# WCF vs LBCF



## Matthew1344

WCF-
III.3.By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others foreordained to everlasting death.


LBCF-
III.3. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated, or foreordained to eternal life through Jesus Christ, to the praise of his glorious grace; others being left to act in their sin to their just condemnation, to the praise of his glorious justice.

What exactly is the difference here?


----------



## Andres

The LBC seems to shy away from the idea of "double-predestination".


----------



## Logan

"double-predestination" being the idea that God ordained people both to everlasting life, and some to everlasting death. It is an active view. This is in contrast to the view that God passively just "ignores" the rest, leaving them to be condemned ipso facto. It is wary of saying that God actively foreordained people for destruction.


----------



## Matthew1344

Thats what I thought I was seeing. Is this infra?

But if you look at WCF III.7.:
7. The rest of mankind, God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of his own will, whereby he extendeth or withholdeth mercy as he pleaseth, for the glory of his sovereign power over his creatures, to pass by, and to ordain them to dishonour and wrath for their sin, to the praise of his glorious justice.

It seems to me that the LBCF just took this paragraph and inseted into III.3:
III.3. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated, or foreordained to eternal life through Jesus Christ, to the praise of his glorious grace; others being left to act in their sin to their just condemnation, to the praise of his glorious justice.


----------



## jwithnell

Infralapsarian?


----------



## Matthew1344

jwithnell said:


> Infralapsarian?


yes, thats what i was referring to


----------



## SRoper

I think both confessions are compatible with infralapsarian views. You'll notice also that they both use different language for God's action towards the elect and the reprobate, although the LBCF is more guarded.


----------



## MW

Matthew1344 said:


> Is this infra?



Supralapsarianism maintains the same historical order of the means of salvation as the infralapsarian. So sections 6 and 7 are not definitive one way or the other. Section 3 speaks of ordination to life and death without reference to the fall. If anything, this strongly favours the supralapsarian scheme, although an infralapsarian is left free to add the qualifiers which will accord with his view.


----------



## Matthew1344

armourbearer said:


> Matthew1344 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is this infra?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Supralapsarianism *maintains the same historical order of the means of salvation as the infralapsarian*. So sections 6 and 7 are not definitive one way or the other. Section 3 speaks of ordination to life and death without reference to the fall. *If anything, this strongly favours the supralapsarian scheme, although an infralapsarian is left free to add the qualifiers which will accord with his view.*
Click to expand...

I guess I do not understand infra and supra very much. 
I've been trying to figure it out, and so far I have come up with this:
Infra-elected after the fall
Supra-elected and damned before the fall. 

Is this accurate? 
If so, then how is "passed by" or "being left" strongly favored supra statements?

Thanks for you guys' help! This PB is such a blessing!


----------



## DMcFadden

Interesting discussion by Sam Waldron on the LBF vs. the WCF on the issue of rebrobation:



> C. The confessional statement of the doctrine of election
> 
> Chapter 3, paragraph 7 of the Westminster Confession of Faith has been deleted in the Baptist Confession. The development of thought in the Westminster Confession of Faith hinges on this missing paragraph. It has opened up the two sides of the decree: to save in paragraphs 3-6, to reprobate in paragraph 7. The deletion of paragraph seven of the Westminster Confession serves to weaken the testimony of the Baptist Confession to the doctrine of reprobation. In the only statement of our Confession this doctrine is stated in a weak way. Compare paragraph three of the London Confession with paragraph three of the Westminster Confession. The Bible says more than the London Confession. Though the Baptist Confession clearly assumes the doctrine of reprobation, its actual statements on the subject do not possess the clarity appropriate to a creedal document. The Westminster Confession must be commended for its faithfulness to Scripture at this point.
> 
> But the Westminster Confession of Faith also has a weakness. It parallels salvation and reprobation. This is liable to leave the false impression that God is sadistic. God’s relation to reprobation is not the same as His relation to the decree of salvation (Ezek. 33:11,18). Perhaps this is why the Baptists left out some of the key statements of the Westminster Confession regarding reprobation.
> 
> — A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith



Here it appears that Waldron is accusing the WCF of teaching equal ultimacy of the decision to elect and the decision to reprobate. He faults the LBF for less than a full-throated affirmation of reprobation (with corresponding kudos to the WCF), while dinging the WCF for what he sees as a too-close parallelism. Interestingly, as a Baptist upholder of the 1689, he freely allows for the greater clarity and superiority of the articulation in the WCF in 3.3.


----------



## MW

DMcFadden said:


> Here it appears that Waldron is accusing the WCF of teaching equal ultimacy of the decision to elect and the decision to reprobate. He faults the LBF for less than a full-throated affirmation of reprobation (with corresponding kudos to the WCF), while dinging the WCF for what he sees as a too-close parallelism. Interestingly, as a Baptist upholder of the 1689, he freely allows for the greater clarity and superiority of the articulation in the WCF in 3.3.



The denial of equal ultimacy so far as the decree itself is concerned is in direct conflict with sections 1 and 2 in both Confessions. These sections articulate in express language that all that is decreed is free and unconditional. This means election and reprobation are equally and ultimately derived from the counsel of God's own will. Inequality only comes into the order and execution of the things decreed. Sam Waldron's argument from Ezekiel only argues against an equal ultimacy so far as the dispensation of grace is concerned, which is a part of the execution of the decree. It has no bearing on the decree itself.


----------



## Matthew1344

Matthew Winzer do you hold to either of the confessions?


----------



## Matthew1344

Matthew1344 said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew1344 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is this infra?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Supralapsarianism maintains the same historical order of the means of salvation as the infralapsarian. So sections 6 and 7 are not definitive one way or the other. Section 3 speaks of ordination to life and death without reference to the fall. If anything, this strongly favours the supralapsarian scheme, although an infralapsarian is left free to add the qualifiers which will accord with his view.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I guess I do not understand infra and supra very much.
> I've been trying to figure it out, and so far I have come up with this:
> 
> *Infra-elected after the fall
> Supra-elected and damned before the fall. *
> 
> Is this accurate?
> If so, then how is "passed by" or "being left" strongly favored supra statements?
> 
> Thanks for you guys' help! This PB is such a blessing!
Click to expand...


Can you tell me if my definitions are accurate and if so can you help me see how they are supra?


----------



## MW

The Westminster Confession is the confession of my faith.

The supra-infra differences relate to the fall in the order of God's decrees not as an historical event. Hence supra teaches God elected and reprobated men considered as not yet fallen and infra teaches that God elected and reprobated men considered as fallen. It is a question of means and end. Does the fall take place to serve election (supra) or does election take place because of the fall (infra)?


----------



## KMK

The specific language of the phrase "others being left to their just condemnation," is a hold over from the 1644 LBC, which says, "leaving the rest in their sin to their just condemnation." The 1644 was based on the True Confession of 1596, which says, "And on the other hand likewise before of old according to his just purpose ordained other both angels and men, to eternal condemnation, to be accomplished through their own corruption..."

