thomas Reid, John Witherspoon, James McCosh, William Young, Gordon Clark, John Frame, Owen Anderson, and others.

There are all sorts of philosophical views among Presbyterians; some of which, no doubt, are at odds with others. What can we agree on? What is the Presbyterian philosophy? How can we distinguish it from Christian philosophy in general, or the philosophy of other denominations or of particular Christian writers? Is there some unifying factor? Can we only speak of the various philosophies of Presbyterianism? Or is there an underlying unity, a real philosophy of Presbyterianism?

The term “philosophy” is, of course, used in various ways. One might have a “personal philosophy” such as “I don’t give money to panhandlers,” or “it is better not to eat at all than to eat airport food.” Others might think of philosophy as a particular way of learning more than a set of beliefs. Still others limit philosophy to human reason or natural theology. The way I am using the term, however, is in its broad sense; philosophy as “a system of thought.”

In that sense—as a system of thought—the Westminster Confession of Faith is, I contend, the Real Philosophy of Presbyterianism. The Confession (and the Shorter and Larger Catechisms as supplementary) exemplifies a Presbyterian philosophy generally, gives answers to specific philosophical questions, and gives unity to Presbyterian thinkers throughout the generations.

The confession also is systematic. The truths of the confession are not just haphazard, disjointed thoughts; they form a system, indeed the system that is first exemplified in the Scriptures themselves. And this system of thought is the Real Presbyterian Philosophy. Evidence of its systematic nature is the fact that in some Presbyterian denominations the ministers subscribe to the system of doctrine in the confession.

Naturally there are various denominations and traditions in Christianity. Some of them don’t seem to try to make anything like a systematic approach to knowledge and therefore cannot be considered a philosophy in the way I’m using the term. Others are essentially limited forms of Christianity, preferring creeds so short that they provide answers to only a small number of our questions, but the Westminster Confession of Faith is more thorough (answering many questions) and systematic (having answers that fit together in a system).

Now, the system in the confession is a summary of Christian beliefs, and so while the confession itself is “a philosophy,” it is only a summary form of the larger whole, which is Christianity. All that to say, Christianity itself is a philosophy; it is a system of thought.

All of this may seem obvious to Presbyterian scholars, but when I first came upon this idea—that Christianity is a philosophy—it had a great impact on me, and continues to be a great influence on my thought.

Some might reject the idea that Christianity is a philosophy, and some might be surprised by such a notion. So often Christianity is rejected as a philosophy, or not even considered, because it is “religious.” What a shame; to throw out a system of thought before even investigating it. But, if philosophy is the love of Wisdom and Christ is the Wisdom of God, how can we conclude anything other than that Christianity is a philosophy, in fact the philosophy. The Scriptures warn us not against true philosophy but against philosophies that are according to human traditions and the elemental spirits of the world. When Paul warns against philosophies that are not according to Christ (1 Corinthians 2:8), we should rightly conclude that true philosophy IS according to Christ.

Naturally, the Confession doesn’t answer every philosophical question, but it answers many of the major ones. Lets look at some examples.

1.What is the meaning of life?

The chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever.

Many lament “if only I knew the meaning of life” as if the answer is forever unknowable, but every child in the Presbyterian church knows the answer from the very beginning of the catechism; “the chief end of man (the very meaning of life) is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever.”

2. Does God exist?

The Shorter Catechism answers: God is a spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable in being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth.

In fact, the Catechism even phrases the question better, saying “What is God?” rather than “Does God exist?”

3. Do we have free will?

The WCF has an entire chapter on the subject.

4. What is the nature of reality?

The WCF has a chapter on creation.

5. Why is there something rather than nothing?

WCF 4.1. It pleased God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, for the manifestation of the glory of his eternal power, wisdom, and goodness, in the beginning, to create, or make of nothing, the world, and all things therein whether visible or invisible, in the space of six days; and all very good.

6. What is the relationship between the mind and body?

The confession notes that the physical bodies of men are created (with no prior existence) and that we are have (or are?) immortal souls:

WCF 4:2. After God had made all other creatures, he created man, male and female, with reasonable and immortal souls.

WCF 6:2. By this sin they fell from their original righteousness and communion with God, and so became dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the parts and faculties of soul and body.

7. What is the nature of knowledge, and what can we know?

WCF 1:1 Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men unexcusable; yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of his will, which is necessary unto salvation. Therefore it pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and in divers manners, to reveal himself, and to declare that his will unto his church; and afterwards, for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing: which maketh the Holy Scripture to be most necessary; those former ways of God’s revealing his will unto his people being now ceased.

WCF 1:4 The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man, or church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.

And:

WCF 1:5 our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.

8. What is the good life?

Again: the chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever.

You’ll note that is the same answer given earlier to the question of “What is the meaning of life?” The answer is the same: The meaning of life is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever. And the good life is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever.

9. What is it to be moral?

WCF 15:5 Men ought not to content themselves with a general repentance, but it is every man’s duty to endeavor to repent of his particular sins, particularly.

WCF 11:1 Faith, thus receiving and resting on Christ and his righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification: yet is it not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but worketh by love.

10. What happens after death?

WCF 32:1 The bodies of men, after death, return to dust, and see corruption: but their souls, which neither die nor sleep, having an immortal subsistence, immediately return to God who gave them: the souls of the righteous, being then made perfect in holiness, are received into the highest heavens, where they behold the face of God, in light and glory, waiting for the full redemption of their bodies. And the souls of the wicked are cast into hell, where they remain in torments and utter darkness, reserved to the judgment of the great day. Besides these two places, for souls separated from their bodies, the Scripture acknowledgeth none.

