There has, of late, arisen a controversy over certain issues of the Covenant of Jesus Christ. At the Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church Minister's Conference in January 2002, the above named speakers contended that apostasy is real. They had the audacity(!) to claim that people really can commit apostasy, and that when they do, there is something that they are apostatizing from. This contention has been attacked from various fronts and one denomination has even chosen to anathematize these men. I can proudly state that I stand in firm agreement with them in doctrine and principle, and I wish to speak in their defense here and now. I attended the conference, listened intently to each of the lectures, and believe that I have the ability to speak about what they said with first hand knowledge.
There are many issues that have been attacked as heresy (but not one clear point that can be easily nailed down), but I will not deal with all of them here. The primary issue that I will deal with here is the doctrine of apostasy. My contention (as I believe is also the contention of the above men charged with heresy) is first: that someone can come into the covenant (i.e. become a Christian) and then later be cut out of that covenant because of subsequent unfaithfulness; secondly: if someone is cut out of the covenant they had to really be in the covenant in order to be cut out of it; and thirdly: those who remain in the covenant do so because they were faithful to the commands of the covenant Lord.
In making the charge of heresy, it is purported that they are going against the testimony of both the Scriptures and the Westminster Confession of Faith. The Scriptural argument has, I believe, already been dealt with in some measure by their very lectures that are in dispute (which, I pray, were merely misunderstood by those who are attacking). There has, however, been little reference to the position of the Confession in this regard. It, apparently, is not enough to say that it does not go against the Confession, because the accusers do not see this. Therefore, in the following paragraphs, I will show that the position is actually defended by the Westminster Confession. Rather than being at odds with the Confession, these men were in complete accord with it; they spoke entirely within the tradition of our heritage.
No Deists
a. Heb. 1:3.
There is no doubt from this paragraph that the authors wished to express that every event in history is dependent upon the working out of the providence of God. Most Reformed Presbyterian churches since have held firmly to this doctrine without wavering, yet it appears that not all of them today realize the ramifications of this doctrine. These ramifications are clearly worked out in the later paragraphs of chapter five, but I am not sure they have become more than just words on a page for many of us.
We find similar reference to the providence of God in the Belgic Confession. It is there that we read (in Article 13 on "The Doctrine of God's Providence") that God's "power and goodness are so great and incomprehensible that he arranges and does his work very well and justly even when the devils and wicked men act unjustly." Neither the Belgic Confession nor the Heidelberg Catechism are as detailed in the doctrine of providence as is the Westminster Confession (which may have been an issue that the Westminster Confession was trying to fill in since it came almost a century later than the other two), but they do not disagree with each other. They both point to the difficulty that exists in understanding how God's providence works things out, and that His providence is not hindered in any way by the wickedness of man.
It is therefore a basic point in Reformed theology when we say that the Lord was able to work, despite the wickedness of man, to bring about His decrees. Our personal choices were not in any way a hindrance to Him, but rather were often the means that He used to bring about what He had already predestined. To a well studied "Calvinist" this should not be new, but we repeat them here to remind all of the foundation of the doctrines that we are outlining.
The Foreordination of Means
In the wisdom of God there exists the ability to foresee both actual and possible events. God does not own a crystal ball; He knows whatsoever will come to pass only because He has foreordained it to be so. He cannot "see the future" in the sense that we usually attach to "foretelling." He knows the future because He has already written down in the decrees what He is going to do. In this vein, the confession states that God knows whatsoever "may or can come to pass upon all supposed conditions (3.2)." Although the confession is clear that this "conditionality" is not the reason that He foreordains anything, it is equally clear that He used these "conditional" parts of creation in His decrees. This is shown when the Westminster divines stated that "the liberty or contingency of second causes [is not] taken away, but rather established (3.1)."
This last point is vital for our understanding of the Sovereignty of God and how He works in Providence. The entire paragraph is as follows:
The essential aspect of the paragraph for our discussion is the final statement that declares that contingencies exist, and that God's sovereign hand has ensured that they are established. A theologian once said that God's sovereignty is such that it secures our free wills. Only because God is sovereign can our free decisions have natural consequences. If Arminianism (in both its Reformed and non-Reformed styles) were true, God would not be sovereign enough to secure the process of cause and effect in this world. Our actions might, and might not, have consequences. When someone jumps off a building (in that world) they may and may not fall. The death of Judas Iscariot was contingent upon his committing suicide. Did this make it outside of the sovereignty of God? No. In fact, the sovereignty of God made Judas' commission of suicide to have the affect of bringing about his death.
