# Which confession do you subscribe to?



## Arch2k

What confession best summerizes your beliefs? Obviously as reformed people, we find value in all the reformed confessions, but there are differences (i.e. one can not consistently fully subscribe to the 3FU and the Westminster Standards). 

Do you have any exceptions to the confession you hold to? Please specify.


----------



## LadyFlynt

A year ago I would have said the LBC. Now I would say the WCF. I don't know the difference between the two...I've only heard of the 1646. However, with the exception that I go with the writers of the LBC in leaving out the section on D&R from the WCF. That is my one arguement with the WCF.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

1646 WCF without exceptions.


----------



## wsw201

1789 all the way!!


----------



## biblelighthouse

I voted for the 1646 WCF, because I am familiar with it.

What are the differences between the 1646 and the 1789?


----------



## Poimen

Three Forms of Unity!

http://www.burlingtonocrc.com/Confessions.html


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> I voted for the 1646 WCF, because I am familiar with it.
> 
> What are the differences between the 1646 and the 1789?



Differences Between the 1646 and 1789 WCF


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> I voted for the 1646 WCF, because I am familiar with it.
> 
> What are the differences between the 1646 and the 1789?



See this thread.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

You beat me to it Andrew.

1689er

[Edited on 8-4-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> You beat me to it Andrew.



heh heh , I merely borrowed your link. Thanks, Randy!


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> I voted for the 1646 WCF, because I am familiar with it.
> 
> What are the differences between the 1646 and the 1789?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Differences Between the 1646 and 1789 WCF
Click to expand...



Thank you for the info. I guess I need to change my vote from 1646 to 1789. (Unfortunately, I don't think I can change my vote on this board.)


----------



## SolaScriptura

Jeff - 
(concerning the title of the thread)
Don't end a sentence with a preposition. Try "To which confession do you subscribe?"

I hold to the WCF 1789 because it is the Confession that allows me to serve in the Army and swear to defend the US Constitution with a clean conscience.  
(That one was for Andrew.)


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

> _Originally posted by SolaScriptura_
> Jeff -
> (concerning the title of the thread)
> Don't end a sentence with a preposition. Try "To which confession do you subscribe?"
> 
> I hold to the WCF 1789 because it is the Confession that allows me to serve in the Army and swear to defend the US Constitution with a clean conscience.
> (That one was for Andrew.)


----------



## Arch2k

I hold to the 1789 WCF with an exception to Exclusive Psalmody at this point. I also have a scruple with the wording of the covenants (i.e. distinction between COG/COR).

The Westminster standards are the best summery of Christian doctrine I've ever read.


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by SolaScriptura_
> Jeff -
> (concerning the title of the thread)
> Don't end a sentence with a preposition. Try "To which confession do you subscribe?"



Hey! I didn't ask if you had any exceptions to my grammer! If that WAS the subject of the thread, I'm sure the poll wouldn't be so evenly distributed!


----------



## Bryan

Calvinistic Methodists Confession of Faith

Bryan
SDG


----------



## Poimen

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by SolaScriptura_
> Jeff -
> (concerning the title of the thread)
> Don't end a sentence with a preposition. Try "To which confession do you subscribe?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey! I didn't ask if you had any exceptions to my grammer! If that WAS the subject of the thread, I'm sure the poll wouldn't be so evenly distributed!
Click to expand...


Also 'grammar' is spelt with an 'a' not an 'e.'


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> 1646 WCF without exceptions.


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by poimen_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by SolaScriptura_
> Jeff -
> (concerning the title of the thread)
> Don't end a sentence with a preposition. Try "To which confession do you subscribe?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey! I didn't ask if you had any exceptions to my grammer! If that WAS the subject of the thread, I'm sure the poll wouldn't be so evenly distributed!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Also 'grammar' is spelt with an 'a' not an 'e.'
Click to expand...


----------



## Poimen

Are Robin and I the only ones on this board who hold to the Three Forms of Unity?


----------



## toddpedlar

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> 1646 WCF without exceptions.
Click to expand...


