1689 & Supralapsarianism

JM · #1 (**permalink**) 12-04-2007, 01:49 PM

Is the London Baptist Confession of 1689 "advocate a far more definite stance" toward supralapsarianism?

Quote:

In contrast, the 1689 Confession seems to advocate a far more definite stance on the lapsarian position. Firstly, in the 1689 Confession, the distinction between ‘predestination’ and ‘foreordination’ is collapsed. The revised section in 3.3 was changed to read, “By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory some men and Angels are predestinated, or fore-ordained to Eternal Life.”35 Furthermore, in chapter 3.6, the addition of a comma36 before the phrase “being fallen in Adam” is far more suggestive of a reading which alludes to the temporal ordo salutis rather than the order of decrees sub specie aeternitatis. Following this reading, “the words, ‘being fallen in Adam’, do not imply that the elect when elected were contemplated as fallen in Adam. The words simply state an historical fact which explains the necessity of redemption by Christ and the other phases of salvation.” These two modifications of the Westminster Confession undoubtedly demonstrate the Baptist’s desire to subscribe to a supralapsarian understanding of the ordo decretorum. However, this definite stance on the lapsarian position does not necessarily call into question the Baptists’ use of the Westminster document. If the Westminster document is careful to avoid language which excludes one or other lapsarian position, then it clearly treats a specific lapsarian position as immaterial to the more immediate task of creating a Confession of Faith. That the Baptist Confession chooses to promote a supralapsarian ordo decretorum does not oppose the Westminster document, but rather elucidates the Westminster Confession so as to give it a more definite interpretation.

http://www.sicliff.co.uk/jon/1689.pdf

JM · #2 (**permalink**) 12-08-2007, 10:36 AM

I think so.

Here's another quote from the link:

The Westminster Confession is unambiguous in its federal theology. The first covenant made with man was a Covenant of Works (7.2) which, after man had sinned (7.3), was replaced by a Covenant of Grace (7.3). The Baptist Confession, on the other hand, is far more elusive. Although the distinction between God and the Creature is described in terms of Covenant (7.1) and the salvific relationship between God and the elect is described in terms of a Covenant of Grace (7.2), there is no mention of a Covenant of Works in the chapter ‘Of God’s Covenant with Man’. This unwillingness to mention the Covenant of Works seems to directly contravene the Westminster Confession’s strict division between the pre-fall and post-fall covenants. However, a closer analysis of the whole text of the Baptist Confession reveals three references to the Covenant of Works in the section on the Law of God (19.6, twice) and in the chapter added from Savoy on the extent of the Gospel (20.1). This undoubtedly leads to the question: Why is there an avoidance of any language of a Covenant of Works in the chapter on ‘God’s Covenant with Man’?