Also the 1644 relied heavily on Ames' _Marrow_, which says in 25:40, "election is the cause, not only of salvation, but also of all those things which have the consideration of a cause unto salvation: but reprobation is not properly a cause, either of damnation, or of sin which deserves damnation, but an antecedent only."

Whether you agree or disagree, the language of the LBC is not an accident, but actually has pretty good pedigree.


----------



## Matthew1344

armourbearer said:


> Supralapsarianism maintains the same historical order of the means of salvation as the infralapsarian



This might be a silly question, but what exactly is the difference between what God decreed and what historically happened? His decree is all history. I know that might not make any sense, im just trying to figure out what you said.



armourbearer said:


> The Westminster Confession is the confession of my faith.
> 
> The supra-infra differences relate to the fall in the order of God's decrees not as an historical event. Hence supra teaches God elected and reprobated men considered as not yet fallen and infra teaches that God elected and reprobated men considered as fallen. It is a question of means and end. *Does the fall take place to serve election (supra)* or does election take place because of the fall (infra)?


I agree with what I have bolded.



KMK said:


> Ames' Marrow


What is this???



KMK said:


> "election is the cause, not only of salvation, but also of all those things which have the consideration of a cause unto salvation: but reprobation is not properly a cause, either of damnation, or of sin which deserves damnation, but an antecedent only.


So whoever Ames' Marrow is believe that sin, reprobation, and the fallwas an accident? there is no way I am reading this right! No way i am reading this right because...


KMK said:


> The 1644 was based on the True Confession of 1596, which says, "And on the other hand likewise before of old *according to his just purpose ordained* other both angels and men, to eternal condemnation, to be accomplished through their own corruption..."


this doesn't seem like they believed it to be an accident. I am really confused on how those two quotes (Marrow and 1596) go together.


----------



## KMK

Sorry, Willaim Ames wrote a very popular theological textbook in the early part of the 17th century entitled, "The Marrow of Theology." The writers of the first LBC in 1644 were very influenced by his work.

Ames' view was that whereas election is the cause of salvation, reprobation is not the cause of damnation. The cause of damnation is man's own corruption which man freely chose. Therefore, even though God ordained men (and angels) to condemnation (not an accident), condemnation was brought about by "being left to act in their sin to their just condemnation..."

My only point was that the wording of the LBC 1689 was not an accident. It has good 'roots'.


----------



## Matthew1344

KMK said:


> Therefore, even though *God ordained men* (and angels) *to condemnation* (not an accident), condemnation was brought about by *"being left to act in their sin to their just condemnation..."*


But he ordained men before anything happened, so how did he do it leaving them in their sin?


----------



## Matthew1344

ok my next question is this:

Chapter 4

WCF:
2.After God had made all other creatures, he created man, male and female, with reasonable and immortal souls, endued with knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness after his own image, having the law of God written in their hearts, and power to fulfill it; and yet under a possibility of transgressing, being left to the liberty of their own will, which was subject unto change....

LBCF:
2. After God had made all other creatures, he created man, male and female, with reasonable and immortal souls, *rendering them fit unto that life to God for which they were created;* being made after the image of God, in knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness; having the law of God written in their hearts, and power to fulfil it, and yet under a possibility of transgressing, being left to the liberty of their own will, which was subject to change....

Why did LBCF add that?


----------



## KMK

Matthew1344 said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Therefore, even though *God ordained men* (and angels) *to condemnation* (not an accident), condemnation was brought about by *"being left to act in their sin to their just condemnation..."*
> 
> 
> 
> But he ordained men before anything happened, so how did he do it leaving them in their sin?
Click to expand...


What do you mean by 'it'?

Again, it is above my pay grade to argue one way or another in the lapsarian debate. My only point is that the wording of the LBC should not be dismissed out of hand just because it is different than WCF. It it is 'Reformed'.


----------



## Matthew1344

KMK said:


> Matthew1344 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Therefore, even though God ordained men (and angels) to condemnation (not an accident), condemnation was brought about by "being left to act in their sin to their just condemnation..."[/B]
> 
> 
> 
> But he ordained men before anything happened, so how did he do it leaving them in their sin?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *What do you mean by 'it'?*
> 
> Again, it is above my pay grade to argue one way or another in the lapsarian debate. My only point is that the wording of the LBC should not be dismissed out of hand just because it is different than WCF. It it is 'Reformed'.
Click to expand...


Ordain them. Thanks for helping!


----------



## KMK

I am still not exactly sure what you are asking. Maybe you are having trouble understanding the difference between ordination and causation? In other words,, there is a difference between God _decreeing_ something to happen and _causing_ that something to happen. Is that the issue?


----------



## Matthew1344

KMK said:


> In other words,, there is a difference between God decreeing something to happen and causing that something to happen. Is that the issue?


Maybe, from what I am putting together is that God's decree is his eternal command/plan? So I would call his decree the primary cause.




KMK said:


> Maybe you are having trouble understanding the difference between ordination and causation?


Please help me!


----------



## KMK

Matthew1344 said:


> ok my next question is this:
> 
> Chapter 4
> 
> WCF:
> 2.After God had made all other creatures, he created man, male and female, with reasonable and immortal souls, endued with knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness after his own image, having the law of God written in their hearts, and power to fulfill it; and yet under a possibility of transgressing, being left to the liberty of their own will, which was subject unto change....
> 
> LBCF:
> 2. After God had made all other creatures, he created man, male and female, with reasonable and immortal souls, *rendering them fit unto that life to God for which they were created;* being made after the image of God, in knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness; having the law of God written in their hearts, and power to fulfil it, and yet under a possibility of transgressing, being left to the liberty of their own will, which was subject to change....
> 
> Why did LBCF add that?



Or, the question might be asked, "Why did the WCF leave it out?"

Notice in Ames the emphasis of mankind being 'fitted' unto life with God in creation.



> IV. 72. The perfection of the body is that whereby it was absolutely *fitted* for comeliness and use agreeable to God's Will.
> 
> 73. The perfection of the soul was that whereby it was of an immortal nature, not only in those faculties by which it was a free principle of its own actions, in understanding and will, but also being adorned with gifts whereby man was made able, and *fit* to live well, namely with wisdom, holiness, and righteousness.



These words appear to be an elaboration, not a disagreement, on WCF and Savoy's use of the of the word 'endued'.


----------



## Matthew1344

Ken, did you see my last post?


----------



## KMK

Matthew1344 said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words,, there is a difference between God decreeing something to happen and causing that something to happen. Is that the issue?
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe, from what I am putting together is that God's decree is his eternal command/plan? So I would call his decree the primary cause.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you are having trouble understanding the difference between ordination and causation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please help me!
Click to expand...


