A mark of clarity and depth by a significant and necessary distinction:
There
is a CRUCIAL DISTINCTION between the two confessions (i.e. Westminster and the
1689 CoF) on this point. The Baptists were thorough and consistent students. They
were no ignorant copycats - just as many are so ready to charge them.
Just
consider this 'obscure' example found in Chapter 10, section 4.
Westminster reads thus: (Chapter 10.4)
"Others
not elected, although they may be called by the ministry of the Word, and may
have some common operations of the Spirit, yet they never truly come to Christ,
and therefore cannot be saved: much less can men not professing the Christian
religion be saved in any other way whatsoever, be they ever so diligent to
frame their lives according to the light of nature and the law of that religion
they do profess, and to assert and maintain that they may, is very pernicious,
and to be detested."
East...
(1689) reads thus,
"Others
not elected, although they may be called by the ministry of the Word, and may
have some common operations of the Spirit, yet not being effectually drawn by
the Father, they neither will nor can truly come to Christ, and therefore
cannot be saved: much less can men that receive not the Christian religion be
saved, be they never so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of
nature and the law of that religion they do profess."
The
subject under consideration in both is 'others not elected.'
However, Westminster is much less consistent than the 1689 CoF in what they say in the rest of
the paragraph.
The Westminster does not have "yet not being effectually drawn by the Father." And
this is the crucial point that makes all the difference.
It
could be said, where Westminster says, "yet they never truly come to
Christ," the 1689 CoF has "yet not being effectually drawn by the
Father."
To
the Westminster folks, "they never truly come to Christ" is the CAUSE of
their non-salvation.
To
the 1689 folks, "they never truly come to Christ" is the effect of
them "not effectually drawn by the Father."
To
the 1689 folks, "not being effectually drawn by the Father" is the reason for their inability to come to Christ and for their
non-salvation.
Where
Westminster says, "they never truly come to Christ" - suggesting that they
can come, but never truly come; East says, "they NEITHER will nor can
truly come to Christ" - it excludes the power or ability to come. It affirms
the spiritual deadness of those not elected.
Westminster attributes the non-salvation of the others not elected to human's failure to truly
come to Christ.
The 1689 CoF attributes the non-salvation of the others not elected to God's sovereign will to
by-pass them, not effectually drawing them to Christ.
It
seems to me, the 1689 CoF makes the clear distinction between the ETERNAL salvation
that comes from the effectual drawing of the Father, and the TEMPORAL salvation
that comes by the gospel ministry of the word.
The
above difference between the two confessions indicates the depth and clarity of the Baptist authors of the 1689 CoF.