The verses used by the divines to prove their point are quite telling. The texts given in "c" above all tell of events where men do "free" actions, and yet those actions are determined to work out in the way that the Lord wills. God determines just what free actions men will perform. It is not an issue of whether we can fully understand how this works; the Scriptures are clear that it is so and we are to submit to them. So far I am preaching to the choir. Those involved in this debate should have no contention with what has been said so far.
Contention does, however, show up when we begin to examine the implications of this truth. What does it mean that God uses means? It is not limited to the fact that God uses the means of food to keep us alive, for the Confession itself says "He ordereth [all things that come to pass] to fall out, according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently (WCF 5.2)." Let us now begin to examine this concept more fully.
Top-Down-Election and Bottom-Up-Covenant
Election is predominantly (though not exclusively) a "top down" issue. It describes how God sees men. He knows who He has foreordained to eternal life. He knows who will enter the covenant and yet fall away. He knows who will never believe the gospel. We can speak of election and even call the people of God "elect" but we must be cautious in this endeavor because we are never up in the "top down" realm. The Covenant is predominantly (though not exclusively) a "bottom up" issue. It describes how we see the world around us. We know that God commands faithfulness. We know that unfaithful people are cut out of the Covenant. We know that there are people that look like the elect, so we treat them like the elect, but on the day of judgment they will end up surprising us. All we can see is the Covenant (by means of the grids that God has given to us in Scripture). We cannot see the decrees of God (which include the elect). So we refer to our faithful covenant members as the elect of God, and we should not be trying to figure out who is "really elect" and who only "looks that way."
Similarly we see the contingencies, and the rules that guide covenant membership, but not what God has predestined to take place. We see that people who obey God (i.e. persevere in their faith) stay in the covenant. Does that mean that our eternal salvation is based on works? Well, yes and no. At the bottom of it all, our eternal salvation is based on Christ, and Christ alone. Christ has, however, not granted us salvation apart from the means (although He could have done so). The spiritual means that He has chosen to bring us into this covenant relationship is faith in Him. The spiritual (and somewhat physical) means that He has chosen to maintain us in this covenant relationship with Him is the outworking of that faith in our obedience to His commands. After all, Paul did admit that he taught people to "repent, turn to God, and do works befitting repentance (Acts 26:20, emphasis mine, cf. also Luke 3:8-9 and Philippians 2:12)." He can keep us in the covenant without the means, but ordinarily He does not do so. He has not revealed when or how He will supercede the means, so we are obligated to obey what He has revealed: properly use the means that He has ordained.
He Created the Boundaries
a. Acts 2:23.
In this short paragraph the authors of the Confession acknowledge both that God is the "first Cause" of all things because He has predestined all that happens, and the fact that what He has predestined will normally happen in harmony with the physical and spiritual laws of creation. Note, please, that the authors themselves saw that these things were difficult to comprehend. This is apparent in just a few words: they begin by saying "Although" (i.e. even though we know this to be true), and then connect it with "yet" (this second thing is also true). Their own formulation admits of apparent incongruity. This is why there is often such confusion among Calvinistic Christians. We cannot understand how sovereignty and free will relate, but we really want to. In spite of this, we must seek to understand as much as the Lord will allow.
This we can know, whatever happens-a covenant member apostatizing, for example-comes to pass "immutably, and infallibly" because God is the absolute Sovereign, and He makes it so. But, how does He do it? He orders this apostasy to fall out "according to the nature of second causes." In other words, He normally works so that things follow a set pattern. The pattern of "second causes" was created by God at the foundation of the world and He has chosen to use it as a means of bringing about His decrees. A.A. Hodge said in his commentary on this paragraph of the Confession: "Since God created all second causes and endowed them with their properties, and continues to uphold them in being, that they might be the instruments of his will, all their efficiency is derived from him, and he must be able to do directly without them what he does with them, and limit, modify, or supersede them, at his pleasure." If He made the rules for natural causes, He can use them or ignore them.