The WCF, the Savoy, and the LBC 1689 all agree that God ordains the everlasting life of the elect.

WCF and Savoy:



> By the decree of God for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life...



LBC:



> By the decree of God for the manifestation of his glory some men and Angels, are predestinated, or foreordained to Eternal Life...



The WCF, Savoy, and LBC 1989 also all agree that God causes this to happen by ordaining the means of the salvation of the elect.

All three:



> As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so hath he, by the eternal and most free purpose of his will, foreordained all the means thereunto...redeemed by Christ...effectually called...justified, sanctified, and kept by his power, through faith, unto salvation.



So, all three agree that God not only decreed the salvation of the elect, but also foreordained all of the various means by which they will attain salvation.

-----------

When it comes to the reprobation of the non-elect, the wording is a little different, but in my opinion, is basically the same.

All three agree that God decreed the reprobation of the non-elect.

WCF and Savoy:



> ...and others foreordained to everlasting death.



LBC:



> ...others being left to act in their sin to (by being predestinated or foreordained) their just condemnation...



Notice that the LBC says the reprobate were 'left to act in their sin' and nothing else. The only means by which others are condemned is their own sin. God does not cause them to be condemned in the same way as He causes the elect to be saved through election, calling, justification, sanctification, adoption, preservation, and glorification.

But, the WCF and Savoy basically say the same thing, in my opinion.



> Chapter 3: VII. The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of his own will, whereby he extendeth or *withholdeth* mercy, as he pleaseth, for the glory of his sovereign power over his creatures, *to pass by* and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praise of his glorious justice.



All of the Reformed confessions agree that God ordained either salvation or condemnation for all mankind. They also agree that God ordained the means of salvation for those chosen thereunto, but did not ordain the means of condemnation for the others in the same way. Yet they worded these things differently.

There are many different classes of 'causation'. To say that His decree is a cause is not necessarily wrong, but it is a different class of causation than effectual calling, for example.


----------



## Matthew1344

Thanks Ken!

I am trying to make it my goal to plant both feet on a confession. To hold to a confession does that mean you have to agree with it 100%? Just curious as to how other people feel about their confessions.

*Did the LBC not believe in the covenant of works given to Adam? *

LBCF leaves out: 


> WCF VII 2. The first covenant made with man was a covenant of works, wherein life was promised to Adam, and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience.



Then LBCF says:


> 2. Moreover, man having brought himself under the curse of the law by his fall, it pleased the Lord to make a *covenant of grace*, wherein he freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in him, that they may be saved; and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto eternal life, his Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe.
> 
> 3. *This covenant is revealed in the gospel*; first of all to Adam in the promise of salvation by the seed of the woman, and afterwards by farther steps, until the full discovery thereof was completed in the New Testament; and it is founded in that eternal covenant transaction that was between the Father and the Son about the redemption of the elect; and it is alone by the grace of this covenant that all the posterity of fallen Adam that ever were saved did obtain life and blessed immortality, man being now utterly incapable of acceptance with God upon those terms on which Adam stood in his state of innocency.



*The LBC is much shorter on this issue of "covenant"....the WCF has 6 points, LBCF has 3.*

And Im new in reformed theology so I don't know if it is a standard thing to believe in the covenant of works given to Adam. When I read through the WCF for the first time a couple months ago, I did it by reading the "Westminster Confession of Faith: For Study Classes by GI Williamson", and when he talked about the covenant of works, i didn't see anything wrong in it. I wasn't opposed at all. It was the first I heard of it, but it seemed to line up. So what is up with LBCF not putting it in?

But what do I know, the more I learn the more I am realizing that I really don't know anything ha.


----------



## KMK

Matthew1344 said:


> Thanks Ken!
> 
> I am trying to make it my goal to plant both feet on a confession. To hold to a confession does that mean you have to agree with it 100%? Just curious as to how other people feel about their confessions.
> 
> *Did the LBC not believe in the covenant of works given to Adam? *
> 
> LBCF leaves out:
> 
> 
> 
> WCF VII 2. The first covenant made with man was a covenant of works, wherein life was promised to Adam, and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then LBCF says:
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Moreover, man having brought himself under the curse of the law by his fall, it pleased the Lord to make a *covenant of grace*, wherein he freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in him, that they may be saved; and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto eternal life, his Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe.
> 
> 3. *This covenant is revealed in the gospel*; first of all to Adam in the promise of salvation by the seed of the woman, and afterwards by farther steps, until the full discovery thereof was completed in the New Testament; and it is founded in that eternal covenant transaction that was between the Father and the Son about the redemption of the elect; and it is alone by the grace of this covenant that all the posterity of fallen Adam that ever were saved did obtain life and blessed immortality, man being now utterly incapable of acceptance with God upon those terms on which Adam stood in his state of innocency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The LBC is much shorter on this issue of "covenant"....the WCF has 6 points, LBCF has 3.*
> 
> And Im new in reformed theology so I don't know if it is a standard thing to believe in the covenant of works given to Adam. When I read through the WCF for the first time a couple months ago, I did it by reading the "Westminster Confession of Faith: For Study Classes by GI Williamson", and when he talked about the covenant of works, i didn't see anything wrong in it. I wasn't opposed at all. It was the first I heard of it, but it seemed to line up. So what is up with LBCF not putting it in?
> 
> But what do I know, the more I learn the more I am realizing that I really don't know anything ha.
Click to expand...


Confessional requirements vary depending upon the situation. As far as this board goes, you are supposed to reveal in your bio if you have any 'scruples' about your confession. But, most importantly the support of doctrine contrary to the confessions is not allowed. You can read the rules if you want further info.

As far as the LBC and it stance on the covenant with Adam goes...

The LBC 1689 does actually affirm the CoW. In fact, the 1689 follows the Savoy in Chapter 20.



> Chapter 20:1 The Covenant of Works being broken by Sin...



The writings of the framers of the 1689 also show that they shared the same idea as the rest of the Reformed. It could be that, being written later, the framers of the 1689 decided to use less of the word 'covenant' in respect to Adam because there has always been disagreement among the Reformed as to whether such a phase is appropriate and warranted.

Bottom line is, Baptists don't differ from the Reformed in their view of the CoW, but in their view of the relationship between the CoW and the New Covenant. 

I recommend this book if you are interested:

SGCB | THE DISTINCTIVENESS OF BAPTIST COVENANT THEOLOGY: A Comparison Between Seventeenth-Century Particular Baptist and Paedobaptist Federalism


----------



## KMK

Examples of Baptist agreement with the Reformed on the CoW:

1693 Baptist Catechism and WSC:



> Q15 (Baptist) Q12 (WSC) What special act of of providence did god exercise towards man in the estate wherein he was created?
> 
> A. When God had created man, he entered into a Covenant of life with him, upon the condition of perfect obedience, forbidding him to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, upon pain of death.





