WCF vs LBCF
- Thread starter Matthew1344
- Start date
- Status
Matthew1344
Puritan Board Sophomore
It is my joy!
Matthew1344
Puritan Board Sophomore
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?
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?
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.
Matthew1344
Puritan Board Sophomore
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!
Thanks fellas!
Matthew1344
Puritan Board Sophomore
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?
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
Puritan Board Senior
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
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
Last edited:
Matthew1344
Puritan Board Sophomore
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
Puritan Board Senior
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
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
Puritan Board Freshman
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
A 1689/1677 Second London Baptist Confession Commentary | A Layman's Commentary of the 1689 Baptist Confession
Matthew1344
Puritan Board Sophomore
I meant why doesnt Calvin prefer this?
Calvin explains himself, Institutes III.23.8:
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 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.
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 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.
These words in the 1689 are taken directly from the Savoy Declaration.
Alan D. Strange
Puritan Board Senior
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
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
Puritan Board Sophomore
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?
I found this quote on the gospel coalition website.
And i found this quote on the link that Jeff posted at the top of the page.
So is passive obedience Christ enduring all the effects of sin and it climaxing at the cross?
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?I found this quote on the gospel coalition website.
And i found this quote on the link that Jeff posted at the top of the page.
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
Puritan Board Sophomore
Do you believe this to be throughout his entire life? or only at the cross?
Primarily at the cross, but all his life he was looking and acting with that end in mind.
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.
We receive the benefits of both his active and his passive (suffering) obedience.
According to Sam Waldron, in note 5 of chapter 11, of his book "1689: A Modern Exposition"...
The 1689 goes farther that WCF with the passive/active distinction, but that doesn't mean they fundamentally disagree.
Matthew1344
Puritan Board Sophomore
Afterthought
Puritan Board Senior
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.Matthew1344 said:
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
Puritan Board Sophomore
Thanks!
Matthew1344
Puritan Board Sophomore
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.
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.
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.
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.
This is great insight. It clears up a great deal for me.
- Status
