WCF vs LBCF

[Matthew1344]

WCF-
III.3.By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others foreordained to everlasting death.


LBCF-
III.3. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated, or foreordained to eternal life through Jesus Christ, to the praise of his glorious grace; others being left to act in their sin to their just condemnation, to the praise of his glorious justice.

What exactly is the difference here?

 

[Andres]

The LBC seems to shy away from the idea of "double-predestination".

 

[Logan]

"double-predestination" being the idea that God ordained people both to everlasting life, and some to everlasting death. It is an active view. This is in contrast to the view that God passively just "ignores" the rest, leaving them to be condemned ipso facto. It is wary of saying that God actively foreordained people for destruction.

 

[Matthew1344]

Thats what I thought I was seeing. Is this infra?

But if you look at WCF III.7.:
7. The rest of mankind, God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of his own will, whereby he extendeth or withholdeth mercy as he pleaseth, for the glory of his sovereign power over his creatures, to pass by, and to ordain them to dishonour and wrath for their sin, to the praise of his glorious justice.

It seems to me that the LBCF just took this paragraph and inseted into III.3:
III.3. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated, or foreordained to eternal life through Jesus Christ, to the praise of his glorious grace; others being left to act in their sin to their just condemnation, to the praise of his glorious justice.

 

[jwithnell]

Infralapsarian?

 

[Matthew1344]

Infralapsarian?

yes, thats what i was referring to

 

[SRoper]

I think both confessions are compatible with infralapsarian views. You'll notice also that they both use different language for God's action towards the elect and the reprobate, although the LBCF is more guarded.

 

[MW]

Is this infra?

Supralapsarianism maintains the same historical order of the means of salvation as the infralapsarian. So sections 6 and 7 are not definitive one way or the other. Section 3 speaks of ordination to life and death without reference to the fall. If anything, this strongly favours the supralapsarian scheme, although an infralapsarian is left free to add the qualifiers which will accord with his view.

 

[Matthew1344]

Is this infra?

Supralapsarianism maintains the same historical order of the means of salvation as the infralapsarian. So sections 6 and 7 are not definitive one way or the other. Section 3 speaks of ordination to life and death without reference to the fall. If anything, this strongly favours the supralapsarian scheme, although an infralapsarian is left free to add the qualifiers which will accord with his view.

I guess I do not understand infra and supra very much.
I've been trying to figure it out, and so far I have come up with this:
Infra-elected after the fall
Supra-elected and damned before the fall.

Is this accurate?
If so, then how is "passed by" or "being left" strongly favored supra statements?

Thanks for you guys' help! This PB is such a blessing!

 

[DMcFadden]

Interesting discussion by Sam Waldron on the LBF vs. the WCF on the issue of rebrobation:

C. The confessional statement of the doctrine of election

Chapter 3, paragraph 7 of the Westminster Confession of Faith has been deleted in the Baptist Confession. The development of thought in the Westminster Confession of Faith hinges on this missing paragraph. It has opened up the two sides of the decree: to save in paragraphs 3-6, to reprobate in paragraph 7. The deletion of paragraph seven of the Westminster Confession serves to weaken the testimony of the Baptist Confession to the doctrine of reprobation. In the only statement of our Confession this doctrine is stated in a weak way. Compare paragraph three of the London Confession with paragraph three of the Westminster Confession. The Bible says more than the London Confession. Though the Baptist Confession clearly assumes the doctrine of reprobation, its actual statements on the subject do not possess the clarity appropriate to a creedal document. The Westminster Confession must be commended for its faithfulness to Scripture at this point.

But the Westminster Confession of Faith also has a weakness. It parallels salvation and reprobation. This is liable to leave the false impression that God is sadistic. God’s relation to reprobation is not the same as His relation to the decree of salvation (Ezek. 33:11,18). Perhaps this is why the Baptists left out some of the key statements of the Westminster Confession regarding reprobation.