----------



## NaphtaliPress

1646 Westminster; not that other thing from 1789, which is the Confession of Faith of the PCUSA (as long as we are expressing pet peeves on spelling and grammer...  ) Or if you must, the WCF as modified by the PCUSA in 1789. But it is not The Westminster Confession of Faith -- 1789.


----------



## Me Died Blue

I hold to the Westminster Confession, but did not vote as I have not studied all of the issues enough to determine whether I hold to the original or the revised version. In either case, the only exception I presently have is that I am undecided on EP, and while I accept the chapter on oaths and vows with its interpretation of James 5:12 out of submission to the historic church, I do not yet fully understand the reasons for interpreting it as such.



> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> What confession best summerizes your beliefs? Obviously as reformed people, we find value in all the reformed confessions, but there are differences (i.e. one can not consistently fully subscribe to the 3FU and the Westminster Standards).



Out of curiosity, what specific contradictions do you see in the Westminster Standards and the Three Forms of Unity?


----------



## daveb

1646 WCF


----------



## RamistThomist

1789, although I am open to 1646; but I don't think I would fall under that category at the moment.

Daniel,
The 3 Forms of Unity was the first confession/catechism that I came into contact with; it has a special place in my heart.


----------



## JonathanHunt

1689, No exceptions apart from _maybe_ whether the pope is the antichrist.

JH


----------



## turmeric

1789 I guess, though I did not know that when I voted. Didn't know EP was in any of them. That would be my exception to the 1789 if it's in there.


----------



## pastorway

I hold to the First London Baptist Confession (1646) with no exceptions and also the Second London Baptist Confession (1689) with a few exceptions.

Phillip


----------



## Presbyrino

1789 WCF


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> Out of curiosity, what specific contradictions do you see in the Westminster Standards and the Three Forms of Unity?



There are not a huge amount, and the differences are not major. The first one that comes to mind is the role of assurance in relation to saving faith. The WLC states that assurance may be lost, while saving faith remains. The HC states:



> Question 21. What is true faith?
> 
> Answer: True faith is not only a certain knowledge, whereby I hold for truth all that God has revealed to us in his word, (a) *but also an assured confidence,* (b) which the Holy Ghost (c) works by the gospel in my heart; (d) *that not only to others, but to me also,* remission of sin, everlasting righteousness and salvation, (e) are freely given by God, merely of grace, only for the sake of Christ's merits. (f)



and the WLC



> Question 81: Are all true believers at all times assured of their present being in the estate of grace, and that they shall be saved?
> Answer: *Assurance of grace and salvation not being of the essence of faith, true believers may wait long before they obtain it*; and, after the enjoyment thereof, may have it weakened and intermitted, through manifold distempers, sins, temptations, and desertions; yet are they never left without such a presence and support of the Spirit of God as keeps them from sinking into utter despair.



There are others also, such as supralapsarianism / infralapsarianism and more little things here and there that make up the differences between Puritan theology and dutch reformed.

I'm definately Puritan baby!

My . Hope it's worth that much!


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by turmeric_
> 1789 I guess, though I did not know that when I voted. Didn't know EP was in any of them. That would be my exception to the 1789 if it's in there.



EP is implicit in the WCF. Note the absence of "hymns" or "songs" etc. The Divnes believed in EP.




> 21:5 The reading of the Scriptures with godly fear (Act_15:21; Rev 1;3); the sound preaching (2Ti_4:2) and conscionable hearing of the Word, in obedience unto God, with understanding, faith, and reverence (Isa_66:2; Mat_13:19; Act_10:33; Heb_4:2; Jam_1:22); *singing of psalms with grace in the heart * (Eph_5:19; Col_3:16; Jam_5:13); as also, the due administration and worthy receiving of the sacraments instituted by Christ; are all parts of the ordinary religious worship of God (Mat_28:19; Act_2:42; 1Co_11:23-29): besides religious oaths (Deu_6:13 with Neh_10:29), vows Isa_19:21 with Eccl 5;4, 5), solemn fastings (Est_4:16; Joe_2:12; Mat_9:15; 1Co_7:5), and thanksgivings, upon several occasions (Est_9:22; Psalm 107:1-43), which are, in their several times and seasons, to be used in a holy and religious manner (Heb_12:28).


