1689 2nd LBCF Chap 6 & 7

The Logic of the Confession and the Fall of Man

Okay, we're starting today on chapter six of the Confession. We're working our way through, and if you remember, I'm just going to repeat this again, there is a logic and a cogency to how the Confession of Faith is put together.

Remember, chapter one is of the Holy Scriptures. The reason for that is that's the basis for all that we know about God. Second chapter was of God and the Holy Trinity, because obviously He's the foundation of all things.

Then we looked at God's decrees, then of creation, divine providence, and that brings us today now to the fall of man and sin, etc. So let's look at, this is paragraph one of the Confession, and I'll read it.

Although God created man upright and perfect and gave him a righteous law, which had been unto life had he kept it, and threatened death upon the breach thereof, yet he did not long abide in this honor, Satan using the subtlety of the serpent to subdue Eve, then by seducing her, seducing Adam, who without any compulsion did willfully transgress the law of the creation and the command given unto them in eating the forbidden fruit, which God was pleased according to his wise and holy counsel to permit, having proposed to order it to his own glory.

Okay, again, here's a mouthful. Remember, this is, paragraph one is a general summation of the whole doctrine of sin and of the fall, and then the subsequent paragraphs will expand upon it. I'll just put up the scripture proofs that we use for this, but basically here's what the Confession is saying.

Adam and Eve created upright, perfect, sinless, all right? God gave them his law, and remember, they were in a covenant of works. We're not going to get into the covenant today. Well, we may later if we can, then if we finish this chapter.

The next chapter is of the covenant, but that's our relationship with God is through a covenant. They had a covenant of works. Had they been able to keep the law of God, they eventually would have inherited eternal life, all right?

But obviously, as we know, they didn't, they couldn't, and they fell, so that's what, and there's a couple of important points in the wording of this Confession. One, that it was a covenant of works blessing if they had kept it, all right?

Threatened death upon the breach of it, okay? Number two is it was through the temptation of Satan who deceived Eve, all right? Who then gave the fruit to Adam, but notice it's called the sin of Adam, not the sin of Eve, okay?

Who knows why that is? Federal headship. Adam was the federal head. Everything comes under his responsibility, and that's why, and notice what it says, that even though Eve was deceived, and Paul expounds upon this in his letters to Timothy, even though Eve was deceived, Adam, without compulsion, he was not deceived.

He went in willfully and transgressed the law of God, okay? And the command given to eating the forbidden fruit, and the last important point in this paragraph is that God was pleased according to his wise and holy counsel to permit.

He permitted the fall, okay? And that ties in with our previous lesson, you know, in chapter three on the decrees. God decrees all that's happened even though he's not the author of sin, doesn't compel anyone to sin, but he does allow it according, and he always turns these things around to his glory, all right?

Any questions on the opening paragraph, okay? All right, so then we move to paragraph two, which says this, our first parents by this sin fell from their original righteousness and communion with God, and we in them, whereby death came upon all, all becoming dead in sin and wholly defiled in all the faculties and parts of soul and body.

This is our doctrine of total depravity, okay? When they fell from their state of original righteousness, and they had communion with God, that was all severed. Man is, after the fall, man was alienated, and it was only through God sending a redeemer that allowed this relationship to be reaffirmed, okay?

Death came upon all, and of course we know that death in scripture, we have a very modern view of death. We think of death as something dying and going into the ground, all right? In scripture, death, the main concept of death is separation, okay?

Because we know that man was created, once man was created, he was created immortal, and his soul never dies, all right? It's just a question. We talk about eternal death. What is eternal death? It's eternal separation from God, so that's the main concept involved.

When we die physically, what happens to us? Do we cease to exist? Do we go into a sleep? No. Physical death for us is a separation of the body from the soul, okay? That's the main concept in death, all right?

Because we know that at the end of the age, there will be a general resurrection of all bodies, both those who are wicked and those who are righteous, and again, the righteous, of course, will be reunited with their spirits and spend eternity in heaven, and the wicked, the soul will be united with their body, and they will be eternally damned in hell, okay?

But the doctrine that's in here also is, it says, holy defiled. Notice it says, becoming dead in sin and holy defiled in all the faculties and parts of soul and body. What we mean by total depravity is that every aspect of the being of man was affected by the sin, your mind, your will, your emotions, as well as your body.

So, we all experience some effects of the sin and the punishment thereof, okay? What it doesn't mean is that man is utterly depraved. It doesn't mean that man is as bad as he possibly could be, all right?