> Q19 (Baptist) and Q15 (WSC) Did all mankind fall in Adam's first transgression?
> 
> A, The covenant being made with Adam, not only for himself, but for his posterity, all mankind descending from him by ordinary generation, sinned in him, and fell with him in his first transgression.



Also, I don't think the phrase CoW appears in the Heidelberg or the Canons of Dort either.


----------



## Matthew1344

Thanks Ken!


----------



## KMK

Thanks for your service in Bangkok!


----------



## Matthew1344

It is my joy!


----------



## Matthew1344

LBCF VII:
3. This covenant is revealed in the gospel; first of all to Adam in the promise of salvation by the seed of the woman, and afterwards by farther steps, until the full discovery thereof was completed in the New Testament; and it is founded in that eternal covenant transaction that was between the Father and the Son about the redemption of the elect; and it is alone by the grace of this covenant that all the posterity of fallen Adam that ever were saved did obtain life and blessed immortality, man being now utterly incapable of acceptance with God upon those terms on *which Adam stood in his state of innocency.*

What does this mean?


----------



## VictorBravo

Matthew1344 said:


> man being now utterly incapable of acceptance with God upon those terms on which Adam stood in his state of innocency.
> 
> What does this mean?



It simply means that Adam in his innocent state was able to enjoy God's presence fully. He could stand before him, commune with him, etc.

After he sinned, he could not stand before him. And, of course, that is our plight as well. God is Holy--unholy sinners cannot approach him or commune with him.

Which is why we need a mediator, and why we need that mediator to present us as righteous before God. Otherwise, we have no hope to stand before him except to face his wrath.


----------



## KMK

Notice, once again that the WCF, the Savoy, and the 1689 all agree, but with different language, that there is only one Covenant of Grace by which Adam's descendants can be saved.


----------



## Matthew1344

Man, you guys are awesome! I totally see it now. I'm just not the best at understanding wording like this yet. I'm getting better and better the more I read, but it is still really hard for me. 

Thanks fellas!


----------



## Matthew1344

1. God hath endued the will of man with that natural liberty, that is neither forced, nor by any absolute necessity of nature determined to good or evil.

1. God hath endued the will of man with that natural liberty *and power of acting upon choice,* that it is neither forced, nor by any necessity of nature determined to do good or evil.

Huh? I'm having a difficult time understanding this sentence. Because of though I don't know what difference the words in bold make.

Is this talking about the free will of adam?


----------



## Alan D. Strange

Matt:

Ken Stewart, in his book _Ten Myths about Calvinism_ (in the "second myth"), deals with some of the possible differences between Calvin and the Westminster on the decrees. Whether one agrees with all of Stewart's treatment here, this has long been a subject of discussion and controversy. 

It is also the case that both the Synod of Dort and Westminster, as to the supra/infra debate, lean toward infra without clearly rejecting supra. For example, Westminster notes, in 3:6--"they who are elected, being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ"--giving what appears to be a nod toward infralapsarianism. Yet, as the prolocutor of the Assembly, William Twisse noted, Dort (and Westminster) likely allowed both, believing that disagreement was over a matter of "mere logick."

As to the question at hand (not so much the comparison with the LBCF)--"what does the Westminster say about election/reprobation in Chapter 3?"--I would particularly recommend that you read John Fesko's treatment of the subject in chapter 4 of his recent book, _The Theology of the Westminster Standards_. The first two sections of Chapter 3 ("Of God's Eternal Decree") set forth the general teaching on such before the rest of the section proceeds to treat specifically the question of election and reprobation. What you cite, Matt, from 3:3, sets forth the broad strokes of the Confession's doctrines of election and reprobation. In this section (3:3), they sound as if they might receive the same treatment from the Divines: some are predestinated unto everlasting life and others foreordained to everlasting death.

However, sections 4-7 proceed to confess how this works, with sections 5-6 dealing with predestination unto life and section 7 treating reprobation. Note the striking difference in the language (which seems different from Calvin, at least in some places): those predestined are predestined in the most active of senses. This is not the way that the Confession speaks of reprobation, however, in section 7: "The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of his own will, whereby he extendeth or withholdeth mercy, as he pleaseth, for the glory of his sovereign power over his creatures, to pass by; and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praise of his glorious justice." The Confession (cf. WCF 6:1) has no problem with the language of "permitting sin," which language Calvin does not prefer.

Fesko describes this as affirming "preterition," and writes about 3:7: "The point the divines implicitly make with such a distinction, namely, the predestination of the elect and the preterition of the non-elect, is that God does not treat both groups in the same way. God positively and actively brings about the salvation of the elect, but he does not positively and actively bring about the reprobation of the non-elect. To do this would make God the author of sin, something the Confession 3:1 explicitly denies" (120).

And then WCF 3:8 goes on to insist that we are not to engage in speculation about this (this is why it calls it "the doctrine of this high mystery of predestination") but to receive comfort from such a doctrine as we seek to walk with the Lord in the obedience of the gospel. 

All this is to say, Matt, that whatever the differences between the WCF and the LBCF at 3:3 are (and I think that the LCBF is merely bringing some of what follows in 3:5-7 into 3:3), the WCF does not teach in the rest of 3 that election and reprobation have the same standing, but that election involves God's positive choosing while reprobation involves (as part of His decree, to be sure), God's passing by the rest, and ordaining them "to dishonor and wrath for their sin," which contrasts with the elect (who are not predestined due to "any foresight of faith, or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving him thereunto," WCF 3:5).

Peace,
Alan


----------



## Matthew1344

Alan D. Strange said:


> The Confession (cf. WCF 6:1) has no problem with the language of "permitting sin," which language Calvin does not prefer.


Why?

And thanks for your response. I will look into those books!

Also, did you see my previous question about both WCF LBCF 9:1? Is this talking about Adam?


----------



## Alan D. Strange

Matt:

Could you clarify for me what the "why" (from what you quote) has reference to? It could mean several different things.

And as for WCF 9--section 1 treats man qua man, that is, as God made him; section 2 deals with Adam pre-fall, while section 3 deals with Adam in the fall (and all mankind in Adam, outside of Christ, as a result of the fall). Section 4 deals with man as renewed in Christ and Section 5 deals with renewed man as glorified. 

My point above is that Westminster treats these matters very carefully, far more so than is often caricatured: election is a positive action of God towards those whom He loves and reprobation involves a passing by of those whom He is pleased to leave in their sin. The Confession does not treat these in a parallel fashion, made clear in the statements about salvation (3-8) that flesh out the broader statements of God's decreeing whatsover comes to pass.

Think of it this way: the Confession affirms that God decrees all that comes to pass and does it with respect to election and reprobation as set in 5-7, particularly. WCF 3:7 makes its especially clear that preterition is the category for understanding how God deals with the reprobate as part of His decreeing all that comes to pass.