The Confession also addresses, however briefly, “secondary causation” when it says “neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established” and it holds the view of theological determinism when it says “God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of his will freely and unchangeable ordain whatsoever comes to pass.”

How can we NOT call Christianity (as summarized in the Confession) a philosophy!

Is the Westminster Confession, however, any more philosophical than other Reformed confessions? Yes. Many note the Heidelberg Catechism and Belgic Confession as having a pastoral warmth and emphasis on devotional life. [Incidentally, my spell-checker was quite wrong when it tried to change “Belgic Confession” to “Bellicose Confession.”] The Westminster Confession, on the other hand, rather than having been written solely by one person with devotional ends, was drafted by a committee that sought precise answers and systematic rigor.

Now, the Confession has been the real philosophy of Presbyterianism, but not always consistently. In places it has been forgotten or set aside. Charles Briggs opposed the Confession while claiming to support its true spirit. Finney rejected it. Schaff was uncomfortable with parts of it. The Cumberland Presbyterians heavily revised it. And the PCUSA relegated it to a Book of Confessions, all equally without authority. But most Presbyterian bodies have continued to require fidelity to the confession in some measure for their pastors and elders, and even in some places for the deacons.

The positions of the confession then are the subjects on which the most presbyterians can agree. On subjects the confession does not address we have greater liberty, and surely views do vary much more considerably.

And while various philosophical views come and go, the confession has been adhered to, subscribed to, over a period of almost 400 years now. That is a real “glue” holding Presbyterians together. Of course, we understand the Standards to be “subordinate standards” and that the Bible is the ultimate authority.

It would be well-nigh impossible, however, to speak of a singular “Philosophy of Christianity” or a “Philosophy of the Bible” given the numerous views of denominations and of scholars. So we Presbyterians specify our view—our understanding of the Bible—with the summary that is the Confession.

What is the background for this philosophy? What were the influences on the men who wrote the Confession? The Divines of Westminster naturally had various philosophical views. Samuel Rutherford and others were influenced by Thomistic natural law philosophy; Thomas Goodwin and John Arrowsmith by Christian Humanism; Peter Sterry by Neoplatonism; and Thomas Gataker was influenced by Neo-Stoical thought.

For the divines at Westminster, however, these philosophical views never took precedence over their commitment to Reformed Theology and the teachings of the Scriptures. Their views were always more in line with men like Luther, Calvin, and Bullinger than Plato, Aristotle, and Plotinus.

Additional influences on the Westminster Divines, according to Chad VanDixhoorn also include Franciscus Junius, William Ames, and Zacharius Ursinus. Then, nearer to their own time, there is the significant influence of Archbishop James Ussher of the Church of Ireland who wrote the Irish Articles of 1615, which were the structural and theological blueprint for the Westminster Confession.

Though the Divines largely put aside philosophical preferences, the Westminster Confession is still “philosophical.” That is the case because the Bible itself (which informs the confession) has answers to many of the major questions of philosophy, and the systematic nature of the Confession is a reflection of the consistency of the Bible from which its thought is derived.

What is it that all of these influences have in common? They are Protestants, they are reformers, with that underlying unifying drive of Sola Scripture. Their philosophy above all else was the Bible. And so while they recognized various thinkers throughout the ages (both Christian and non-Christian), ultimately they agreed that the answers to the big questions came not from Popes, councils, or philosophers, but from the Bible. So the Westminster Confession is a biblical confession.

No doubt many of the Reformers were influenced by Renaissance philosophy that emphasized a return to original sources, but in the case of theology that source is the Bible and so it is there that they went.

The Westminster Confession of Faith should be our philosophy as presbyterians. If you are an ordained minister or elder in a Presbyterian church that subscribes to the Westminster Confession of Faith, be especially careful not to oppose this point, for anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of the church.

The Confession should be our philosophy because we have taken vows to it. Embracing a philosophy contrary to the Confession is to denounce your own view.

Gordon Clark wrote of the matter, “The Reformers and their successors in the following century were honest; many of the ecclesiastical leaders of the present century are not. They take solemn ordination vows, subscribing to the Westminster Confession; but they do not believe it is the truth. Perjurers in the pulpit! What a tragedy for the people in the pews! And what a tragedy also for those ministers!”

Ten years ago I met an aged PCUSA minister in the mountains of North Carolina and we discussed theology. Upon some subject I said “The Westminster Confession has a good answer.” And he replied, mispronouncing it, “Oh, I don’t have a copy of the West-MINISTER Confession.” He seemed to have been almost entirely ignorant of it. In that condition it was difficult to consider the man Presbyterian at all.

Then also, the confession should be adopted as our philosophy as Presbyterians because, as no other document is subscribed to be the officers of a Presbyterian church, it uniquely functions to bring unity and consequent peace in our churches. I, for one, would like to see greater unity in Presbyterianism. That might be a surprise to hear from a Bible Presbyterian as my denomination historically was separatist. But whether separatist (as in the older days) or as a more fully Reformed denomination today, unity ought to be a goal; but that unity must be first and foremost on doctrine, on Biblical truth. If Presbyterians are going to find unity on doctrine, the Confession is the best place to start.

What then should we think and do?

First, let us embrace the truth that we have the answers. We have the answers! Christianity, as summarized in the Westminster Confession, is a philosophy that answers the big questions. Indeed, it should not be controversial among presbyterians to say that we have the best philosophy.

Then, let us do more philosophy by looking at the Confession (and the Scriptures that underlie the Confession). Having established these truths, we ought to stand on the shoulders of the giants (the Divines of Westminster) as we go forward answering philosophical questions in our day. We should keep our philosophy in line with the confession, and work from these truths to develop our understanding further