----------



## BrianBowman

WCF 1646 with no exceptions


----------



## Scott Bushey

Who voted 'other'; fess up. The board requires you subscribe to one of the listed creeds.


----------



## Me Died Blue

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Who voted 'other'; fess up. The board requires you subscribe to one of the listed creeds.



It was probably Bryan, as he listed the Calvinistic Methodists Confession of Faith.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

1646 WCF

I am not completely settled though that the Pope IS the antichrist. Still pondering the possibilities.


----------



## Me Died Blue

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> Daniel,
> The 3 Forms of Unity was the first confession/catechism that I came into contact with; it has a special place in my heart.



 When encountering the Reformed faith, I studied the Three Forms of Unity before I read the Westminster Standards.



> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> 1646 WCF
> 
> I am not completely settled though that the Pope IS the antichrist. Still pondering the possibilities.



 I'm particularly comparing that (Historicist) to the partial-Preterist view.


----------



## Bryan

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Who voted 'other'; fess up. The board requires you subscribe to one of the listed creeds.



It was I, not becasue I am in disagreement with the confessions listed but that I perfer the CMSF. I have a thing for those Calvinistic Methodists (and reading Ryle's "Christian Leaders of the 18th Centurry" right now is only adding to it  ) but as I have in my profile; "Although I hold most cloesly to the Calvinistic Methodist Confession of Faith, I find the Westminster Confession acceptable." 

I hope that is and acceptable explination 

Bryan
SDG


----------



## Puritanhead

I am a Sixteen-Eighty-Niner and a Reformed Baptist, and believe in the London Confession. Plus, I believe in believer's baptism by submersion like other famous non-hydrophobic baptists like our Lord Jesus Christ, John the _Baptist_, and the Apostle Paul, etc. etc.



Viva de la Diecientos Ochenta y Nueve!


----------



## wsw201

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> 1646 WCF
> 
> I am not completely settled though that the Pope IS the antichrist. Still pondering the possibilities.



Do you think that the civil magistrate has the authority to call a Synod of the Church?


----------



## LawrenceU

> other famous non-hydrophobic




1646 LBC with no exception
1689 with a few


----------



## crhoades

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> 1646 WCF
> 
> I am not completely settled though that the Pope IS the antichrist. Still pondering the possibilities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think that the civil magistrate has the authority to call a Synod of the Church?
Click to expand...


Calvin, the Divines, and the reformers did Of course the magistrates were to be Christian men not baal worshipers or polytheists...


----------



## wsw201

> _Originally posted by crhoades_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> 1646 WCF
> 
> I am not completely settled though that the Pope IS the antichrist. Still pondering the possibilities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think that the civil magistrate has the authority to call a Synod of the Church?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Calvin, the Divines, and the reformers did Of course the magistrates were to be Christian men not baal worshipers or polytheists...
Click to expand...


True but the 1646 WCF does not make that distinction about Christian magistrates. So it would have been okay for John Kennedy, a Roman Catholic, to call a Synod of a Presbyterian Church?


----------



## crhoades

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by crhoades_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> 1646 WCF
> 
> I am not completely settled though that the Pope IS the antichrist. Still pondering the possibilities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think that the civil magistrate has the authority to call a Synod of the Church?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Calvin, the Divines, and the reformers did Of course the magistrates were to be Christian men not baal worshipers or polytheists...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True but the 1646 WCF does not make that distinction about Christian magistrates. So it would have been okay for John Kennedy, a Roman Catholic, to call a Synod of a Presbyterian Church?
Click to expand...


I'm venturing way out on a thin limb as I haven't read on this hardly at all and is why I started the other thread for materials on it...With all of that said...

After reading some theory on resistance to tryants etc. (Vindicae, Beza's, Althusius etc.) they viewed the magistrate as a protector of Christ's true church and where they were not they were to be pleaded with for reform and if they did not do that then they ceased being true magistrates. The question is whether J.F.K. would have been elected in the first place or if he was if the synod would go along with it. It would also depend on the purpose of the synod that was called. 

Definitely listening to what you and everyone else says on this matter.


