1689 Vs. The Westminster Confession (6): A Tale Of Two Confessions

Our comparison and contrast of the WCF with the 2LC continues through chapters 4 and 5, “Of Creation” and “Of Divine Providence.”

WCF 4.1

2LC 4.1

1. It pleased God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, for the manifestation of the glory of His eternal power, wisdom, and goodness, in the beginning, to create, or make of nothing, the world, and all things therein whether visible or invisible, in the space of six days; and all very good. 1. In the beginning it pleased God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, for the manifestation of the glory of his eternal power, wisdom, and goodness, to Create or make the world, and all things therein, whether visible or invisible, in the space of six days, and all very good.

The first two difference between the WCF and 2LC in this section are the addition, in the 2LC, of the words from Genesis 1:1,”In the beginning…” and the 2LC’s use of Spirit in lieu of Ghost. The 2LC follows the Savoy in revising the clause, “to create or make the world…” by adding “of nothing” to emphasize the historic Christian doctrine of ex nihilo creation (creation out of nothing rather than pre-existing matter). Note that the 1LC omits this chapter.

WCF 4.2

2LC 4.2

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 fulfil it: and yet under a possibility of transgressing, being left to the liberty of their own will, which was subject unto change. Beside this law written in their hearts, they received a command, not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, which while they kept, they were happy in their communion with God, and had dominion over the creatures. 2. After God had made all other Creatures, he Created man, male and female, with reasonable and immortal souls, rendring them fit unto that life to God; for which they were Created; being made after the image of God, in knowledge, righteousness, and true holyness; 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 to change.

There are two noticeable differences between the WCF and the 2LC in this paragraph. First, the 2LC adds a clause and second, it introduces a new section at “Beside this law…”. So, the 2LC has three sections under this chapter whereas the Savoy and the WCF have two.

After “immortal souls” the 2LC adds the clause, “rendering them fit…image of God…”. In light of their decision to omit WCF 7.2, this clarification is interesting. File this under intensification or clarification. The function seems apologetic, a way of defending the goodness of God against the charge that he is the author of evil.

In what became section 3 in the 2LC, where the WCF uses the demonstrative “this” in “this law,” the 2LC has “the law.” The WCF has “while they kept” and the 2LC has “whilst…”. Why the creation of a new section? The function seems pedagogical.

WCF 5.1

2LC 5.1

1. God the great Creator of all things doth uphold, direct, dispose, and govern all creatures, actions, and things, from the greatest even to the least, by His most wise and holy providence, according to His infallible fore-knowledge, and the free and immutable counsel of His own will, to the praise of the glory of His wisdom, power, justice, goodness, and mercy. 1. God the good Creator of all things, in his infinite power, and wisdom, doth uphold, direct, dispose, and govern all Creatures, and things, from the greatest even to the least, by his most wise and holy providence, to the end for the which they were Created; according unto his infallible foreknowledge, and the free and immutable Councel of his own will; to the praise of the glory of his wisdom, power, justice, infinite goodness and mercy.

In paragraph 1 of chapter 5, the 2LC adds the qualifier “good” to “Creator” and the phrase “in his infinite power and wisdom” to “doth uphold.” This phrase comes from the 1LC. The phrase “to the end…created” in the 2LC also comes from the 1LC and not the WCF. The adjective “infinite” before “goodness” in the 2LC appears not in the WCF, the Savoy, nor in the 1LC.

WCF 5.2

2LC 5.2

2. Although, in relation to the fore-knowledge and decree of God, the first Cause, all things come to pass immutably, and infallibly: yet, by the same providence, He ordereth them to fall out, according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently. 2. Although in relation to the foreknowledge and Decree of God, the first cause, all things come to pass immutably and infallibly; so that there is not any thing, befalls any by chance, or without his Providence; yet by the same Providence he ordereth them to fall out, according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently.

Here the 2LC adds the clause “so that…Providence,” which is an elaboration on the language of the 1LC but not found in the WCF or the Savoy Declaration. This is another example of intensification. Section 3 of the 2LC is unchanged from the WFC (but does not exist in the 1LC).

WCF 5.4

2LC 5.4

4. The almighty power, unsearchable wisdom, and infinite goodness of God so far manifest themselves in His providence, that it extendeth itself even to the first fall, and all other sins of angels and men; and that not by a bare permission, but such as hath joined with it a most wise and powerful bounding, and otherwise ordering and governing of them, in a manifold dispensation, to His own holy ends; yet so, as the sinfulness thereof proceedeth only from the creature, and not from God, who, being most holy and righteous, neither is, nor can be, the author or approver of sin. 4. The Almighty power, unsearchable wisdom, and infinite goodness of God, so far manifest themselves in his Providence, that his determinate Councel extendeth it self even to the first fall, and all other sinful actions both of Angels, and Men; (and that not by a bare permission) which also he most wisely and powerfully boundeth, and otherwise ordereth, and governeth, in a manifold dispensation to his most holy ends: yet so, as the sinfulness of their acts proceedeth only from the Creatures, and not from God; who being most holy and righteous, neither is nor can be, the author or approver of sin.

Where the WCF says, “in his providence, that it extendeth…” in the Savoy there appears the phrase, after “providence in that his determinate counsel,” and the 2LC follows the Savoy here. Where the WCF and Savoy read, “extendeth itself even to the first fall, and all other sins” the 2LC says, “and all other sinful actions both…“. After “bare permission” the Savoy adds, “which also he most wisely and powerfully boundeth,” which the 2LC follows. The Savoy and 2LC turn the participles “ordering” and “governing” into finite verbs.

