Westminsterians, Where Do You Disagree With LBCF Chapter 6?

Status
Not open for further replies.

KMK

Administrator
Staff member
Those who subscribe to the WCF, what do you disagree with in the LBC Chapter 6?


Paragraph 1. Although God created man upright and perfect, and gave him a righteous law, which had been unto life had he kept it, and threatened death upon the breach thereof,1 yet he did not long abide in this honor; Satan using the subtlety of the serpent to subdue Eve, then by her seducing Adam, who, without any compulsion, did willfully transgress the law of their creation, and the command given to them, in eating the forbidden fruit,2 which God was pleased, according to His wise and holy counsel to permit, having purposed to order it to His own glory.
1 Gen. 2:16,17
2 Gen. 3:12,13; 2 Cor. 11:3

Paragraph 2. Our first parents, by this sin, fell from their original righteousness and communion with God, and we in them whereby death came upon all:3 all becoming dead in sin,4 and wholly defiled in all the faculties and parts of soul and body.5
3 Rom. 3:23
4 Rom 5:12, etc.
5 Titus 1:15; Gen. 6:5; Jer. 17:9; Rom. 3:10-19

Paragraph 3. They being the root, and by God's appointment, standing in the room and stead of all mankind, the guilt of the sin was imputed, and corrupted nature conveyed, to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation,6 being now conceived in sin,7 and by nature children of wrath,8 the servants of sin, the subjects of death,9 and all other miseries, spiritual, temporal, and eternal, unless the Lord Jesus set them free.10
6 Rom. 5:12-19; 1 Cor. 15:21,22,45,49
7 Ps. 51:5; Job 14:4
8 Eph. 2:3
9 Rom. 6:20, 5:12
10 Heb. 2:14,15; 1 Thess. 1:10

Paragraph 4. From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil,11 do proceed all actual transgressions.12
11 Rom. 8:7; Col. 1:21
12 James 1:14,15; Matt. 15:19

Paragraph 5. The corruption of nature, during this life, does remain in those that are regenerated;13 and although it be through Christ pardoned and mortified, yet both itself, and the first motions thereof, are truly and properly sin.14
13 Rom. 7:18,23; Eccles. 7:20; 1 John 1:8
14 Rom. 7:23-25; Gal. 5:17


Baptists, please refrain from participation.
 
Maybe it would help where if you listed the differences between the WCF and the LBC? This would facilitate the conversation to the end which you are seeking?
 
There is only one point that I would not affirm. In paragraph 1, it states that Eve seduced Adam. The text does not say that. It says that Adam was with Eve. I deduce that Adam didn't need any seducing to eat the fruit. He had already abandoned the covemant of works by 1. Allowing Satan into the garden; 2. Standing by and saying/doing nothing while Eve was tempted; and 3. Willingly eating of the fruit without any debate.

But this is still a small point, and not one that stands between Baptists and Presbyterians.
 
Thanks, Lane. That language is carried over from the 1st LBC. I am not sure why they felt it was an important detail.
 
In para.1, certain key points of the LBC are expressed differently by the WCF.7.2, a para. absent from the LBC, which avoids all mention of the CoW (cf. chs.19 of both, where again WCF ref. to CoW is wholly replaced). The LBC repeats language of the WFC.19 first here in 6.1 (then again in 19) of "promise" and "threat."

LBC.4, "of Creation" separates into a 3rd para. the matter in WCF.4.2 in which the "law on the heart" is supplemented with an additional command ref. the TKGE. I think this is significant in this way: it is clear that 6.1 "a righteous law" is that commandment separately given; which in the WCF system of doctrine is put in terms like this from 19.1,
"God gave to Adam a law, as a covenant of works, 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."​
It is evident from comparing the language of chs.4/6/7/19 that the WCF closely unites the original commandment with the 10C, that is to the CoW. LBC.19.2 explicitly identifies the 10C--exclusive of the separate command, i.e. not the WCF CoW--as the original creational "law of universal obedience written in his heart." Note also LBC eschewing the more specific "curse of the moral law," preferring the general "curse of the law" in ch.21.1 (cf. WCF.20.1)--a further indication of this distinction between how the two Confessions view the relation of moral constitution to law.

This is not to imply that adherents to the WCF do not correlate the moral law (summed in 10C) to the original, uncorrupted legal-constitution of man at his creation. They do correlate them. The WCF side, as ch.4 shows, makes the command respecting the TKGE a concrete expression of or for the moral constitution.

They are not the same: the constitution, and an exercise of or for the constitution. In the case of the 10C, there are two parallels. 1) for the substance of them, they are a kind of transcript of the original moral constitution. 2) as an expression or exercise of that constitution (in fallen state inoperable), they are a restatement of the CoW.​

So, is there anything to disagree with focused in upon LBC.6?
para.1. I appreciate Lane's fine distinction, and I appreciate the WCF's concision. It's possible the LBC only means to speak more fully. In general, I wish there was less effort at verbal expansion (for clarity, presumably). I don't think it is necessary.

para.2. LBC puts the matter of the first parents' posterity's death herein, while the WCF reserves that statement for the following, where I think it belongs. As I read LBC, this puts my death before my guilt; and if this was intentional, I think it is a mistake theologically, even if it is existentially so.

para.3. LBC prefaces the language of imputation by expanding "root" into explicitly federal phrasing, presumably to avoid restricting "root" to genetics. WCF uses the words conveyed to all their posterity, and the LBC graphically describes it and them. A considerable number of words from WCF.6.6 (the LBC has only 5 paras) is transposed here, for a kind of completeness I suppose (but see the concluding comment below). LBC also makes mention of sin's Remedy here; I don't have a problem with that, though it seems like going-out-of-the-way to prove the greater "evangelical" character of the LBC (there is more of this in the LBC than just this addition).

para.4. Word-for-word the same.

para.5. Is there a purposeful distinction between the LBC, "the first motions" and the WCF, "all the motions?" A surface reading leaves me with the impression the LBC aims at a distinction between regenerate persons' human nature's first motions which are undoubtedly sin; and further motions of the same (possibly aided by the Spirit?) that are not "truly and properly sin." Personally, I'm not interested in salvaging any of my works from the sin-bin.

WCF.6.6 is important, I think, for giving a definition of sin, which is "...a transgression of the righteous law of God, and contrary thereunto, [and] doth, in its own nature, bring guilt upon the sinner, whereby he is bound over to the wrath of God, and curse of the law, and so made subject to death, with all miseries spiritual, temporal, and eternal." It is very nearly a catechism answer. And, while portions of the language are found especially in LBC.6.3, I think this is a major difference and a deficiency (in my opinion).
 
Thanks for this, Bruce.

The verbal expansion of paragraph 1, was apparently an attempt to include language from the Savoy as well as the WCF. I understand your preference for 'less is sometimes more'.

Your concerns over paragraph 2 are very interesting. The Savoy does the same thing as the LBC.

What is TKGE?
 
What is TKGE?
Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil--31 characters, 7 spaces, eight words vs. four letters. No contest.

I'm thinking of rendering them in the future all lower-case too, eliminating the shift-key. tkge. You like?
 
I'm thinking of rendering them in the future all lower-case too, eliminating the shift-key. tkge. You like?

That makes me chuckle. Sure, I like.

Except I can't keep up with acronyms from one context to the next. Maybe follow the technical writer's approach of writing out the phrase the first time and following it with the acronym in parentheses.

I know, more work.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top