Thus, the Lord God created the boundaries that creation was to abide by. Heat rises; cold falls; poison kills; fire burns; and sin leads to death. Being the Creator, He is able to make things come to pass by necessity, in freedom or by contingency; each of these being "secondary" causes for the events that He has foreordained. God prophesied that Zerubbabel would be King in Israel (Haggai 2:23). Yet, when did this happen? Zerubbabel fades away from the picture of history with no clear fulfillment of this prophecy. Zerubbabel's rise to the throne of Israel was certainly contingent on the means of his faithfulness to the Lord, and yet we never see him enthroned. Rather than God failing, we must assume Zerubbabel's unfaithfulness (cf. Romans 3:3-4 & 9:6). Daniel knew that the 70 years of exile were almost up, but rather than just assume that the exile was over, he began to pray for mercy from God (Daniel 9:1ff). He recognized the sins of his people and realized that they were not really going to come out of exile if they continued in sin (Daniel 9:16-19). Daniel knew that their sin could be a contingency to prevent their deliverance.
The passage that is the most revealing in this regard is Jeremiah 18:1-11. We find there a startling (to confused Calvinists) description of the providence of God.
This is startling to some because we see the Lord saying here that He can "speak concerning a nation" and then later "relent concerning the good" that He was going to do to it. This will only be a problem for us if we do not understand the truth of providential contingencies. God examines men in history (speaking "bottom up") and then weighs their actions against His law. Their actions are the contingencies that He has ordained to be worked with providentially to bring about His decrees. We are not automatons, because God secures the consequences of our actions.
Applying the words of this passage we can easily infer God saying that "the instant I speak concerning a [man in covenant with Me], to build and to plant [him], if [he] does evil in My sight so that [he] does not obey My voice, then I will relent concerning the good with which I said I would benefit [him]." God declares us in covenant with Him when we are baptized and have put on Christ. This confers on us the numerous benefits of a relationship with the Lord Almighty. If, however, we "do evil in His sight" (disobeying His commands) then He will cease to bring us the benefits of the covenant and cast us into outer darkness. Certainly, this does not happen to the elect (but, once again, the elect are only viewed "top down"-the covenant is viewed "bottom up"). This does not mean that God is surprised by our actions; by no means. It means that this is how we see things played out in the providential fulfilling of the decrees of God. The means by which men apostatize from the covenant is unfaithfulness. The means by which men persevere in the covenant is faithfulness.
The concluding point of the above passage in Jeremiah is telling. After pointing out that (viewed "bottom up") God can change the direction someone is going in (from being in the covenant headed Heavenward, to being out of the covenant and headed Hell-ward), the Lord tells Jeremiah to exhort the Jews by saying, "Behold, I am fashioning a disaster and devising a plan against you. Return now every one from his evil way, and make your ways and your doings good (18:11)." Since the Lord is "getting ready to wipe them out" they must "therefore perform the contingencies that will keep them in covenant with God!" Even though He is about to destroy, their actions can make a difference (if our actions made no difference in the course of events, how could we "hasten the coming" of an historical even? cf. 2 Peter 3:12). God speaks "bottom up" and says that their fate is yet unknown. If He were to speak "top down" He could tell them of the decrees, but "[t]he secret things belong to the LORD our God, but those things which are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law (Deuteronomy 29:29)." He reveals what He does so that we can obey Him and stay in the covenant. If we do not obey the revealed commands of God, we will not stay in the covenant.
How Did You Get in the Covenant?
Thus, the Lord uses the contingency of baptism to enter us into covenant with Him. That is the means that He has sovereignly chosen to use to incorporate us into His people. He could have chosen to enter us in the covenant without a means. For the Lord is "free to work without, above, and against [means], at His pleasure (WCF 5.3)." But He did not. He chose to use a particular means in this process. He also chose to use the means of the Lord's Supper (among other non-sacramental activities) as the primary means to further us in our spiritual walk (if anything else were "primary" it too would be a sacrament!).