God is gracious and gives the measure of common grace to all men. Like, I live in a very nice neighborhood. I live on a street, it's only one block long, and even though we don't, you know, I'm not friendly, so to speak, where we go out with all of our neighbors, yet we all get along, you know?

As far as I know, I'm the only Christian in my neighborhood, but my next-door neighbors on both sides of me and across the street, we know each other, we talk, we will look out for each other. I have no problem if I left my lawnmower on the front lawn and somebody came to steal it, one of my neighbors saw it, they'd stop it, you know?

So, there's, you know, non-believers have a measure of common grace, all right? So, even though they are totally depraved, that means every aspect of their being is affected, they're not utterly depraved, all right?

And that's by God's grace, otherwise, it would be unbearable to live in this world, all right? And again, you've heard me say this before, but that doctrine of common grace is a very, very neglected doctrine, but a very, very important one, okay?

So, any questions on paragraph two? No? Okay. There's the scripture proofs and I just put those up there, all right? So, we go to paragraph three. It says, they being the root and by God's appointment standing in the room instead of all mankind, the guilt of the sin was imputed and corrupted nature conveyed to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation being now conceived in sin and by nature children of wrath, the servants of sin, the subjects of death, and all other miseries, spiritual, temporal, and eternal, unless the Lord Jesus sets them free, okay?

So, again, what this is saying, this is getting back to federal headship, all right? Adam being the federal head because he sinned and was cursed by God, all of his posterity, everybody who comes from Adam inherits that sinful nature and is thereby also rightly condemned, okay?

That's the principle of federal headship, which is all throughout scripture. We see this, we see federal headship also when we get to Jesus because he is the federal head and through his obedience, it's only through his obedience that anyone can be saved, okay?

In fact, that's a, yeah, go ahead.

Does that apply to, you know, aborted children and miscarried children? Because there's some.

Christians that believe that all infants are saved. That is a question that I believe is unanswerable, okay? The scripture is silent on it in any explicit teaching. I know Spurgeon, for example, believed that all infants dying in infancy are saved.

There are those who believe that none of them are saved, and then there is what our confession says, and we'll get to this in a later chapter, is it says that all infants who are elect dying in infancy are saved.

That's kind of like somewhat of a cop-out, but I like it because it's really leaving the mystery. Deuteronomy 29, 29 says the secret things belong to the Lord, and he has not revealed to us what happens to children.

That's very, it's very personal to me because my wife and I did have a miscarriage, and we grieved the loss of a child, you know, just because the child was never born doesn't mean that it wasn't a child.

That's not what we believe, and I mean, I would like to believe that I'm going to see that child in heaven, but to be honest with you, I don't know, and if the scripture doesn't speak explicitly, I just leave that in the hands of God, and I trust him, you know, that he's, that he will do exactly what is best, and I think that's all, that's all any of us can really do in those matters, and I find some of the debate that goes on, I don't even really find it fruitful, you know, because the bottom line is, if you don't have chapter and verse to point to in the light of explicit teaching, I just leave that in the hands of God, okay?

Oh, I thought you had a question. No, just a call, just a call. All right, anyway, we see this same federal headship come into play when with Jesus as the mediator and the redeemer. We are saved through him by his obedience, and that's, so he is our federal head, and that's the way any of us are saved.

That's the principle that is clearly taught in the scripture, okay? And then, of course, we have all the proof texts for those which are many. We come to chapter four, and it says, from this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to do all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual transgressions.

In other words, what this is really saying, and I'll put the scripture proofs up now, what this paragraph is saying is that it's because of the corruption in our nature, that sinful nature, that's why we sin, to put it in simple terms.

It's not coming from anything else other than the fact that we have these depraved natures and will choose to do evil, okay? Any thoughts on that? Again, it's just, you know, amplifying what some of the previous, and here's chapter five.

The corruption of nature during this life does remain in those that are regenerated, and although it be through Christ pardoned and mortified, yet both itself and its first motions thereof are truly and properly sin.

Okay, and there's the scripture. Basically, what it's saying is what Paul talks about in Romans 7 in particular, and that is that once you're saved, wouldn't it be nice if all the sinful inclinations were gone?

But they're not. It's a constant battle. We call it the battle of progressive sanctification. We are told in scriptures that we are to put off the old self, put on the new, mortify the deeds of the flesh.

Paul says, work out your sanctification with fear and trembling. All of those verses, you know, come into play, and that's going to remain for all time up until the time of our departure from this world.

So, that's the bad news. The good news is, through Christ, we are overcomers. Okay, any thoughts or questions on this? Just looking for any questions. Any questions on, again, this chapter was all about the fall of man, sin, and the punishment thereof.

The Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace

Are we good? Okay, okay. Chapter 7 is called Of God's Covenant. This is, I think I'm going to spend a little bit of time on this. Even though this is a short chapter, I think there's only three paragraphs in it.

But I want to spend some time on this topic of covenant, because this is one of the doctrines that sets us apart from not only most other Baptist churches, but also from our Reformed brothers and sisters in the Presbyterian and the Anglican, you know, all the Dutch Reformed, the Netherlands Reformed.

It's one of the things that sets us apart is our view of the covenant. So, and it's not all specified here in this paragraph, but I'm going to amplify it, because this is something, especially if you're considering membership, it's something that you really need to understand what our view of the covenant is.

So, let's go through this, and then we'll talk about paragraph 1. The distance between God and the creature is so great that although reasonable creatures do owe obedience to him as their creator, yet they could never have attained the reward of life but by some voluntary condescension on God's part, which he has been pleased to express by way of covenant.

Okay? All right. Basically, what it's saying is, remember, our pronouncement of the curse was a legal pronouncement. Our relationship to God is a legal one, all right? And that is by terms of a covenant.

Adam was in a covenant of works. He failed, okay? And it was only through the promise of the new covenant in the blood of Christ that anyone is saved. We see that right in Genesis 3 .15. Remember when he promises that the seed of the woman would crush the serpent's head.

We call that the proto-evangelical, and that's the promise of a new covenant is coming. But what this paragraph is saying is that that's the only way that we can have any kind of a relationship with God because of our transgressions, because of who we are.

And the difference between us and God is so great that God had to condescend and to enter into a covenant with us. Now, it's our view of the covenant that makes Reformed Baptists so much different. While all evangelical Baptist churches, and let me preface this, I mean, the term Baptist nowadays means almost nothing, all right?

Because you have Baptist churches that have completely forsaken the scriptures, don't even consider the scriptures as being inerrant anymore, and certainly don't follow them. So, you have them liberal, and then you also have a lot of Baptist churches that hold to dispensational theology, which is different than covenant.

Everybody, if you're evangelical, you believe that we have a covenant with God. It's just a question of what the priority that's placed on it. The dispensational is basically downplay the terms of the covenant and the importance of it.

Those churches that are Reformed, whether they're Dutch Reformed, Presbyterian, or Reformed Baptist, all have a high view of the covenant, but it's our view of the covenant that separates us from those that are Paedo-Baptists and those who believe in Credo-Baptists.

In other words, those who baptize believers and those who baptize infants, and we'll talk about that in a minute. Paragraph 2 says, Moreover, man, having brought himself under the curse of the law by this fall, it pleased the Lord to make a covenant of grace wherein he freely offers 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.

You can see that this is a very Calvinistic doctrine right in this chapter. Who are those who are going to be saved? Those to whom the Holy Spirit is given and gives them the ability to believe. Those who he takes away the stony heart and gives them that heart of flesh.

So, here's the important part. Man broke the covenant of works and was condemned by it, and that condemnation was spread to all of Adam's posterity. Every one of us is a son or daughter of Adam, and that sentence of death is hanging on us.

The only way that anyone is saved is by the promise of the covenant, the new covenant in Christ's blood. Now, here's the difference between us as Reformed Baptists and the Paedo-Baptists, those who believe in infant baptism.

They basically believe that the covenant of grace began with Adam right after the fall, right after the promise of the Savior. So, that the old covenant was still a covenant of grace, and then in the new covenant coming in with Christ's blood was just a different administration, a new administration of the covenant.

The Reformed Baptist view is no, the covenant of grace begins with Christ. He introduces it, this is a new covenant in my blood, Jeremiah 31, 31. I am going to enter into a new covenant, not like the covenant which I made with their fathers, but a new covenant in the blood of Christ, which sets us apart.

Now, how are Old Testament believers, how are they saved? They're saved by believing the promise of the coming of the new covenant, all right. Now, it sounds like a technical, you know, very theological difference, and it is, but it has ramifications, all right.

It's basically our different view of the covenants which makes us Baptists as opposed to Paedo-Baptists, okay. The Presbyterians and the other Reformed churches, they believe that since it's a just a different administration, all baptism replaces circumcision, which was given to babies, therefore, baptism should be applied to babies, all right.

Whereas, we say no, it's a new covenant, and the new covenant didn't start until Christ, and only those who are truly saved are in the covenant, all right. And what are some of the ramifications? Well, all those who believe that it's just two administrations, which is most of the Reformed and the Presbyterian churches, they believe that when you baptize an infant, that he becomes a member of the new covenant, even though he may not be saved yet, okay.