Peace,
Alan


----------



## jgilberAZ

This might be a good resource for you, too:

A 1689/1677 Second London Baptist Confession Commentary | A Layman's Commentary of the 1689 Baptist Confession


----------



## Matthew1344

Matthew1344 said:


> The Confession (cf. WCF 6:1) has no problem with the language of "permitting sin," which language Calvin does not prefer.


 I meant why doesnt Calvin prefer this?


----------



## py3ak

Calvin explains himself, _Institutes III.23.8_:



> Here they have recourse to the distinction between will and permission. By this they would maintain that the wicked perish because God permits it, not because he so wills. But why shall we say “permission” unless it is because God so wills? Still, it is not in itself likely that man brought destruction upon himself through himself, by God’s mere permission and without any ordaining. As if God did not establish the condition in which he wills the chief of his creatures to be! I shall not hesitate, then, simply to confess with Augustine that “the will of God is the necessity of things,” and that what he has willed will of necessity come to pass, as those things which he has foreseen will truly come to pass.



Especially in light of what follows, I don't think that's really dissimilar from the qualifications made in the Westminster Confession of Faith (V.4):



> The almighty power, unsearchable wisdom, and infinite goodness of God so far manifest themselves in His providence, that it extends itself even to the first fall, and all other sins of angels and men; and that not by a bare permission, but such as has joined with it a most wise and powerful bounding, and otherwise ordering, and governing of them, in a manifold dispensation, to His own holy ends; yet so, as the sinfulness thereof proceeds only from the creature, and not from God, who, being most holy and righteous, neither is nor can be the author or approver of sin.



The fall into sin was necessary with a necessity of the consequence, though not of compulsion. That is to say, God didn't make people sin and yet sin was certainly included in the decree. If that's all permission means, it's a fine word; but if permission is taken to mean that sin is somehow outside of God's decree, then Calvin has no use for that.


----------



## KMK

Matthew1344 said:


> 1. God hath endued the will of man with that natural liberty, that is neither forced, nor by any absolute necessity of nature determined to good or evil.
> 
> 1. God hath endued the will of man with that natural liberty *and power of acting upon choice,* that it is neither forced, nor by any necessity of nature determined to do good or evil.
> 
> Huh? I'm having a difficult time understanding this sentence. Because of though I don't know what difference the words in bold make.
> 
> Is this talking about the free will of adam?



These words in the 1689 are taken directly from the Savoy Declaration.


----------



## Alan D. Strange

I do think that what Ruben cites of Calvin (in #43, above), taken with a passage like WCF 5.4, demonstrates that Calvin and the Confession are not ultimately at odds over this.

Nonetheless, I do think that the emphasis of Calvin is different (more strident with respect to his point) than the milder tone of the Confession. I think that this can be seen in a passage in the _Institutes _like I.18.2 in which Calvin deals with this question more specifically. I agree that the Confession does not use "permitting" in the way to which Calvin most clearly objects. But the Divines were quite aware of Calvin's objections and the particular way in which he constructed his double predestination and in the face of that chose to use the language of "permitting" and "passing by" anyway. Most students of this agree that there is a mild backing-off of the stronger way in which Calvin chose to address this and express himself.

Having said that, I don't think that there are substantive differences here but ones of tone and emphasis and I believe that such differences are not unimportant in a matter like this. 

Peace,
Alan


----------



## Matthew1344

Thank you guys for your help! And the website you posted has been amazing for me!!!

So my question now is one that I am embarrassed of, *what exactly is passive obedience?* I ask because now I am on Ch 11 of the confessions and we are on the justification chapter, *VERY IMPORTANT PART* , and I want to understand it as fully as possible. *I am thinking it is his being exposed to the consequences of sin, and fully exposed on the cross.* Am I way off?



> WCF — Chapter XI: Of Justification
> 1. Those whom God effectually calleth, he also freely justifieth: not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ's sake alone; not by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them, they receiving and resting on him and his righteousness by faith; which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God.





> LBCF — Chapter XI: Of Justification
> 1. Those whom God effectually calleth, he also freely justifieth, not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for anything wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ's sake alone; not by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing Christ's active obedience unto the whole law, *and passive obedience in his death for their whole and sole righteousness by faith, which faith they have not of themselves; it is the gift of God.*



I found this quote on the gospel coalition website.


> [We cannot] allocate certain phases or acts of our Lord’s life on earth to the active obedience and certain other phases and acts to the passive obedience. The distinction between the active and passive obedience is not a distinction of periods. *It is our Lord’s whole work of obedience in every phase and period that is described as active and passive,* and we must avoid the mistake of thinking that the active obedience applies to the obedience of his life and the passive obedience to the obedience of his final sufferings and death.
> 
> The real use and purpose of the formula is to emphasize the two distinct aspects of our Lord’s vicarious obedience. *The truth expressed rests upon the recognition that the law of God has both penal sanctions and positive demands.* *It demands not only the full discharge of its precepts but also the infliction of penalty for all infractions and shortcomings. It is this twofold demand of the law of God which is taken into account when we speak of the active and passive obedience of Christ. Christ as the vicar of his people came under the curse and condemnation due to sin and he also fulfilled the law of God in all its positive requirements. In other words, he took care of the guilt of sin and perfectly fulfilled the demands of righteousness. He perfectly met both the penal and the preceptive requirements of God’s law. The passive obedience refers to the former and the active obedience to the latter.* (pp. 20-22)



And i found this quote on the link that Jeff posted at the top of the page.


> His passive obedience refers to r*eceiving the penalty of the law* (God’s just wrath for those he purchased), *as if he had broken the Law*.



*So is passive obedience Christ enduring all the effects of sin and it climaxing at the cross?*


----------



## VictorBravo

Matthew1344 said:


> And i found this quote on the link that Jeff posted at the top of the page.
> His passive obedience refers to receiving the penalty of the law (God’s just wrath for those he purchased), as if he had broken the Law.
> So is passive obedience Christ enduring all the effects of sin and it climaxing at the cross?



I think a good description of passive obedience is set out in Isaiah chapter 53:

Isa 53:4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. 
Isa 53:5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. 
Isa 53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. 
Isa 53:7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth. 
Isa 53:8 He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken. 
Isa 53:9 And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth. 
Isa 53:10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. 
Isa 53:11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities. 

Lord Christ bore all this. It was done to him, hence the adjective "passive." He was obedient to the prophecy.


----------



## Matthew1344

VictorBravo said:


> I think a good description of passive obedience is set out in Isaiah chapter 53:
> 
> Isa 53:4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
> Isa 53:5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
> Isa 53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.
> Isa 53:7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.
> Isa 53:8 He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.
> Isa 53:9 And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.
> Isa 53:10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
> Isa 53:11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.
> 
> Lord Christ bore all this. It was done to him, hence the adjective "passive." He was obedient to the prophecy.


