The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum Any disagreements with the WCF?

I've been reading through the Westminster Confession of Faith recently, and was just curious which parts, if any, others disagree with. First of all, although any one is free to answer, I am mainly interested in the thoughts of those who agree with all or almost of all of the WCF. Of course, if you don't hold to the WCF, then you'll have many disagreements with it. I would also like to exclude from the start Chapter 28 Of Baptism, parts of Chapter 27 pertaining to baptism, and Chapter 10 Section III (elect infants) since these have been discussed ad nauseam already. For my part, even though I've read through the WCF a number of times, I can't honestly say I've read through extremely critically, so I may missed some things. But, that being said, I haven't really found anything I disagree with.

The one exception, which was brought to my attention recently in another thread about the pope, is Chapter 25 Part 6. In that thread, IIRC, no one really said much one way or the other about this point. What do you think? Does the WCF go to far in identifying the pope as the Antichrist?


Anyway, the point of this question is not to generate a flame war about the WCF, but mainly to get some ideas about which parts of the WCF, if any, I might need to be wary of.

Thanks,
John

Here is a couple to think about:

As indicated, I believe the Westminster Confession to be the clearest and most accurate comprehensive confession, yet I believe that even this Confession was the product of fallible, but godly men. Thus, by the grace of God, I denote several exceptions to the Westminster Confession.

1. Chapter 7: Of God's Covenant with Man - Paragraph 2 (cf. Chp. 19, para. 1, 6). I would clarify that the "covenant of works" was not meritorious and I deny that any covenant can be kept without faith. Good works, even in this covenant were a result of faith, as illustrated by the Sabbath rest which was Adam’s first full day in the presence of God.

2. Chapter 25: Of the Church - Paragraph 6. Though I believe the doctrine of the Pope of Rome to be in error, where it is not in accord with the WCF, I do not believe him necessarily to be the Anti-Christ, Man of Lawlessness, or Beast of Revelation, etc.

John,

I too would take exception to the two sections of the WCF that J_Edwards mentioned. For example, I do not hold that the Pope is THE "anti-Christ", but rather one of many manifestations of the [spirit] of the anti-Christ based upon:

1 John 2:18 (KJV) "Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time."

Also, I take exception to the original text of Chapter XXIII, article III on the Civil Magistrate which reads:

III. The civil magistrate may not assume to himself the administration of the Word and sacraments, or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven: yet he has authority, and it is his duty, to take order that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire, that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed, all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed, and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administrated, and observed. For the better effecting whereof, he hath power to call synods, to be present at them, and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God.

The writers held that the civil magistrate (ruling government) has authority over such matters that concern doctrine and practice in the Church. This article was revised so as to read:

Civil magistrates may not assume to themselves the administration of the Word and sacraments; or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven; or, in the least, interfere in matters of faith. Yet, as nursing fathers, it is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the church of our common Lord, without giving the preference to any denomination of Christians above the rest, in such a manner that all ecclesiastical persons whatever shall enjoy the full, free, and unquestioned liberty of discharging every part of their sacred functions, without violence or danger. And, as Jesus Christ hath appointed a regular government and discipline in his church, no law of any commonwealth should interfere with, let, or hinder, the due exercise thereof, among the voluntary members of any denomination of Christians, according to their own profession and belief. It is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the person and good name of all their people, in such an effectual manner as that no person be suffered, either upon pretense of religion or of infidelity, to offer any indignity, violence, abuse, or injury to any other person whatsoever: and to take order, that all religious and ecclesiastical assemblies be held without molestation or disturbance.

I find this to be a better summary of the biblical teaching concerning the duties and authority of government. The original was doubtless written from a Postmillennarian view which I do not believe to be correct.

In His Grace,

How did revisions occur historically? Were they approved by a presbyterian body?

I noticed the article on the Pope being the Anti-Christ is in brackets in The Highway version and completely omitted at another website. Did later church bodies make changes to the articles independent of the original Westminster confessors?

I echo Joe's remarks in his opening paragraph.

With the WCF being 400 years out, there is one phrase that causes all kinds of consternation today.

Chapter 21, "On Religious Worship and the Sabbath Day", Section 5.

"singing of psalms with grace in the heart".

Hi Joe,

Are you saying that you basically agree with Ch.VII p. 2, but think that it should clarify more about how the "covenant of works", i.e., the implication is that the covenant is still by faith and is not meritorious? Or are you saying that you think the WCF is implying that the "covenant of works" is meritorious? After re-reading it I can see the lack of clarity, but I don't know what the original intent was.


John

Hi Pilgrim,

I'm curious as speratus is about the history of the revision you mentioned. Was the revision done by the original writer's of the WCF? Was it done soon after the original was ratified? Were other parts of the WCF revised at the same time? I agree the revised article is much better.

Thanks,
John

John,

I can't say I really I understand the point of your comment. Why does the phrase "singing of psalms with grace in the heart" cause "all kinds of consternation today"? Is it because some people take "psalms" to literally mean the "Psalms" and not "songs"? Also, I can't tell where you stand on the issue, i.e., agree with the wording or disagree with the wording.

John

Here is a very brief history: WCF

Thanks Joe.

John

I believe their intent was correct (covenant is still by faith and is not meritorious), however for the sake of clarity I believe it should be re-worded.

I guess the question I have after reading the link is which version of the WCF is the one on The Highway. It seems like it might be the version from 1788 adopted by the united synod of Philadelphia and New York since this specifically mentions modifying Chapter 23 section 3. Is this correct?

John

Yes, here is a side-by-side comparison between the Original and the American WCF.

John,

Yes, the problem lies in that some take it literally. Therefore, they will insist that everyone agree to it when being examined as Elder or Deacon as to whether they are in agreement with the WCF.

As for me, I do not take it literally, yet it is there. The question becomes should we take it literally. If not, then should it be required for someone in the examination process to list their non-literal view of it as an exception. Since there is only a few churches that sings psalms only, then most of ordained men would would be considered outside of the WCF. That is why I say the phrase has caused, and is causing all kinds of consternation within Presbyterian bodies.

Although some will be in disagreement, I think that someone can be fully within the system as taught in the WCF without ascribing to every minor detail.

I hold to a more conservative view of Divorce than the WCF. I believe there to be a difference between adultery and fornication (which are mentioned seperately and one chosen over the other depending on the passage). However, I have been informed that since it is a more conservative view that it is considered perfectly acceptable within the church.

(don't throw those tomatas please!)