----------



## Me Died Blue

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by crhoades_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> 1646 WCF
> 
> I am not completely settled though that the Pope IS the antichrist. Still pondering the possibilities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think that the civil magistrate has the authority to call a Synod of the Church?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Calvin, the Divines, and the reformers did Of course the magistrates were to be Christian men not baal worshipers or polytheists...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True but the 1646 WCF does not make that distinction about Christian magistrates. So it would have been okay for John Kennedy, a Roman Catholic, to call a Synod of a Presbyterian Church?
Click to expand...


Does it not make that distinction in saying that "it is his duty...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, administered, and observed"? It then says that the power to call synods is strictly "For the better effecting whereof...and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God." By the Confession's standard, a Baal worshiper or a Roman Catholic could certainly not adequately fulfill those conditions...in other words, while it grants the magistrate the right to call synods, right alongside that it lays the above expectations of purity.


----------



## raderag

I subscripe to the 1646 WCF, and appreicate the three forms of unity.
I have not studied the 1789 much, so I cannot say about that.

Here are some things I am unsure about in the 1646 WCF.

I take exception to EP.

I lean against WCF on this issue.

Sabbath-day in effect for Christian:


> Chapter XXI
> VIII. This Sabbath is to be kept holy unto the Lord when men, after a due preparing of their hearts, and ordering of their common affairs beforehand, do not only observe an holy rest all the day from their own works, words, and thoughts about their wordly employments and recreations; but also are taken up the whole time in the public and private exercises of his worship, and in the duties of necessity and mercy.




I think the Church needs to reemphasize this issue:



> CHAPTER XI.
> I. Those whom God effectually calleth, he also freely justifieth: not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; *not for any thing wrought in them*, or done by them, but for Christ's sake alons; not by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by* imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them,* they receiving and resting on him and his righteousness by faith; which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God.




I think the Church needs to clarify o the following issues:

RPW



> CHAPTER XXI.
> Of Religious Worship and the Sabbath-day.
> I. The light of nature showeth that there is a God, who hath lordship and sovereignty over all; is good, and doeth good unto all; and is therefore to be feared, loved, praised, called upon, trusted in, and served with all the hearth, and with all the soul, and with all the might. *But the acceptable way of worshipping the true God is instituted by himself, and so limited by his own revealed will, that he may not be worshipped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representation or any other way not prescribed in the holy Scripture.*



I am unsure of how much latitude WCF gives on the efficacy of the sacraments. I think I fall squarely with WCF, in that I believe they are efficacious, and yet a sign and seal.



> VII. Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements in this sacrament, do then also inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally, but spiritually, receive and feed upon Christ crucified, and all benefits of his death: the body and blood of Christ being then not corporally or carnally in, with, or under the bread and wine; yet as really, but spiritually, present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses.



Sometimes I find myself explaining how we partake of Christ in the sacrament in a mystical way, but Sometimes I explain it as God´s sign for us. When I am pressed by a non-sacramantarian, I will say that I believe that grace is conferred or communicated through the sign itself, and tend to ignore the mystical element.

I am not sure about the pope being the antichrist; I only lean towards it because it is the majority view of the reformers.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

To the best of my knowledge, the _only pre-1789 commentary on the Westminster Confession_ is that by David Dickson called _Truth's Victory Over Error_ (1684). Only certain portions are online. It's worth reading the whole thing, though.


----------



## alwaysreforming

Put me in for the "Three Forms of Unity" AND Westminster.


----------



## wsw201

> Does it not make that distinction in saying that "it is his duty...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, administered, and observed"? It then says that the power to call synods is strictly "For the better effecting whereof...and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God." By the Confession's standard, a Baal worshiper or a Roman Catholic could certainly not adequately fulfill those conditions...in other words, while it grants the magistrate the right to call synods, right alongside that it lays the above expectations of purity.



It may be true that a Baal worshiper or RC could not fulfill those conditions but regardless a magistrate has that authority. This is probably, along with other reasons, per Lig Duncan, why the Church of Scotland did not accept this section of the confession and was eventually codified in the American version of the WCF.


----------



## Puritanhead

The Five Articles of Arminian Remonstrance


----------



## crhoades

> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> The Five Articles of Arminian Remonstrance


If you were going for effect...you could've said Council of Trent!