Do you believe this to be throughout his entire life? or only at the cross?


----------



## VictorBravo

Primarily at the cross, but all his life he was looking and acting with that end in mind.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

These days, "active" obedience is a term for the obedience of Christ toward the Law. He always did his Father's will. He did it not to *qualify* himself for his role as the spotless Lamb, but because of our failures in the same. We who believe in him and his work are credited for his work, as if we ourselves had never sinned and had in fact obeyed perfectly.

We receive the benefits of both his active and his passive (suffering) obedience.


----------



## KMK

Matthew1344 said:


> So is passive obedience Christ enduring all the effects of sin and it climaxing at the cross?



According to Sam Waldron, in note 5 of chapter 11, of his book "1689: A Modern Exposition"...



> The term 'passive', as used here, denotes the suffering or passion of Christ, not his passivity under the suffering.



The 1689 goes farther that WCF with the passive/active distinction, but that doesn't mean they fundamentally disagree.


----------



## Matthew1344

KMK said:


> Originally Posted by Matthew1344
> So is passive obedience Christ enduring all the effects of sin and it climaxing at the cross?
> According to Sam Waldron, in note 5 of chapter 11, of his book "1689: A Modern Exposition"...
> 
> The term 'passive', as used here, denotes the suffering or passion of Christ, not his passivity under the suffering.


To say it is him actively enduring through suffering is wrong or right?


----------



## Afterthought

Matthew1344 said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Supralapsarianism maintains the same historical order of the means of salvation as the infralapsarian
> 
> 
> 
> This might be a silly question, but what exactly is the difference between what God decreed and what historically happened? His decree is all history. I know that might not make any sense, im just trying to figure out what you said.
Click to expand...

It may be a bit late, but my understanding of the matter is the following. There is the decree and the execution of the decree. The decree is made in eternity while the carrying out of the decree occurs in history. God makes His plan in eternity and then carries out that plan in history. Whatever historically happened occurs precisely as God had decreed from eternity, but whatever historically happened is not the decree itself. Rather, whatever happens in history belongs to the execution of the decree.

I personally have found the Westminster Shorter Catechism helpful for providing the categories of thought in these matters. We have the *decrees* described as being God's "eternal purpose:"

*Q. 7. What are the decrees of God?*
A. The decrees of God are, his eternal purpose, according to the counsel of his will, whereby, for his own glory, he hath foreordained whatsoever comes to pass.



We then have the *execution of the decrees* being made within the works of Creation and Providence, i.e., within history, not eternity:

*Q. 8. How doth God execute his decrees?*
A. God executeth his decrees in the works of creation and providence.


----------



## Matthew1344

Thanks!


----------



## Matthew1344

Matthew1344 said:


> Originally Posted by KMK
> Originally Posted by Matthew1344
> So is passive obedience Christ enduring all the effects of sin and it climaxing at the cross?
> According to Sam Waldron, in note 5 of chapter 11, of his book "1689: A Modern Exposition"...
> 
> The term 'passive', as used here, denotes the suffering or passion of Christ, not his passivity under the suffering.
> To say it is him actively enduring through suffering is wrong or right?



Sorry, i moved this up because i didnt want it to get missed.


----------



## VictorBravo

Matthew1344 said:


> To say it is him actively enduring through suffering is wrong or right?



I think it may lead to confusion. The "active" and "passive" adjectives were put to use to remind us that Christ was not merely a perfect sacrifice, he was a perfect man as well. He needs to be a man to call us brothers, and to be high priest.


----------



## MW

On Calvin and the Westminster Confession, I would suggest Calvin's rejection of "permission" equates to the Confession's rejection of "bare permission." As the Confession teaches at numerous points, God was pleased to permit sin and overrule it for His own high and holy purpose. "Bare" permission supposes other reasons why God permits it, which lie outside the holiness, wisdom, and power of God.


----------



## VictorBravo

VictorBravo said:


> I think it may lead to confusion. The "active" and "passive" adjectives were put to use to remind us that Christ was not merely a perfect sacrifice, he was a perfect man as well. He needs to be a man to call us brothers, and to be high priest.



I wanted to write a little more, but was in my shop running an engine test and got distracted.

The terms "active and passive obedience" have been treated differently by different writers, so confusion is to be expected. I take it as looking at all of Christ's life from two perspectives: He was always fulfilling the law (active), and he was always prepared to be the perfect sacrifice (passive).

Both aspects are demanded by the law. And it then comes to the issue of imputation. Some non-reformed people (and some who call themselves reformed) reject the imputation of Christ's active obedience, but only accept imputation of his passive obedience. Hence, they may say that Christ's active obedience only prepared him to be the perfect sacrifice.

But without his active obedience being imputed to us, as I understand it, only our sins are paid for--we are not considered righteous before God. That brings us to a position of not suffering wrath, but not being able to enjoy fellowship with God either as Christ's actual adopted brothers and sisters.

That may be simplistic, and I'd invite others to clarify, but the terms do seem to need being distinguished.


----------



## KMK

VictorBravo said:


> Some non-reformed people (and some who call themselves reformed) reject the imputation of Christ's active obedience, but only accept imputation of his passive obedience. Hence, they may say that Christ's active obedience only prepared him to be the perfect sacrifice.



I think the Westminster's language of 'perfect' obedience is sufficient and avoids confusion...if it weren't for those, as Vic says, who try to turn 'perfect' obedience into 'perfect passive' obedience. I can see the reasoning behind the language of both confessions, although they basically teach the same thing.


----------



## KMK

armourbearer said:


> On Calvin and the Westminster Confession, I would suggest Calvin's rejection of "permission" equates to the Confession's rejection of "bare permission." As the Confession teaches at numerous points, God was pleased to permit sin and overrule it for His own high and holy purpose. "Bare" permission supposes other reasons why God permits it, which lie outside the holiness, wisdom, and power of God.



This is great insight. It clears up a great deal for me.


----------



## Matthew1344

The terms "active and passive obedience" have been treated differently by different writers, so confusion is to be expected. I take it as looking at all of Christ's life from two perspectives:He was always fulfilling the law (active), and *he was always prepared to be the perfect sacrifice (passive).*

Can you elaborate more on this?
How was he prepared? 

My line of thinking before I read this was 
Passive obedience: Christ always suffering the consequences of sin, especially at the cross, and defeating them at the cross.

But now I'm thinking I was way off.


----------



## VictorBravo

Matthew1344 said:


> Can you elaborate more on this?
> How was he prepared?



I was meaning only that he was always ready, from eternity in the covenant of redemption. I'm thinking of Hebrews 7 and Psalm 110: "The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek."

