WLC#31 and WLC#166

[RickyReformed]

While reading an article denying that the Covenant of Works was gracious, I ran across this footnote:

"The Westminster Standards are a human document and from time to time contradict themselves. E.g. they suggest that the covenant of grace is with the elect in one place (WLC #31) and in another with the visible church (WLC #166)." footnote 2, http://www.upper-register.com/ct_gospel/several_quick.html#note2

Question #31 and answer:
Q31: With whom was the covenant of grace made?
A31: The covenant of grace was made with Christ as the second Adam, and in him with all the elect as his seed.

Question #166 and answer:
Q166: Unto whom is Baptism to be administered?
A166: Baptism is not to be administered to any that are out of the visible church, and so strangers from the covenant of promise, till they profess their faith in Christ, and obedience to him,[1] but infants descending from parents, either both, or but one of them, professing faith in Christ, and obedience to him, are in that respect within the covenant, and to be baptized.[2]

Did the divines err, or is there a plausible explanation for this apparent discrepancy?

 

[wsw201]

No the Divines did not err. Question 31 is correct and so is 166. Q. 31 deals with God's eternal decrees (WCF Chapt 3) on election as well as the Covenant. Those who have been effectually called (WCF Chapt 10) are the elect and are represented by Christ in the Covenant of Grace (WCF Chapt 7 sec 3. note in the definition of the CoG that the Holy Spirit is given to those "ordained to eternal life" ).

Regarding Q. 166, note that the sign of the covenant is for the visible church, but you need to look at WCF Chapter 28 on Baptism. The requirement for recieving the sign is either a profession of faith for adults and for infants that one of the parents is a believer. Since the Church does not know who is or is not in the invisible church (the elect), only God knows (WCF Chapt 25), the sign is given to all who meet the requirements. Therefore, based on Chapter 25, baptism does not guarantee election and having Christ as your federal head per Q. 31.

Unfortunately this is not the only issue Irons has with the Westminster Standards.

[Edited on 2-16-2004 by wsw201]

[Edited on 2-16-2004 by wsw201]

 

[RickyReformed]

So the term "covenant of promise" does not necessarily equal the term "covenant of promise" as the author seems to imply? By the way, the author in this case is not Lee Irons but since the article is on his website, it's hard to believe their views are not similiar.

What other issues, if I may ask, does Mr. Irons have with the Westminster Standards? I really like his articles on theonomy, but I am personally an advocate of strict subscription.

 

[fredtgreco]

[quote:7b57dd3faa][i:7b57dd3faa]Originally posted by RickyReformed[/i:7b57dd3faa]
So the term "covenant of promise" does not necessarily equal the term "covenant of promise" as the author seems to imply? By the way, the author in this case is not Lee Irons but since the article is on his website, it's hard to believe their views are not similiar.

What other issues, if I may ask, does Mr. Irons have with the Westminster Standards? I really like his articles on theonomy, but I am personally an advocate of strict subscription. [/quote:7b57dd3faa]

Rev. Iron was divested of office due to aberrant views on the law of God.

 

[JohnV]

Ricky:

Wayne and Fred are in a much better position to answer you than I am. I agree with Wayne's explanation. But if I may add a comment, I would like to add that I have also read articles that assume that there is an inherent contradiction here. My personal reaction is that this assumption is not shared by me. In fact the assumption also implies that I have given myself over to a contradiction in doctrine that I simply don't care to address or am too blinded by paedo doctrine to see. The truth is that this seeming contradiction is quite opposite of this assumption. As an adherent of the Westminster Standards I believe both to be true, and I am not believing out of ignorance of their assertions. Rather, it is that answer #166 is true because answer #31 is true. That is, they follow from the truth of God's redemptive plan. If one believes #31, then it follows that one must believe #166 as well; and not because of blind adherence to the Westminster Assembly.

So I would say that, in answer to your question, the Westminster Assembly members did not err here, and that the affirmation of both these artcles of faith is the only plausible answer that I know of to the Christ/church relationship in the working out of the covenant of Grace. But that debate has been gone over quite often on this Board; I only reaffirm my belief concerning this.

 

[Preach]

Fred,
What were some of the abberant views?

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

Next month I start a class on Coveant Theology for school. We have to write a paper on CT from some critical aspect. I am going to write something on this "discrepency" for either that class or the WCF class which is after that.

 

[wsw201]

[quote:a71d6a87e2][i:a71d6a87e2]Originally posted by Preach[/i:a71d6a87e2]
Fred,
What were some of the abberant views? [/quote:a71d6a87e2]

You can go to Iron's web site at http://www.upper-register.com. He goes over all the issues.