----------



## Joseph Ringling

Without exceptions  1689


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

Major Changes of the Savoy Declaration


----------



## Larry Hughes

(i) the Belgic Confession of Faith (1561)
(ii) the Heidelberg Catechism (1563) 
(iii) the Canons of Dort (1618-1619)
(iv) WCF


----------



## just_grace

*Confession of faith...*

Confession of Faith of the Calvinistic Methodists in 1823...

Welsh Calvinistic Methodists


----------



## Bryan

Ha, I'm not the only one here that hold to the Calvinistic Methodist Confession! 

Too bad I live in Canada where very few people have ever heard of such a thing


----------



## Puddleglum

Pastor Way and/or Lawrence,

What are the differences between the first & second LBCFs?


----------



## doulosChristou

1644 LBCF

http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/bc1644.htm


----------



## doulosChristou

I also hold to the 1646 WCF with a few exceptions.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

> _Originally posted by doulosChristou_
> I also hold to the 1646 WCF with a few exceptions.


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> I hold to the 1789 WCF with an exception to Exclusive Psalmody at this point. I also have a scruple with the wording of the covenants (i.e. distinction between COG/COR).
> 
> The Westminster standards are the best summery of Christian doctrine I've ever read.



For all practical purposes, I have dropped my issues with the original WCF. 

WCF is like hitting a . You can hit it all you want, but it hits back alot harder.


----------



## Saiph

I like the 39 Articles. 

Why did you leave out Ausburg ? and Smalcald ?


----------



## doonziticus

1789 Westminster Confession

Although I am not quite sure that the pope isn't the antichrist.


----------



## Me Died Blue

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> I like the 39 Articles.
> 
> Why did you leave out Ausburg ? and Smalcald ?



That is because the board was created to function as a distinctly _Reformed_ community. Now, as is seen by the nature and great amount of discussion and debate that occurs here, it is clear that it is not meant to be monolithic on all matters of course, but a united foundational mindset is nonetheless necessary for the board's particular purpose - which is the very reason there are several confessions to which members may subscribe.

Even so, Lutheranism has almost always historically differed with issues on which all other Reformed confessions agree, such as the physical nature of the Supper, and even more, the relationship between Law and Gospel, and perhaps most significantly, the doctrines of grace ever since Melanchthon succeeded Luther. Hence, the board's ownership has seen fit from the outset to make that one of the places at which the line is drawn.

P. S. Also, while there are of course many points in the Reformed confessions which are not fully or properly understood by all who verbally subscribe to them, and while indeed there may therefore be _some_ Lutherans who are actually closer to the Reformed mindset than many who externally espouse the Reformed confessions, to officially add the Lutheran confessions into the picture would only compound and multiply that potential problem, particularly in light of the masses of verbally-espoused Lutherans who would not actually understand either the Lutheran _or_ Reformed theology.


----------



## Saiph

So Angilcan and Lutheran confessions are not reformed ? I hope you are joking.


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> So Angilcan and Lutheran confessions are not reformed ? I hope you are joking.



What do you mean by "reformed"?


----------



## Saiph

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> So Angilcan and Lutheran confessions are not reformed ? I hope you are joking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean by "reformed"?
Click to expand...


5 solas.


----------



## Arch2k

People have different definitions of "reformed." See What does it mean to be reformed?


----------



## wsw201

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> So Angilcan and Lutheran confessions are not reformed ? I hope you are joking.



You might get by with the 39 Articles but Lutherans would certainly not consider their Book of Concord "Reformed" (though probably Reformational).


----------



## Me Died Blue

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> So Angilcan and Lutheran confessions are not reformed ? I hope you are joking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You might get by with the 39 Articles but Lutherans would certainly not consider their Book of Concord "Reformed" (though probably Reformational).
Click to expand...


----------



## yeutter

I subscribe to the 39 Articles; but I have no reservations with the Heidelberg Catechism.