The Father speaks to the Son, upon an oath, that he would be and always is, the perfect sacrifice. God's oath is what made him the true High Priest who sacrifices, and the sacrifice itself. Although Christ was perfect on earth in all he did with regard to the law, this is not what Hebrews says made him the Priest. God's oath secures that for all his people.



> Heb 7:21 (For those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath by him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec: )
> Heb 7:22 By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.
> Heb 7:23 And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death:
> Heb 7:24 But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.
> Heb 7:25 Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.
> Heb 7:26 For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;
> Heb 7:27 Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.
> Heb 7:28 For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore.


----------



## Matthew1344

So you are saying his passive obedience is an eternal obedience, not only obedience that was accomplished in the flesh. 

If this is the case then what my definition is is totally wrong. 

So you are saying passive obedience is "being prepared to be a sacrifice".?


----------



## KMK

In general, understanding that there is overlap, Christ's passive obedience has to do with our need to have the guilt of sin removed, and Christ's active obedience has to do with our need for righteousness. But, I hesitate to spend too much time on this distinction simply because the Bible doesn't. The only reason it seems to come up is because some overemphasize one to the exclusion of the other.


----------



## Matthew1344

KMK said:


> The only reason it seems to come up is because some *overemphasize one to the exclusion of the other.*


 I just want to know what they are ha.

Active obedience- doing the will of the father
Passive obedience-????

So many reformers and puritans have talked about this in their writings and i cant understand what any are saying. I thought I did until Victor said:


VictorBravo said:


> The terms "active and passive obedience" have been treated differently by different writers, so confusion is to be expected. I take it as looking at all of Christ's life from two perspectives: He was always fulfilling the law (active), *and he was always prepared to be the perfect sacrifice (passive).*



Im not seeing how this: 


VictorBravo said:


> I was meaning only that *he was always ready, from eternity in the covenant of redemption.* I'm thinking of Hebrews 7 and Psalm 110: "The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek."
> 
> The Father speaks to the Son, upon an oath, *that he would be and always is, the perfect sacrifice.* God's oath is what made him the true High Priest who sacrifices, and the sacrifice itself. Although Christ was perfect on earth in all he did with regard to the law, this is not what Hebrews says made him the Priest. God's oath secures that for all his people.



matches up and goes with any of this:


> LBCF — Chapter XI: Of Justification
> 1. Those whom God effectually calleth, he also freely justifieth, not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for anything wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ's sake alone; not by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing Christ's active obedience unto the whole law, and *passive obedience in his death for their whole and sole righteousness by faith, which faith they have not of themselves; it is the gift of God.*



Or he gospel coalition website.


> [We cannot] allocate certain phases or acts of our Lord’s life on earth to the active obedience and certain other phases and acts to the passive obedience. The distinction between the active and passive obedience is not a distinction of periods. *It is our Lord’s whole work of obedience in every phase and period that is described as active and passive,* and we must avoid the mistake of thinking that the active obedience applies to the obedience of his life and the passive obedience to the obedience of his final sufferings and death.
> 
> The real use and purpose of the formula is to emphasize the two distinct aspects of our Lord’s vicarious obedience. *The truth expressed rests upon the recognition that the law of God has both penal sanctions and positive demands. It demands not only the full discharge of its precepts but also the infliction of penalty for all infractions and shortcomings. It is this twofold demand of the law of God which is taken into account when we speak of the active and passive obedience of Christ. Christ as the vicar of his people came under the curse and condemnation due to sin and he also fulfilled the law of God in all its positive requirements. In other words, he took care of the guilt of sin and perfectly fulfilled the demands of righteousness. He perfectly met both the penal and the preceptive requirements of God’s law. The passive obedience refers to the former and the active obedience to the latter. (pp. 20-22)*



especially the LBCF Commentary


> *His passive obedience refers to receiving the penalty of the law* (God’s just wrath for those he purchased), *as if he had broken the Law.*


----------



## MW

James Buchanan (Justification, p. 307):



> Divines have generally made a distinction between what is called the active and passive obedience of Christ; and this distinction is both legitimate and useful, when it is correctly understood, and judiciously applied. It is not to be interpreted as if it meant, that His passive obedience consisted in mere suffering, or that His active obedience consisted in mere service; for it implies obedience in both, and excludes suffering from neither. Nor is it to be interpreted as if it meant, that the two might be so separated from each other, as to admit of His mere sufferings being imputed to us, without any part of His obedience; for if His death be reckoned to us at all, it must necessarily include both the pains which He endured, and the obedience which he rendered, in dying. But the distinction may be understood in a sense which serves to discriminate, merely, one part of His work from another, without destroying their indissoluble union; and to exhibit them in the relation which they severally bear to the penal and preceptive requirements of the divine Law. That Law required the punishment of sin, and in the sufferings and death of Christ we see its penalty fulfilled; it required also perfect righteousness, and in the lifelong obedience of Christ, – but especially in His death as the crowning act of His obedience, – we see its precept fulfilled; and by thus connecting His penal sufferings with the evil desert of sin, and His vicarious obedience with the righteousness which the Law requires, we are enabled to apprehend more clearly our need of both, and also the suitableness and fulness of the provision which has thus been made for our acceptance with God.



In both the life and death of our Surety, active obedience was obedience to the precepts of the law and passive obedience was obedience to the penalties of the law. This in its unity constitutes the righteousness which is imputed to believers for their justification.


----------



## Matthew1344

Thank you Matthew!


----------



## Matthew1344

armourbearer said:


> we see its precept fulfilled; and by thus connecting His penal sufferings with the evil desert of sin, and His vicarious obedience with the righteousness which the Law requires, we are enabled to apprehend more clearly our need of both, and also the suitableness and fulness of the provision which has thus been made for our acceptance with God.


this helped alot


----------



## Matthew1344

> *LBCF — Chapter XI: Of Justification*
> 5. God doth continue to forgive the sins of those that are justified, and although they can never fall from the state of justification, yet they may, by their sins, fall under God's fatherly displeasure; and in that condition *they have not usually* the light of his countenance restored unto them, until they humble themselves, confess their sins, beg pardon, and renew their faith and repentance.



Why did they change what the WCF said?


> WCF — Chapter XI: Of Justification
> 5. God doth continue to forgive the sins of those that are justified; and although they can never fall from the state of justification, yet they may by their sins fall under God's Fatherly displeasure, and *not have* the light of his countenance restored unto them, until they humble themselves, confess their sins, beg pardon, and renew their faith and repentance.



Why in the world would they say "usually"?


----------



## KMK

Matthew1344 said:


> *LBCF — Chapter XI: Of Justification*
> 5. God doth continue to forgive the sins of those that are justified, and although they can never fall from the state of justification, yet they may, by their sins, fall under God's fatherly displeasure; and in that condition *they have not usually* the light of his countenance restored unto them, until they humble themselves, confess their sins, beg pardon, and renew their faith and repentance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why did they change what the WCF said?
> 
> 
> 
> WCF — Chapter XI: Of Justification
> 5. God doth continue to forgive the sins of those that are justified; and although they can never fall from the state of justification, yet they may by their sins fall under God's Fatherly displeasure, and *not have* the light of his countenance restored unto them, until they humble themselves, confess their sins, beg pardon, and renew their faith and repentance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why in the world would they say "usually"?
Click to expand...