And that's one of the big sticking points for us is that the promise of the new covenant is they shall all know me, okay. That's, you know, Jeremiah 31, 31. And that circumcision is not replaced by baptism as a one-to-one.

There's no question baptism is the new covenant ordinance, but it is new in every sense because of what baptism symbolizes, okay. And obviously, the debate goes back and forth, and it's an in-house debate.

What I mean by that is all of our Reformed brothers, we're closer in doctrine to them than we are to anybody else. They can come and preach in our pulpits, they'll have us preach in their pulpits, but we just disagree strongly over this one issue.

Any questions on that? I know I touched it briefly, but it's a very important distinction because it's one of the things that makes us Reformed Baptists. You don't have it all, I know you don't. Anyway, I'm sticking on this because, yes?

Can I sum it up in Julie's words and tell me if I'm.

Wrong? We believe in, you know, believer's baptism. Yes. They believe that babies can.

Be baptized and that will make them saved, correct? No. No. That's what the Lutherans would believe, all right? The Lutherans pretty much believe in baptismal regeneration, all right? The Reformed, the other Reforms, they do not.

They believe that it brings the child into the covenant, but they believe that the new covenant is also a mixed covenant containing believers and non-believers, all right? See, the old covenant was a mixed covenant, all right?

Remember the Apostle Paul says, not all Israel is Israel, all right? Some of, we know this, that there were wicked people in the nation of Israel, even those who had been given the covenant sign, all right?

So, because they view the new covenant as having two different parts, an old administration and a new administration, they believe that everybody who's given the covenant sign is a member of the covenant.

So, if you have a baby, you baptize the baby according to the Presbyterian church, they're members of the church because they are members of the covenant. They don't believe that it necessarily confers salvation.

They believe in there's a presumption that the child will get saved, but this has differences. They actually, you guys know Bill Shisco, who Bill Shisco is? Yeah. No, he was at Franklin Square, the OPC in Franklin Square.

Bill is a very, very good friend of mine, and we've discussed this numerous times, okay? He actually chastises us a little bit because we treat our children as non-believers. See, as Baptists, our goal is, our first role in evangelism is to evangelize our children, okay?

And his view is, no, you treat them as though they are believers because they are members of the covenant. That doesn't mean that they don't give them the gospel, but it's a question of how they treat, they presume that they're going to come to Christ.

Yeah, and again, I mean, it's a subtle distinction, but it's an important one, and again, there are closest allies in the faith. Our doctrine is closest to them than anyone else, but it is, this is why we have a 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith.

This confession of faith is virtually verbatim in most of the chapters to the Westminster Standards and to the Heidelberg and several of the other Reformed confessions, but this is one of the things that makes it distinctive that our Baptist forebearers in 1689, these were some of the things they changed.

They agreed with the other Reformers that, you know, there is a new covenant and that we are into, we can, the only way we can come into relationship with God is through the covenant, but they disagreed with who should get that sign, and it's because of the two views.

We view, no, when Jesus said, this is a new covenant in my blood, it is a new covenant, not a new administration of an old covenant, and again, the wording is very, very clear, and in fact, Bill struggles, he says, Jeremiah 31 is very difficult for the Paedo-Baptists to overcome, talking about the coming of the new covenant, where they shall all know me, but in fact, it was, I actually moderated the debate between he and James White over infant baptism versus Paedo-Baptism, okay?

All right, so that's paragraph two. Paragraph three, 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 father's steps until the full discovery thereof was completed in the New Testament, and 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 posterity of fallen Adam that ever were saved did obtain life and bless the immortality, man being now utterly incapable of acceptance with God upon those terms on which Adam stood in his state of innocency, okay?

This introduces the fact that there is, in fact, an overriding covenant, and that's the covenant of redemption that was enacted in the Trinity before the foundation of the world was laid, okay? The covenant of works, the covenant of grace are all subservient to this covenant of redemption.

What that covenant says is that in all eternity, God, the father, God, the son, God, the Holy Spirit, the triune God, within his own counsel, all right, uh, enacted this covenant of grace, covenant of redemption, in which God the father elected those who would be saved, the son agreed to secure that redemption through his sacrifice, and the Holy Spirit would apply that, the blood of Christ to the individual through regeneration and sealing them for the day of, of final redemption.

That's the overriding covenant of redemption, the covenant of works, covenant of grace come underneath those, and that everybody in covenant theology believes. Thoughts? And it is only through the terms of that covenant that anyone is saved.

There is no salvation apart from that. All right, I think, any final questions? We don't have enough time to move into another chapter, okay? Let me...