----------



## yeutter

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> I like the 39 Articles.
> 
> Why did you leave out Ausburg ? and Smalcald ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is because the board was created to function as a distinctly _Reformed_ community. Now, as is seen by the nature and great amount of discussion and debate that occurs here, it is clear that it is not meant to be monolithic on all matters of course, but a united foundational mindset is nonetheless necessary for the board's particular purpose - which is the very reason there are several confessions to which members may subscribe.
> 
> Even so, Lutheranism has almost always historically differed with issues on which all other Reformed confessions agree, such as the physical nature of the Supper, and even more, the relationship between Law and Gospel, and perhaps most significantly, the doctrines of grace ever since Melanchthon succeeded Luther. Hence, the board's ownership has seen fit from the outset to make that one of the places at which the line is drawn....
Click to expand...

The intent of Melanchthon's 1540 revision of the Augsburg was to reform the confession so that those of a Refromed bent could subscribe. Calvin did.

Sadly I do not think the 1540 is available in English translation.


----------



## yeutter

*Comparison of Westminster and 3 Forms of Unity*

A nice untechnical but biased comparison of the Westminster and Continental Reformed Three Forms of Unity can be found at:

http://www.prca.org/articles/article_8.html


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

> _Originally posted by yeutter_
> The intent of Melanchthon's 1540 revision of the Augsburg was to reform the confession so that those of a Refromed bent could subscribe. Calvin did.
> 
> Sadly I do not think the 1540 is available in English translation.



Do you have more information on the 1540 Augsburg revision and its subscribers or can you point me to some resources on the subject?


----------



## VanVos

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> I hold to the First London Baptist Confession (1646) with no exceptions and also the Second London Baptist Confession (1689) with a few exceptions.
> 
> Phillip


----------



## yeutter

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by yeutter_
> The intent of Melanchthon's 1540 revision of the Augsburg was to reform the confession so that those of a Refromed bent could subscribe. Calvin did.
> 
> Sadly I do not think the 1540 is available in English translation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have more information on the 1540 Augsburg revision and its subscribers or can you point me to some resources on the subject?
Click to expand...


Two articles which may be helpful on this topic are:

http://www.geocities.com/r_e_pot/papers/calvin.html

http://www.ctsfw.edu/bsmith-cts/etext/boc/intros/intro04.txt


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

> _Originally posted by yeutter_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by yeutter_
> The intent of Melanchthon's 1540 revision of the Augsburg was to reform the confession so that those of a Refromed bent could subscribe. Calvin did.
> 
> Sadly I do not think the 1540 is available in English translation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have more information on the 1540 Augsburg revision and its subscribers or can you point me to some resources on the subject?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Two articles which may be helpful on this topic are:
> 
> http://www.geocities.com/r_e_pot/papers/calvin.html
> 
> http://www.ctsfw.edu/bsmith-cts/etext/boc/intros/intro04.txt
Click to expand...


Thanks! That is very helpful. It opens for me new insights into Calvin's relationship with Melanchthon and the Lutherans. 

I also found this section on the Variata (c. 1540) and the Invariata (1530) from Schaff's _Creeds of Christendom_ helpful.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

A Tabular Comparison of the 1646 WCF and the 1689 LBCF


----------



## etexas

39 Articles, the Three Great Creeds , The Major Church Councils.


----------



## MrMerlin777

I am in agreement with the Ecumenical Creeds of the church and am in essential agreement with most all of the great confessions. I see the usefullness of them all including the 39 articles. I held at one time most closely to the Baptistic confessions but am now a Paedobaptist. I am probably most in line with the WCF though my views on the Sabbath are more continental.


----------



## Theoretical

MrMerlin777 said:


> I am in agreement with the Ecumenical Creeds of the church and am in essential agreement with most all of the great confessions. I see the usefullness of them all including the 39 articles. I held at one time most closely to the Baptistic confessions but am now a Paedobaptist. I am probably most in line with the WCF though my views on the Sabbath are more continental.


I strictly subscribe to the Canons of Dordt and strongly affirm the Westminster Confession, with EP and the Civil Magistrate being my only doctrinal issues, though the latter one may not ever be settled totally in my mind. As it is now, I'd gladly go to an EP church and indeed would probably prefer it, I'm just not sure if it's an absolute requirement. As to the Civil Magistrate, I see enough strong points on both sides, that I'd probably be willing to conform to 1646, though 1789 is my preference. 

