A friend asked me today if I knew why the 1689 is very similar to the Westminster in so many things but is so very different with respect to the part concerning the 'passive and active obedience of Christ'.
He doesn't ask so much what the difference between the two thoughts concerning this doctrine are, as much as why it came about.
What was going on during 1684 and the people that were writing that drove them to make this point crucial in defining and disecting as much as they did in the finished confession. In other words, the question is, why was so much dedictated to the writing on this when the Westminster doesn't speak much on the difference between the two.
LBCF Chapter 11