— A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith

Here it appears that Waldron is accusing the WCF of teaching equal ultimacy of the decision to elect and the decision to reprobate. He faults the LBF for less than a full-throated affirmation of reprobation (with corresponding kudos to the WCF), while dinging the WCF for what he sees as a too-close parallelism. Interestingly, as a Baptist upholder of the 1689, he freely allows for the greater clarity and superiority of the articulation in the WCF in 3.3.

 

[MW]

Here it appears that Waldron is accusing the WCF of teaching equal ultimacy of the decision to elect and the decision to reprobate. He faults the LBF for less than a full-throated affirmation of reprobation (with corresponding kudos to the WCF), while dinging the WCF for what he sees as a too-close parallelism. Interestingly, as a Baptist upholder of the 1689, he freely allows for the greater clarity and superiority of the articulation in the WCF in 3.3.

The denial of equal ultimacy so far as the decree itself is concerned is in direct conflict with sections 1 and 2 in both Confessions. These sections articulate in express language that all that is decreed is free and unconditional. This means election and reprobation are equally and ultimately derived from the counsel of God's own will. Inequality only comes into the order and execution of the things decreed. Sam Waldron's argument from Ezekiel only argues against an equal ultimacy so far as the dispensation of grace is concerned, which is a part of the execution of the decree. It has no bearing on the decree itself.

 

[Matthew1344]

Matthew Winzer do you hold to either of the confessions?

 

[Matthew1344]

Is this infra?

Supralapsarianism maintains the same historical order of the means of salvation as the infralapsarian. So sections 6 and 7 are not definitive one way or the other. Section 3 speaks of ordination to life and death without reference to the fall. If anything, this strongly favours the supralapsarian scheme, although an infralapsarian is left free to add the qualifiers which will accord with his view.

I guess I do not understand infra and supra very much.
I've been trying to figure it out, and so far I have come up with this:

Infra-elected after the fall
Supra-elected and damned before the fall.

Is this accurate?
If so, then how is "passed by" or "being left" strongly favored supra statements?

Thanks for you guys' help! This PB is such a blessing!

Can you tell me if my definitions are accurate and if so can you help me see how they are supra?

 

[MW]

The Westminster Confession is the confession of my faith.

The supra-infra differences relate to the fall in the order of God's decrees not as an historical event. Hence supra teaches God elected and reprobated men considered as not yet fallen and infra teaches that God elected and reprobated men considered as fallen. It is a question of means and end. Does the fall take place to serve election (supra) or does election take place because of the fall (infra)?

 

[KMK]

The specific language of the phrase "others being left to their just condemnation," is a hold over from the 1644 LBC, which says, "leaving the rest in their sin to their just condemnation." The 1644 was based on the True Confession of 1596, which says, "And on the other hand likewise before of old according to his just purpose ordained other both angels and men, to eternal condemnation, to be accomplished through their own corruption..."

Also the 1644 relied heavily on Ames' Marrow, which says in 25:40, "election is the cause, not only of salvation, but also of all those things which have the consideration of a cause unto salvation: but reprobation is not properly a cause, either of damnation, or of sin which deserves damnation, but an antecedent only."

Whether you agree or disagree, the language of the LBC is not an accident, but actually has pretty good pedigree.

 

[Matthew1344]

Supralapsarianism maintains the same historical order of the means of salvation as the infralapsarian

This might be a silly question, but what exactly is the difference between what God decreed and what historically happened? His decree is all history. I know that might not make any sense, im just trying to figure out what you said.

The Westminster Confession is the confession of my faith.

The supra-infra differences relate to the fall in the order of God's decrees not as an historical event. Hence supra teaches God elected and reprobated men considered as not yet fallen and infra teaches that God elected and reprobated men considered as fallen. It is a question of means and end. Does the fall take place to serve election (supra) or does election take place because of the fall (infra)?

I agree with what I have bolded.

Ames' Marrow

What is this???

"election is the cause, not only of salvation, but also of all those things which have the consideration of a cause unto salvation: but reprobation is not properly a cause, either of damnation, or of sin which deserves damnation, but an antecedent only.