Let's face it, at one point "Joe Christian" was not in the covenant, and then subsequently he was in the covenant. It was not an entirely "spiritual" event that occurred to bring him into that new relationship. God ordained baptism as the means by which that covenantal transaction took place. We have already noted that God can work apart from the ordinary means (and will develop that more below), but that is not the issue here; we are discussing the norm. Likewise, if a covenant member were to abandon the teaching of the covenant and head into apostasy, what would the means be by which God would remove him from the covenant? Excommunication is the "means" that He has chosen to secure this process.
Which of us would deny that those who remain unfaithful to God are cut off from the "olive tree" of the covenant (Romans 11)? Likewise, which of us would deny that those who remain faithful to God are kept in the "olive tree" of the covenant? That faithfulness is grounded upon our faith in Christ Jesus. It is our faith that is central to remaining within the covenant. Paul says of the apostate Jews in the first century A.D. " . . . Because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith . . . (Romans 11:20)."
When someone is "cut off" from the tree, it is because of their unbelief. The question is, however, does that unbelief not evidence itself in wickedness? God grafts someone into the covenant, then that person later abandons the covenant and is cut off. Was God surprised by it? No, He knew that it was going to happen because it was a part of His eternal decrees. It did not, however, happen without the foreordained means. This is what we are talking about here. Apostasy has means; perseverance has means, and both of them are real. God's determination of the permanent status of the elect in the covenant is not a "smoke and mirrors" magic act, but it comes about because it was achieved through the means which God determined beforehand.
Saying that baptism actually does something does not equate with Romanist Sacerdotalism. We are merely affirming what the Confession says (28.1, emphasis mine):
Surely this is more than a bare memorial ceremony. It is a divine transaction played out before our eyes by the grace of God. The authors of the Confession did not believe that baptism equates to election, yet they did believe the above statement. Though this is less than "sacerdotalism" it is certainly more than is claimed by many in the Reformed community. Baptism is real; it does something; it carries obligations with it; it carries blessings and curses; it is "ordained by Jesus Christ" as a means to bring us into covenant with Him. Anything less is "contrary to the Bible and the Westminster Standards" (cf. Mark 1:4, Acts 22:16, Titus 3:5, and 1 Peter 3:21).
More Freedom than We Know
a. Acts 27:31, 44; Isa. 55:10-11. Hos. 2:21-22.
b. Hos. 1:7; Matt. 4:4; Job 34:10.
c. Rom 4:19-21.
d. 2 Ki. 6:6; Dan. 3:27.
We have already made it clear that He uses means in carrying out things in His "ordinary providence." Here, however, we are also told that He does not always work in accord with the means that He has predetermined. In other words, God can supercede the laws of nature whenever He wishes to (miracles are one example of this). The Confession says that God is free to work "without" the means. Note the verses that are given in support. They reveal much about the authors views here. Hosea 1:7 says that God can save Israel without a battle; Romans 4:19ff says that God can work above the ordinary process to conceive a child; 2 Kings 6:6 says that God can go against the normal activity of iron to make it float, and Daniel 3:27 says that God can work against fire to stop it from burning.
God has determined the way that things work in this world. Men need to eat to live; covenant members need to persevere to stay in the covenant. Yet, despite this, God can always override the means that He has created. Nevertheless, this is not, something that He has revealed to us. We are merely told to follow the means that He has commanded to remain in the covenant; not to presume that He will keep us in the covenant apart from the means He has commanded. He may do so (like with the thief on the cross), but we cannot expect it to be so.
Do we fulfill the means of covenant perseverance by our own merits? Certainly not. We are enabled to fulfill them by the working of the Spirit in our hearts and souls, and this by virtue of the work of Christ alone. Yet, just as we are accepted in Christ through the means of mere faith, so also our works are accepted in Christ on the basis of the righteousness of Christ (for which see below). They must be accepted (even with all the taint that our fallenness adds to them), or we will not be "obeying His commandments" so that we can know that "we know Him" (cf. 1 John 2:3). To put it another way, faithful means just that, "faithful" The faithful are filled with faith and faithfully working out that faith. Our covenant faithfulness must be displayed (as with Abraham's willingness to sacrifice Isaac), and it is displayed in our works; our works "show" our faith (cf. James 2:18).
Further Confirmations
Although there is not a separate chapter on apostasy in the Confession, we can find many things that allude to this topic. Specifically we find references (as would be expected) in chapters 16, 17, and 18, which deal with good works, perseverance, and assurance respectively.