The 1689 follows the wording of the Savoy in this place. I assume they simply wanted to leave room for exceptions to the rule. Again, the confessions do not disagree in any substantive way.


----------



## Matthew1344

Thanks Ken! 
That is what I was thinking.

Why did they change EVERYTHING in ch 15?


----------



## Contra_Mundum

American evangelicals broadly conceived, who are alive today, have no experience of a church-world in which Baptists were a vanishingly small minority. They were in 17th century England; supplemented in outward ritual similarity by but a few Anabaptist sects on the continent, considered to be "fringe" by the great established-church scene. Today, upon America's vast religious landscape, Baptists dominate the evangelical end of the spectrum, and are supplemented not only by Anabaptist sects, but also the substantial Pentecostal stream. How hard it is to relate to the time when the practices and the hermeneutics of the Baptists were not mainstream by any means.

To understand much about the amendments (major and minor) of the WCF by the English Baptists, we need to put the creation of the LBCF into its historical setting. In regard to the WCF, a rather large Assembly of theologians met under official auspices to craft a statement of faith for the Church in the Isles. After them, a handful of dissenting divines--with the intent of maintaining before mankind 1) the general consent of their theology with the wider church; and 2) their distinctives, _which necessarily followed from their more penetrating insight than that of the majority_--presented the LBCF.

So, the LBCF is marked not only by its specific differences in theology and practice. But also by numerous other minor "improvements" in language and emphasis, which are the product of the particular concerns of this much smaller body of laborers and approvers of its doctrines. Most Baptists (who are not "trail-of-blood" types, or Anabaptist in sympathy) who see themselves as belonging in some sense to the wider stream of the Reformation, believe that their forefathers _further purified_ the first work of the initial reformers, the 16th century giants like Luther and Calvin. Naturally, then, it only stands to reason that in numerous places the terms of the WCF _could and should be refined_ according to the wisdom of these clear-eyed editors.


----------



## Matthew1344

> 1. *Such of the elect as are converted at riper years*, having sometime lived in the state of nature, and therein served divers lusts and pleasures, God in their effectual calling giveth them repentance unto life.



So I read this and some commentary here. I know that they took this from the Savoy, and that John Owen had a big part in that, but I do not understand what they are saying. 

When I read this it seems like God only saves older people. Why would they choose this language?

The commentary says this: 


> “The Confession makes this out of a desire to distinguish repentance as a crisis experience from repentance as an ordinary grace. All believers are marked by ordinary grace, but not all believers will know, or need to know, repentance as a crisis experience.”[9]
> This is saying that not everyone has a huge experience when they are saved.



I guess I just dont understand the english...
Such of the elect...such what of the elect?
Repentance unto life... is this different than the repentance unto salvation in section 2?

Can anybody help me out on this one?


----------



## Matthew1344

> 1. *Such of the elect as are converted at riper years*, having sometime lived in the state of nature, and therein served divers lusts and pleasures, God in their effectual calling giveth them repentance unto life.



So I read this and some commentary here. I know that they took this from the Savoy, and that John Owen had a big part in that, but I do not understand what they are saying. 

When I read this it seems like God only saves older people. Why would they choose this language?

The commentary says this: 


> “The Confession makes this out of a desire to distinguish repentance as a crisis experience from repentance as an ordinary grace. All believers are marked by ordinary grace, but not all believers will know, or need to know, repentance as a crisis experience.”[9]
> This is saying that not everyone has a huge experience when they are saved.



I guess I just dont understand the english...
Such of the elect...such what of the elect?
Repentance unto life... is this different than the repentance unto salvation in section 2?

Can anybody help me out on this one?


----------



## KMK

Matthew1344 said:


> Such of the elect as are converted at riper years, having sometime lived in the state of nature, and therein served divers lusts and pleasures, God in their effectual calling giveth them repentance unto life.



Replace 'such' with 'those'. The point is that some believe from their youth and don't have the same kind of conversion experience as the Apostle Paul, for example.


----------



## Matthew1344

LBCF — Chapter XVII: Of the Perseverance of the Saints

1. Those whom God hath accepted in the beloved, effectually called and sanctified by his Spirit, and given the precious faith of his elect unto, can neither totally nor finally fall from the state of grace, but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved, *seeing the gifts and callings of God are without repentance, *whence he still begets and nourisheth in them faith, repentance, love, joy, hope, and all the graces of the Spirit unto immortality; and though many storms and floods arise and beat against them, yet they shall never be able to take them off that foundation and rock which by faith they are fastened upon; notwithstanding, through unbelief and the temptations of Satan, the sensible sight of the light and love of God may for a time be clouded and obscured from them, yet he is still the same, and they shall be sure to be kept by the power of God unto salvation, where they shall enjoy their purchased possession, they being engraven upon the palm of his hands, and their names having been written in the book of life from all eternity.

without repentance? I dont see how this goes with the paragraph. Can anybody help me out on this one? What are they saying by this phrase?


----------



## Matthew1344

Nevermind! IT is saying that God is not going to change his mind "repent" about who he has chosen to elect, call, justify, glorify.


----------



## Matthew1344

LBCF — Chapter XIX: Of the Law of God


> 1. *God gave to Adam a law of universal obedience written in his heart,* and a particular precept of not eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil; by which he bound him and all his posterity to personal, entire, exact, and perpetual obedience; promised life upon the fulfilling, and threatened death upon the breach of it, and endued him with power and ability to keep it.



These are the proof texts.


> 1 Gen. 1:27
> So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.;





> Eccles. 7:29
> See, this alone I found, that God made man upright, but they have sought out many schemes.



Being made upright and created in the image of God means that the moral law is written on your heart?


----------



## KMK

Matthew1344 said:


> LBCF — Chapter XIX: Of the Law of God
> 
> 
> 
> 1. *God gave to Adam a law of universal obedience written in his heart,* and a particular precept of not eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil; by which he bound him and all his posterity to personal, entire, exact, and perpetual obedience; promised life upon the fulfilling, and threatened death upon the breach of it, and endued him with power and ability to keep it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These are the proof texts.
> 
> 
> 
> 1 Gen. 1:27
> So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eccles. 7:29
> See, this alone I found, that God made man upright, but they have sought out many schemes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Being made upright and created in the image of God means that the moral law is written on your heart?
Click to expand...




> For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: *15*Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts*, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another) Rom 3:14,15



The words of the confession are often taken straight from the KJV. If you are not already, it might be helpful to study the confessions using the KJV.


----------