So whoever Ames' Marrow is believe that sin, reprobation, and the fallwas an accident? there is no way I am reading this right! No way i am reading this right because...

The 1644 was based on the True Confession of 1596, which says, "And on the other hand likewise before of old according to his just purpose ordained other both angels and men, to eternal condemnation, to be accomplished through their own corruption..."

this doesn't seem like they believed it to be an accident. I am really confused on how those two quotes (Marrow and 1596) go together.

 

[KMK]

Sorry, Willaim Ames wrote a very popular theological textbook in the early part of the 17th century entitled, "The Marrow of Theology." The writers of the first LBC in 1644 were very influenced by his work.

Ames' view was that whereas election is the cause of salvation, reprobation is not the cause of damnation. The cause of damnation is man's own corruption which man freely chose. Therefore, even though God ordained men (and angels) to condemnation (not an accident), condemnation was brought about by "being left to act in their sin to their just condemnation..."

My only point was that the wording of the LBC 1689 was not an accident. It has good 'roots'.

 

[Matthew1344]

Therefore, even though God ordained men (and angels) to condemnation (not an accident), condemnation was brought about by "being left to act in their sin to their just condemnation..."

But he ordained men before anything happened, so how did he do it leaving them in their sin?

 

[Matthew1344]

ok my next question is this:

Chapter 4

WCF:
2.After God had made all other creatures, he created man, male and female, with reasonable and immortal souls, endued with knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness after his own image, having the law of God written in their hearts, and power to fulfill it; and yet under a possibility of transgressing, being left to the liberty of their own will, which was subject unto change....

LBCF:
2. After God had made all other creatures, he created man, male and female, with reasonable and immortal souls, rendering them fit unto that life to God for which they were created; being made after the image of God, in knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness; having the law of God written in their hearts, and power to fulfil it, and yet under a possibility of transgressing, being left to the liberty of their own will, which was subject to change....

Why did LBCF add that?

 

[KMK]

Therefore, even though God ordained men (and angels) to condemnation (not an accident), condemnation was brought about by "being left to act in their sin to their just condemnation..."

But he ordained men before anything happened, so how did he do it leaving them in their sin?

What do you mean by 'it'?

Again, it is above my pay grade to argue one way or another in the lapsarian debate. My only point is that the wording of the LBC should not be dismissed out of hand just because it is different than WCF. It it is 'Reformed'.

 

[Matthew1344]

Therefore, even though God ordained men (and angels) to condemnation (not an accident), condemnation was brought about by "being left to act in their sin to their just condemnation..."[/B]

But he ordained men before anything happened, so how did he do it leaving them in their sin?

What do you mean by 'it'?

Again, it is above my pay grade to argue one way or another in the lapsarian debate. My only point is that the wording of the LBC should not be dismissed out of hand just because it is different than WCF. It it is 'Reformed'.

Ordain them. Thanks for helping!

 

[KMK]

I am still not exactly sure what you are asking. Maybe you are having trouble understanding the difference between ordination and causation? In other words,, there is a difference between God decreeing something to happen and causing that something to happen. Is that the issue?

 

[Matthew1344]

In other words,, there is a difference between God decreeing something to happen and causing that something to happen. Is that the issue?

Maybe, from what I am putting together is that God's decree is his eternal command/plan? So I would call his decree the primary cause.

Maybe you are having trouble understanding the difference between ordination and causation?

Please help me!

 

[KMK]

ok my next question is this:

Chapter 4

WCF:
2.After God had made all other creatures, he created man, male and female, with reasonable and immortal souls, endued with knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness after his own image, having the law of God written in their hearts, and power to fulfill it; and yet under a possibility of transgressing, being left to the liberty of their own will, which was subject unto change....

LBCF:
2. After God had made all other creatures, he created man, male and female, with reasonable and immortal souls, rendering them fit unto that life to God for which they were created; being made after the image of God, in knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness; having the law of God written in their hearts, and power to fulfil it, and yet under a possibility of transgressing, being left to the liberty of their own will, which was subject to change....

Why did LBCF add that?

