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

__________________
Frank
member/Reformed Baptist Church, NJ
1689 BCF
Technician in NewYork
Titus 2:13
...looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus...

The 1689 probably decided to follow the 1658 Savoy at this point over Westminster?

__________________
Chris Coldwell
Lakewood Presbyterian Church (PCA), Member
• Naphtali Press: Presbyterian & Reformed Books
• The Confessional Presbyterian, A Journal for Discussion of Presbyterian Doctrine & Practice
• The Blue Banner Archive

When heresy rises in an evangelical body, it is never frank and open. It always begins by skulking, and assuming a disguise. Its advocates, when together, boast of great improvements, and congratulate one another on having gone greatly beyond the ‘old dead orthodoxy,’ and on having left behind many of its antiquated errors: but when taxed with deviations from the received faith, they complain of the unreasonableness of their accusers, as they ‘differ from it only in words.’ This has been the standing course of errorists ever since the apostolic age. Samuel Miller, Introductory essay, The Articles of the Synod of Dort (1841).

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

yes, but again, the question is not about the doctrine, the question is why was so much written on it?

While my friend was giving me the question what went on in my mind was that he really wanted to know if there was something going on at the time, some heresy or some misusing or mistreatment of this doctrine which in turn required that the savoy and the lbcf needed to address the issue and make it very clear.
I don't know but that's what I thought.

Any ideas?

I don't think there was some public controversy though I may be wrong. I think it comes down to the majority at Savoy wanted the more explicit language than was passed at Westminster because some of the divines at the Assembly quibbled about explicitly including it. There is a controversy about this "now" because advocates of what is called the Federal Vision use this fact to claim the denial of the imputation of the active obedience of Christ, is not unConfessional in regards to the WCF. Chad Van Dixhoorn covers this example in his dissertation on the Westminster Assembly; and I believe Alan Strange (MARS) is writing a more detailed paper on the subject.

During Westminster's revising of the 39 articles a difference of opinion became apparent amongst the divines concerning justification. Some elderly divines took issue with the active obedience teaching, and it was resolved (according to Daniel Featley) to not make an issue out of it. This accounts for the neutral wording which was adopted by the Confession and Catechisms. Thomas Gataker, perhaps the most renowned of those divines who rejected the idea, wrote a work on justification which he would not publish because he knew it was out of accord with the views of his brethren. It was, however, published posthumously.

The Savoy was made up of the younger generation of Puritan theologians, and Puritanism by this time had fully accepted the teaching that the imputation of Christ's righteousness included His active obedience to the law and passive obedience in His death. The way Savoy states the matter is liable to misapplication, and there are not a few who speak as if two things are imputed to believers, active and passive obedience; but it should be noted that the Scriptures only speak of the "righteousness" or the "obedience" of the one being the basis of the justification of the many (Rom. 5:18, 19). It is correct to say Christ's own compliance with the demands of the law is included in this imputation of righteousness, but there is no basis in Scripture to say that the active obedience in and of itself is imputed for righteousness.

__________________
Yours sincerely,


"Illum oportet crescere me autem minui."

Nice summary Matthew.

Thank you so much for that answer, I will pass it on to my friend. I really appreciate your posts, everyone.

Sounds once again like some wish to elevate the Confession above the inspired Scripture. IOW, the confession establishes what the scriptures omit.

__________________