# "Or beside it"



## py3ak (Jul 13, 2011)

I happened to notice that the 1689 in XXI.2 leaves out a phrase that is found in the equivalent passage in Westminster (XX.2) and has no parallel for WCF XX.4.



> *1689:* God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are in any thing contrary to his word, or not contained in it.





> *WCF:* God alone is Lord of the conscience, and has left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are, in any thing, contrary to His Word; or beside it, if matters of faith, or worship.



I am trying to put my finger on exactly what the difference means. It sounds like Westminster allows for doctrines and commandments of men to bind the conscience, as long as those doctrines and commandments have nothing to do with faith and worship. Whereas the 1689 seems to leave the conscience free from any doctrine or commandment of men, no matter what its about.

And that made me wonder if I have a proper understanding of Romans 13:5.

What do you think is the nature of the difference, and which is right? Please show how your answer squares both with the opening words that God alone is Lord of the conscience, and with the command to be subject for conscience's sake to the sword-bearing power.


----------



## MarieP (Jul 13, 2011)

I'm not even certain what "or beside it" means in the WCF. The LBCF reads more smoothly. Not sure there is any other difference.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jul 13, 2011)

Déjà vu? See Bruce's short concise explanation here and the several posts following:
http://www.puritanboard.com/f30/wcf-xx-2-if-30347/#post369742


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jul 13, 2011)

Regarding the WCF, it is language that is directly pertinent to the Regulative Principle (of worship).

There is a general principle, followed by a stricter and more stringent application to worship and faith (that is, the Christian religion broadly conceived; not "religious belief" in general). This observation holds, regardless of the religion of the government.

The general principle is that men cannot be obligated morally other than what the Word directs, either positively or negatively. If God's Word doth permit, no man may infringe. If God's Word doth deny, no man may enjoin. There is room in this general principle, however, for governments (from parents to kings) to impose rules (which bind men to obedience) that are neither prohibited nor enjoined by the Word--in other words, *beside it.*

The rule respecting faith and worship is much stricter. Nothing _*beside*_ God's Word may be commanded or prohibited by men in worship, or established as a rule of faith (Christianity). For God alone is Lord of the conscience, and no binding is permissible where he claims exclusive rights.

I believe the Baptist Confession is worded in such a way that it corresponds (in the framer's intents) with the statement of ch.1 concerning the binding power of Scripture. The WCF teaches that the implied doctrine of Scripture is no less binding than an explicit declaration. This is modified by the LBC. I think this present modification is along the same lines. The only "binding" that Scripture does is when the commands or prohibitions are plainly, even explicitly "contained" (although, I suspect there is some room there for deductive reasoning).

In addition, I believe what is reflected here is a more radical "libertarian" view (in general) for the LBC, than for those who accepted the then-current social order. That Baptist, non-conformist, would take his "freedom principle," and apply it in virtually any situation, civil or religious. This was especially useful in those times when the authorities might class certain resistance as "civil" when the Baptist considered it more "religious." Well, if the only law that can bind a Christian is law predicated on a Scripture-maxim, then certain civil laws could also be negated, as being "not-contained" in the Bible.


----------



## py3ak (Jul 13, 2011)

NaphtaliPress said:


> Déjà vu? See Bruce's short concise explanation here and the several posts following:
> http://www.puritanboard.com/f30/wcf-xx-2-if-30347/#post369742



Similar, but I'm glad Bruce provided additional input here as the questions do not entirely overlap. Thanks for reminding me of a very entertaining thread!


----------



## py3ak (Jul 19, 2011)

Any additional input?


----------