Or, the question might be asked, "Why did the WCF leave it out?"

Notice in Ames the emphasis of mankind being 'fitted' unto life with God in creation.

IV. 72. The perfection of the body is that whereby it was absolutely fitted for comeliness and use agreeable to God's Will.

73. The perfection of the soul was that whereby it was of an immortal nature, not only in those faculties by which it was a free principle of its own actions, in understanding and will, but also being adorned with gifts whereby man was made able, and fit to live well, namely with wisdom, holiness, and righteousness.

These words appear to be an elaboration, not a disagreement, on WCF and Savoy's use of the of the word 'endued'.

 

[Matthew1344]

Ken, did you see my last post?

 

[KMK]

In other words,, there is a difference between God decreeing something to happen and causing that something to happen. Is that the issue?

Maybe, from what I am putting together is that God's decree is his eternal command/plan? So I would call his decree the primary cause.

Maybe you are having trouble understanding the difference between ordination and causation?

Please help me!

The WCF, the Savoy, and the LBC 1689 all agree that God ordains the everlasting life of the elect.

WCF and Savoy:

By the decree of God for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life...

LBC:

By the decree of God for the manifestation of his glory some men and Angels, are predestinated, or foreordained to Eternal Life...

The WCF, Savoy, and LBC 1989 also all agree that God causes this to happen by ordaining the means of the salvation of the elect.

All three:

As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so hath he, by the eternal and most free purpose of his will, foreordained all the means thereunto...redeemed by Christ...effectually called...justified, sanctified, and kept by his power, through faith, unto salvation.

So, all three agree that God not only decreed the salvation of the elect, but also foreordained all of the various means by which they will attain salvation.

-----------

When it comes to the reprobation of the non-elect, the wording is a little different, but in my opinion, is basically the same.

All three agree that God decreed the reprobation of the non-elect.

WCF and Savoy:

...and others foreordained to everlasting death.

LBC:

...others being left to act in their sin to (by being predestinated or foreordained) their just condemnation...

Notice that the LBC says the reprobate were 'left to act in their sin' and nothing else. The only means by which others are condemned is their own sin. God does not cause them to be condemned in the same way as He causes the elect to be saved through election, calling, justification, sanctification, adoption, preservation, and glorification.

But, the WCF and Savoy basically say the same thing, in my opinion.

Chapter 3: VII. The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of his own will, whereby he extendeth or withholdeth mercy, as he pleaseth, for the glory of his sovereign power over his creatures, to pass by and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praise of his glorious justice.

All of the Reformed confessions agree that God ordained either salvation or condemnation for all mankind. They also agree that God ordained the means of salvation for those chosen thereunto, but did not ordain the means of condemnation for the others in the same way. Yet they worded these things differently.

There are many different classes of 'causation'. To say that His decree is a cause is not necessarily wrong, but it is a different class of causation than effectual calling, for example.

 

[Matthew1344]

Thanks Ken!

I am trying to make it my goal to plant both feet on a confession. To hold to a confession does that mean you have to agree with it 100%? Just curious as to how other people feel about their confessions.

Did the LBC not believe in the covenant of works given to Adam?

LBCF leaves out:

WCF VII 2. The first covenant made with man was a covenant of works, wherein life was promised to Adam, and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience.

Then LBCF says:

2. Moreover, man having brought himself under the curse of the law by his fall, it pleased the Lord to make a covenant of grace, wherein he freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in him, that they may be saved; and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto eternal life, his Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe.

3. This covenant is revealed in the gospel; first of all to Adam in the promise of salvation by the seed of the woman, and afterwards by farther steps, until the full discovery thereof was completed in the New Testament; and it is founded in that eternal covenant transaction that was between the Father and the Son about the redemption of the elect; and it is alone by the grace of this covenant that all the posterity of fallen Adam that ever were saved did obtain life and blessed immortality, man being now utterly incapable of acceptance with God upon those terms on which Adam stood in his state of innocency.

The LBC is much shorter on this issue of "covenant"....the WCF has 6 points, LBCF has 3.