In chapter 16 we find the following comment on the necessity of good works in the life of the covenant member: "yet are they not hereupon to grow negligent, as if they were not bound to perform any duty unless upon a special motion of the Spirit; but they ought to be diligent in stirring up the grace of God that is in them (16.3)." We see here an acknowledgement of the cooperative work of the Spirit and the saint in furthering his sanctification; the Spirit prompts, but we are not supposed to sit idle until He prompts us. This should not be new to anyone well versed in the doctrine of Sanctification. Yet, what part did the authors view these works taking in our status in the covenant?
They said later that our good works were "accepted" in Christ: "the persons of believers being accepted through Christ, their good works also are accepted in Him (16.6)." Accepted for what? Since works do not gain us eternal life, what do they need to be accepted for? Just so that we can feel good about our pittance that we offer God? This is really an elementary matter, but it is important for the argument that we are building here. They must have some bearing on something or they would not matter at all; God would not be "accepting" them if they did not matter.
Let us take a short excursus here and ask a few questions. Why did God say that He had to "go down" to see if the people in Sodom were really wicked? He knew from all eternity their wickedness, did He not? Yes, of course. But here we are speaking "bottom up" instead of "top down." We read in Genesis 18:21: "I will go down now and see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry against it that has come to Me; and if not, I will know." This is because God uses the intervening contingencies of what a group of people does (remember Jeremiah 18) to determine whether they will stand or be destroyed. Thus, speaking "bottom down," God says that He is going to examine the intervening historical contingencies before declaring the fate of the Sodomites. This is not because He did not know what was happening, but because His providence accomodates itself to us and our limitations of time.
This is like the situation later in Genesis when the Lord appears to say that He "learned" what Abraham was like from his actions (this is also James argument in James 2:21). We read there: "And He said, "Do not lay your hand on the lad, or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me (Genesis 22:12)." The actions of Abraham were a contingency in his inheriting the promises of the Lord (see also Gen 18:19). Yes, these actions were "prepared beforehand that [Abraham] should walk in them" (Eph 2:10) but that is, again, speaking "top down" not "bottom up." "Bottom up" is "now I know that you fear God."
This point is vital for this entire discussion. Look with me at a short quote from chapter 17, paragraph 3 of the Confession: "the neglect of the means of their preservation." This chapter is discussing the perseverance of the saints and mentions here how saints (that can never fall away entirely) may fall into sin. They do this by neglecting "the means of their preservation." Do you see that? Their preservation (or perseverance) has means! God uses "second causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently" (WCF 5.2) to preserve us in our faith. Could He do it without them? Yes, of course. But He has not decreed it to be so in ordinary circumstances. He has chosen to use these means (the sacraments, good works, prayer, etc.) in order to keep us in the covenant. Does this mean that we cannot be saved without them? Yes. Does it mean that we are saved because of them? No. If I am bit by a poisonous snake, does this mean I cannot be saved without the antidote (aside from a miracle)? Yes. Does it mean I am saved because of the antidote? No; because someone has to administer the antidote to me, its existence alone is not enough. God administers the means to us and thus preserves us the covenant.
Thus, only those who remain faithful have any reason to think that they can stay in the covenant. We can only see "bottom up" (a perfect knowledge of election is "top down" and thus only in God's mind), so we can only speak confidently in this way. The confession says: "such as truly believe in the Lord Jesus, and love Him in sincerity, endeavouring to walk in all good conscience before Him, may, in this life, be certainly assured that they are in the state of grace (WCF 18.1)." Those that are endeavouring to walk "in all good conscience" can be assured. Those who are not walking this way have no grounds for assurance and should expect to be cut out of the covenant. We stand in the covenant because of faith and should not "be haughty, but fear (Romans 11:20)."
The grounds of our assurance is that God promises eternal salvation to those who continue in the graces of sanctification. Those who do not continue are not promised salvation. The Confession makes this point clear when it says that assurance is not unfounded but rather "an infallible assurance of faith founded upon the divine truth of the promises of salvation, the inward evidence of those graces unto which these promises are made (18.2)." Note carefully that those who have these "graces" are who the promises are made unto. When the Lord elects someone to salvation, He also predestines the means to maintain them in that election, and if the means are not there, then that man has no reason to believe that he is elect, and if he continues in that state he should be excommunicated (the outward means of cutting out of the covenant).
