# True Confessions by Renihan



## JM (Aug 4, 2008)

I was looking for the Orthodox Catechism by Hercules Collins and found the following in a short review of Renihan's book.



> Did you know that some of the most significant differences between the 1689 Confession and the Westminster Confession occur with reference to the doctrine of God, revelation and the incarnation?
> 
> Did you know that the 1689 Confession does not teach that divine truth can be found in the “good and necessary consequence” of Scripture, as the Westminster Confession had put it?
> 
> ...



Anyone own this title?


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Aug 4, 2008)

JM said:


> Did you know that the 1689 Confession includes the imputation of Christ’s active and passive righteousness as an element of justification, but that the Westminster Confession does not?
> Anyone own this title?


No, but the above is a bit off. See the following in the forthcoming issue 4 of _The Confessional Presbyterian_ journal. I should be making notice of the full contents soon. Despite my fears, it will top last year's fat issue (which is a different problem.
Alan Strange, "The Affirmation of the Imputation of the Active Obedience of Christ at the Westminster Assembly of Divines," _The Confessional Presbyterian_ 4 (2008) 194-209.


----------



## JM (Aug 4, 2008)

NaphtaliPress said:


> JM said:
> 
> 
> > Did you know that the 1689 Confession includes the imputation of Christ’s active and passive righteousness as an element of justification, but that the Westminster Confession does not?
> ...



I thought that sounded a little strange. It was the reviewers comments.


----------



## py3ak (Aug 4, 2008)

The 1689 still assumes the covenant of works as well. See Waldron's exposition.


----------



## JM (Aug 4, 2008)

Ruben, do you have True Confessions ?


----------



## Rich Barcellos (Aug 15, 2008)

I have True Confessions!


----------



## Christusregnat (Aug 15, 2008)

JM said:


> I was looking for the Orthodox Catechism by Hercules Collins and found the following in a short review of Renihan's book.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Some of these differences are not accurate, but may serve Renihan's interest as a so-called Sovereign Grace Baptist.

The differences that are accurate are standard covenantal vs. dispensational (Reformed vs. Anabaptist) differences. Such as the civil teaching of Scripture, and the legitimacy of theology (good and necessary consequences).

I don't own this title, but I think it would be worth getting ahold of, and perusing; I could put it next to my Leonard Veduin Pluralism book.

Cheers,

Adam


----------



## Reformed Baptist (Aug 16, 2008)

Im presently taking Waldron's class on the 1689. Just started, but it is interesting that the 1689 is based more on the Savoy than the Westminster. May explain why some see more differences in it.


----------



## Reformed Baptist (Aug 20, 2008)

> Did you know that the 1689 Confession does not teach that divine truth can be found in the “good and necessary consequence” of Scripture, as the Westminster Confession had put it?



This is actually not true. The 1689 words it differently but the meaning is the same. 



> The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down or necessarily contained in the Holy Scripture: LBCF, Chapter 1, Article 6



In my course taught by Sam Waldon on the 1689 this was paralleled with the WCF concerning good and necessary consequence.


----------