Where the WCF and Savoy have “as the sinfulness thereof,” the 2LC adds “of their acts…”. Where the changes are substantive, they seem apologetic in character.

WCF 5.5

2LC 5.5

5. The most wise, righteous, and gracious God doth oftentimes leave for a season His own children to manifold temptations, and the corruption of their own hearts, to chastise them for their former sins, or to discover unto them the hidden strength of corruption, and deceitfulness of their hearts, that they may be humbled; and, to raise them to a more close and constant dependence for their support upon Himself, and to make them more watchful against all future occasions of sin, and for sundry other just and holy ends. 5. The most wise, righteous, and gracious God, doth oftentimes, leave for a season his own children to manifold temptations, and the corruptions of their own heart, to chastise them for their former sins, or to discover unto them the hidden strength of corruption, and deceitfulness of their hearts, that they may be humbled; and to raise them to a more close, and constant dependence for their support, upon himself; and to make them more watchful against all future occasions of sin, and for other just and holy ends. So that whatsoever befalls any of his elect is by his appointment, for his glory, and their good.

The last clause of this section, “So that whatsoever…good,” in the 2LC comes directly from the 1LC and is not found in the WCF or the Savoy. Again, this seems like an elaboration with an eye to apologetics.

WCF 5.6

2LC 5.6

As for those wicked and ungodly men whom God, as a righteous Judge, for former sins, doth blind and harden, from them He not only withholdeth His grace, whereby they might have been enlightened in their understandings, and wrought upon in their hearts; but sometimes also withdraweth the gifts which they had, and exposeth them to such objects as their corruption makes occasions of sin; and, withal, gives them over to their own lusts, the temptations of the world, and the power of Satan: whereby it comes to pass that they harden themselves, even under those means which God useth for the softening of others. 6. As for those wicked and ungodly men, whom God as a righteous judge, for former sin doth blind and harden; from them he not only withholdeth his Grace, whereby they might have been inlightned in their understanding, and wrought upon in their hearts: But sometimes also withdraweth the gifts which they had, and exposeth them to such objects as their corruptions makes occasion of sin; and withall gives them over to their own lusts, the temptations of the world, and the power of Satan, whereby it comes to pass, that they harden themselves, even under those means which God useth for the softning of others.

The 2LC makes corruption plural and makes occasion singular in distinction from the WCF and Savoy. The 1LC does not constrain this section and section 7 is identical in the WCF, Savoy, and 2LC.

What we are seeing in these sections are some of the effects of the rather different world into which Christianity is sailing after the death of Descartes (1650) and after the close of the Westminster Assembly. The Western world was changing rapidly. Politically and culturally, Voetius lost his war with Descartes and Cartesianism and in the century after Descartes’ death, Christians must have looked back fondly at Desartes as almost quaint and something of an ally. The whole Western intellectual world was about to pivot away from orthodox Christianity and we see the framers of the Savoy and the 2LC feeling the pressure of the early stages of that movement.

Perhaps this is an opportune moment to address the objection, which correspondents have made frequently: how can you be so focused on x [fill in the blank, e.g., the Federal Vision, the differences between the Baptists and the Reformed] at a time such as this, when the culture has become so hostile to Christianity? Don’t we have bigger fish to fry? To which I respond now as always: it is a good thing that the ancient church did not take this attitude since they lived in a hostile time—much more hostile than ours. After all, how many (late) Modern Western Christians are being martyred for the faith? One thinks of the young people in that school in Oregon and perhaps a few others here and there but our lot is nothing (yet) like that of the Christians in the 2nd and 3rd centuries.

Despite the hostility of the culture (or perhaps because of it) the ancient church went about her business of preaching the gospel, administering the sacraments, and discipline. They faced errors and heresies and they hammered out an agreed, ecumenical vocabulary on the doctrines of Christ, God, and salvation. The doctrine of Christ rested on an iota. That might seem like a fine distinction to our culture-warring Christians who want us to shut up about the Federal Vision or the Baptists. The early 2nd century church nearly split over the date of the observance of Easter. The Didache published rules about how long traveling preachers could stay in one place.

They had these internal arguments—and precious few about “the culture” or to the culture—because they had no idea about being in charge of everything. Obviously, that began to change in the early 4th century and the pace of Christian cultural influence and interest in the culture intensified, but those developments were driven rather less by the internal needs of Christianity per se than by the need to be acceptable to the powers of this age.

Those who have designs on “taking back” America or recovering the lost place of evangelicals (mostly Baptists) in the West should take a close look at pre-Christendom. For all that, they might take a look at Apostolic Christianity. Anyone who can make a case from the New Testament for Christendom shall have performed a tour de force indeed.

©R. Scott Clark. All Rights Reserved.

Resources

Subscribe to the Heidelblog today!


One comment

  1. Very interesting that you trace the change of emphasis in Christianity to the fourth century from precision in defining orthodox doctrine to compromise, by trying to obtain acceptance through tolerance and influence of cultural norms instead. That seems to have ultimately led to the corruption of the Christian religion by Romanism. The Reformation reasserted precision of orthodoxy through the confessions to restore the truths of Christianity, and faced a brutal opposition from the prevailing Roman culture. Christians in the early church, and during the Reformation, were so committed to these doctrines that they were willing to die rather than compromise. The Reformed and Baptist confessions had similar concerns for getting back to understanding the true faith, but they were based on hermeneutical differences that set them apart.

    Yet again, in recent history, the Christian church has followed a similar trajectory of compromise and tolerance to gain acceptance. It is hardly surprising that churches are going down the path of downgrade, and many churches have lost their grip on the Truth, and Christianity is declining.

Comments are closed.