Look closely at two of the verses that they used in support of this truth. In 2 Peter 1:4 we read: "by which have been given to us exceedingly great and precious promises, that through these you may be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust." Peter adds in verse 10: "Therefore, brethren, be even more diligent to make your call and election sure, for if you do these things you will never stumble" (emphasis mine). Obviously Peter believed that we need to "do something" in order to not fall. We need to use the means that the Lord has given. They also cited 1 John 2:3 where we find that "by this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments." Obviously the opposite is also true; we do not know whether we know Him if we do not keep His commandments. We know it because God provides the means to us to keep us from apostasy.
All of this comes together when we realize that the Lord requires the "right use of ordinary means (WCF 18.3)" in order for us to remain in covenant with Him. The temporary wrong use of ordinary means will not lead to apostasy (cf. WCF 18.4), but that is precisely because it is temporary. When we return to faithfulness "assurance may, in due time, be revived (WCF 18.4)" but if we do not return, then we are among the unregenerate whose good works have not been "prepared beforehand" in order to maintain us in the covenant. We destroy our assurance by falling from a life of committing righteousness. As Ezekiel said,
What does this mean if not that a man in covenant with God (and thus standing as righteous) can cease from the means of preservation and fall into wickedness? When he falls, "shall he live?" No. He shall be cut off. This is not an empty threat. It may seem difficult to call a man "righteous" who will fall away, but the Bible does it. Certainly it does not mean "eternally justified" else it would contradict itself, but it must mean something! Reformed theology says that our children are not pagans, they are born into the covenant community so they must be baptized. If, however, we do not treat them like pagans, what do we treat them like? Neutrals? Stuck-in-limbo kids? Almost-Christians? 75% Christians? If we believe the Bible that there are only two ways, then we either treat them like they are pagans or we treat them like they are righteous(!).
This point was made clear to me when my oldest child got old enough to understand some basic covenantal concepts. I told her that she was baptized and that meant she was God's child and not a pagan. Therefore she must act like God's child. When my three year old son sins and I ask him if he is a pagan, he says "no, I'm righteous." I then ask him if a righteous boy is supposed to act like a wicked boy, and he tells me "no sir." He knows he is not a pagan, he is righteous (by virtue of Christ). What else does his baptism mean if it does not mean that "as many of [us] as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ (Gal 3:27)"? Opponents may contend with this idea, but they must invent an alternative; none is found in the Scriptures. My children are either righteous or wicked; I will either teach them that they are Christ's or that they are the Devil's. Their covenantal standing is separated from the world (Peter says "escaped the pollutions of the world" 2 Peter 2:20) and standing (covenantally, or if you prefer "bottom up") as righteous.
If those who will eventually fall away are not actually in covenant with Christ, then why is their punishment so severe? Why is it said that they would have been better to never been in covenant? Peter says, "For it would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered to them (2 Peter 2:21)." There must have been a true relationship that delivered them from the world (or "bought them" from it, 2 Pet 2:1) for them to leave. You cannot leave something that you were never in. Yes, John says that "[t]hey went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us (1 John 2:19)," this cannot be denied. They were not "of us" (truly regenerate), but they had to be among us to "go out" from us.
The assurance of the elect is shaken "by negligence in preserving of it, [and] by falling into some special sin (WCF 18.4)." Sin always mars our relationship with Christ. It mars it by giving us no reason to believe that we are going to stay in covenant with Him until and when we fully repent of it. Is it our repenting that keeps us in covenant with Him? Yes. Because Christ has ordained our faithfulness as the means of maintaining us in relationship with Him. Is it on the basis of our repentance that we are kept in covenant? No. Christ alone is the basis of all merit that we receive because even the works that He ordained are tainted by us and He needs to purify them. For this, we must declare "Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out! (Romans 11:33)."