And Im new in reformed theology so I don't know if it is a standard thing to believe in the covenant of works given to Adam. When I read through the WCF for the first time a couple months ago, I did it by reading the "Westminster Confession of Faith: For Study Classes by GI Williamson", and when he talked about the covenant of works, i didn't see anything wrong in it. I wasn't opposed at all. It was the first I heard of it, but it seemed to line up. So what is up with LBCF not putting it in?

But what do I know, the more I learn the more I am realizing that I really don't know anything ha.

 

[KMK]

Thanks Ken!

I am trying to make it my goal to plant both feet on a confession. To hold to a confession does that mean you have to agree with it 100%? Just curious as to how other people feel about their confessions.

Did the LBC not believe in the covenant of works given to Adam?

LBCF leaves out:

WCF VII 2. The first covenant made with man was a covenant of works, wherein life was promised to Adam, and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience.

Then LBCF says:

2. Moreover, man having brought himself under the curse of the law by his fall, it pleased the Lord to make a covenant of grace, wherein he freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in him, that they may be saved; and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto eternal life, his Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe.

3. This covenant is revealed in the gospel; first of all to Adam in the promise of salvation by the seed of the woman, and afterwards by farther steps, until the full discovery thereof was completed in the New Testament; and it is founded in that eternal covenant transaction that was between the Father and the Son about the redemption of the elect; and it is alone by the grace of this covenant that all the posterity of fallen Adam that ever were saved did obtain life and blessed immortality, man being now utterly incapable of acceptance with God upon those terms on which Adam stood in his state of innocency.

The LBC is much shorter on this issue of "covenant"....the WCF has 6 points, LBCF has 3.

And Im new in reformed theology so I don't know if it is a standard thing to believe in the covenant of works given to Adam. When I read through the WCF for the first time a couple months ago, I did it by reading the "Westminster Confession of Faith: For Study Classes by GI Williamson", and when he talked about the covenant of works, i didn't see anything wrong in it. I wasn't opposed at all. It was the first I heard of it, but it seemed to line up. So what is up with LBCF not putting it in?

But what do I know, the more I learn the more I am realizing that I really don't know anything ha.

Confessional requirements vary depending upon the situation. As far as this board goes, you are supposed to reveal in your bio if you have any 'scruples' about your confession. But, most importantly the support of doctrine contrary to the confessions is not allowed. You can read the rules if you want further info.

As far as the LBC and it stance on the covenant with Adam goes...

The LBC 1689 does actually affirm the CoW. In fact, the 1689 follows the Savoy in Chapter 20.

Chapter 20:1 The Covenant of Works being broken by Sin...

The writings of the framers of the 1689 also show that they shared the same idea as the rest of the Reformed. It could be that, being written later, the framers of the 1689 decided to use less of the word 'covenant' in respect to Adam because there has always been disagreement among the Reformed as to whether such a phase is appropriate and warranted.

Bottom line is, Baptists don't differ from the Reformed in their view of the CoW, but in their view of the relationship between the CoW and the New Covenant.

I recommend this book if you are interested:

SGCB | THE DISTINCTIVENESS OF BAPTIST COVENANT THEOLOGY: A Comparison Between Seventeenth-Century Particular Baptist and Paedobaptist Federalism

 

[KMK]

Examples of Baptist agreement with the Reformed on the CoW:

1693 Baptist Catechism and WSC:

Q15 (Baptist) Q12 (WSC) What special act of of providence did god exercise towards man in the estate wherein he was created?

A. When God had created man, he entered into a Covenant of life with him, upon the condition of perfect obedience, forbidding him to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, upon pain of death.

Q19 (Baptist) and Q15 (WSC) Did all mankind fall in Adam's first transgression?

A, The covenant being made with Adam, not only for himself, but for his posterity, all mankind descending from him by ordinary generation, sinned in him, and fell with him in his first transgression.

Also, I don't think the phrase CoW appears in the Heidelberg or the Canons of Dort either.

 

[Matthew1344]

Thanks Ken!