The Westminster Confession is clear that God did not "wind up" the universe and then let it go on its course. He interacted with His creation from the beginning, and is still interacting today. The authors of the Confession used the common term of "providence" to describe the way in which God performs this interaction. The Providence of God can be described as: the manner in which God carries out the decrees that He has already determined in eternity past. Chapter five of the Confession is devoted entirely to explicating this beautiful doctrine. The first paragraph of that chapter reads as follows:
5.1 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 foreknowledge, and the free and immutable counsel of His own will, to the praise of the glory of His wisdom, power, justice, goodness, and mercy.
b. Dan. 4:34-35; Ps. 135:6; Acts 17:25-26, 28; Job 38; 39; 40; 41.
c. Matt. 10:29-31.
d. Prov. 15:3; Ps. 104:24; 145:17.
e. Acts 15:18; Ps. 94:8-11.
f. Eph. 1:11; Ps. 33:10-11.
g. Isa. 63:14; Eph. 3:10; Rom. 9:17; Gen. 45:7; Ps. 145:7.
3.1 God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass: yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.
a. Eph. 1:11; Rom. 11:33; Heb. 6:17; Rom. 9:15, 18.
b. James 1:13, 17; 1 John 1:5.
c. Acts 2:23; Matt. 17:12; Acts 4:27-28; John 19:11; Prov. 16:33.
Much of what we need to remember is that the Bible does not always look at things from the same perspective. We do not do this, so why should we expect the Bible to be different? It was, after all, written (through the perfect inspiration of the Spirit) by men like us, for men like us. Sometimes the authors of the Bible are describing something from the "top down." They are referring to how something looks from God's view-knowing whatsoever will come to pass, how providence is leading events and things, and the eternal decrees that placed these things as they are. Sometimes the authors of the Bible are describing something from the "bottom up." They are referring to how something looks from our view-knowing only what God has revealed within the limitations of time and space.
Now we can go directly to the Confession's description of this interplay of the decrees and the providence of God. Chapter five, paragraph two of the Confession states:
5.2 Although, in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of God, the first Cause, all things come to pass immutably, and infallibly;a yet, by the same providence, He ordereth them to fall out, according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently.
b. Gen 8:22; Jer. 31:35; Exod. 21:13; Deut. 19:5; 1 Ki. 22:28, 34; Isa. 10:6-7.The word which came to Jeremiah from the LORD, saying: "Arise and go down to the potter's house, and there I will cause you to hear My words." Then I went down to the potter's house, and there he was, making something at the wheel. And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter; so he made it again into another vessel, as it seemed good to the potter to make. Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying: "O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter?" says the LORD. "Look, as the clay is in the potter's hand, so are you in My hand, O house of Israel! The instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, to pull down, and to destroy it, if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it.. Now therefore, speak to the men of Judah and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, saying, 'Thus says the LORD: "Behold, I am fashioning a disaster and devising a plan against you. Return now every one from his evil way, and make your ways and your doings good."
What is the mean that God uses to bring us into the covenant? Is it merely a transaction that takes place in heaven apart from our actions? Does God just suddenly sit back and say "you're in"? In truth there is an earthly ceremony that corresponds to what is taking place in Heaven and that ceremony is baptism. When a person is baptized he is entered into covenant with God. When someone leaves the land of their birth and becomes a citizen of another country his "ceremony" where he "signs on the dotted line" is what makes it official (regardless of whether he is sincere about it or not). When people get married, the ceremony is what makes it official (no matter how much they were unsure of what they were doing, and regardless of whether they understand the obligations of their new roles) is the wedding. Paul does not say that "some" who get baptized are in Christ, but "as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ (Gal 3:27, cf. also Romans 6:3)."
Baptism is a sacrament of the new testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church; but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in the newness of life.
An issue that must be made clear at this point is that God uses contingencies in more ways that we realize. The Confession helps to enumerate lack of limitations on His activity, but it cannot comprehensively describe them (finite knowledge limits us). In chapter five, paragraph three we are told,
God, in His ordinary providence, maketh use of means, yet is free to work without, above, and against them, at His pleasure
The passages that bear upon the issue of contingency are not, however, the only passages that deal with this subject. Knowing this, it is important to retain the entire context of the Confession, for in that we can see what the authors thought of subjects like the one we are examining.
But when a righteous man turns away from his righteousness and commits iniquity, and does according to all the abominations that the wicked man does, shall he live? All the righteousness which he has done shall not be remembered; because of the unfaithfulness of which he is guilty and the sin which he has committed, because of them he shall die (18:24).