I'm studying Heidelberg and the Belgic Confession as well.


----------



## MrMerlin777

MrMerlin777 said:


> I am in agreement with the Ecumenical Creeds of the church and am in essential agreement with most all of the great confessions. I see the usefullness of them all including the 39 articles. I held at one time most closely to the Baptistic confessions but am now a Paedobaptist. I am probably most in line with the WCF though my views on the Sabbath are more continental.



I must add to clarify that (as I'm sure we all agree) I hold these standards to be SUBORDINANT to the Holy Writ. Only the Holy Scriptures have the final authority, where any statements of faith or confessions conflict (if they do) they must be ammended. That is why I say I'm in essential agreement with the confessions. I could not call myself a "strict subscriptionist" in the proper sense of that term.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

WCF 1789, strict.


----------



## Irishcat922

1789


----------



## kvanlaan

I know this is an old thread, but there are more than just a couple of 3 Forms of Unity Heidelbergers on the boards!

Belgic Confession 
Canons of Dordt 
Heidelberg Catechism


----------



## ChristopherPaul

I am likeminded with the confessions expressed in the 1789 Westminster Confession of Faith with one exception and that is I believe the office of Pope is indeed the office of the “Antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalteth himself, in the Church, against Christ and all that is called God.”

(would that be considered an exception since it is not stated in the 1789 version?)


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

ChristopherPaul said:


> I am likeminded with the confessions expressed in the 1789 Westminster Confession of Faith with one exception and that is I believe the office of Pope is indeed the office of the “Antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalteth himself, in the Church, against Christ and all that is called God.”
> 
> (would that be considered an exception since it is not stated in the 1789 version?)



The 1789 WCF states that the Pope is Antichrist. That was not removed from the American WCF until 1903.


----------



## ChristopherPaul

VirginiaHuguenot said:


> The 1789 WCF states that the Pope is Antichrist. That was not removed from the American WCF until 1903.



Not according to a link you gave to the tabular comparisson between the 1646 and the 1789 (see attached).


----------



## ChristopherPaul

Attachment is too big, try this link.


----------



## ChristopherPaul

VirginiaHuguenot said:


> The 1789 WCF states that the Pope is Antichrist. That was not removed from the American WCF until 1903.



Nevermind Andrew, I see now that that link is not really a comparrisson between the 1646 and 1789. It is comparisson betwen the 1646 and the OPC standard (which I guess is 1903).

Thanks for the clarification.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Here are my notes on this change.


WCF 25:6 There is no other head of the Church, but the Lord Jesus Christ;* n* nor can the Pope of Rome*,* in any sense*,* be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdi*tion, that exalteth himself, in the Church, against Christ and all that is called God.*o*

BP (1938); PCUSA (1903); PLAN: “The Lord Jesus Christ is the only head of the Church, and the claim of any man to be the vicar of Christ and the head of the Church is unscriptural, without warrant in fact, and is a usurpation dishonoring to the Lord Jesus Christ.” PCUS (1939) “The Lord Jesus Christ is the only head of the Church, and the claim of any man to be the vicar of Christ and the head of the Church, is without warrant in fact or in Scripture, even anti-Christian, a usurpation dishonoring to the Lord Jesus Christ.” Both versions are in BOFC. OPC (1936) and PCA (1973) omit everything after “be head thereof.” ARP (1976): “There is no other head of the church but the Lord Jesus Christ; nor can mere man in any sense be the head thereof.”


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

ChristopherPaul said:


> Nevermind Andrew, I see now that that link is not really a comparrisson between the 1646 and 1789. It is comparisson betwen the 1646 and the OPC standard (which I guess is 1903).
> 
> Thanks for the clarification.



No problem! Yes, it is sometimes unhelpful to speak (as I and others sometimes do) of the 1789 WCF as being the one held to by the PCA or OPC, considering the fact that their WCF actually contains some 1903 revisions as well as others. Many who say they hold to the 1789 WCF, for example, do _not_ hold that the Pope is Antichrist. So in the interests of "precisionism" it's good to clarify. 

BTW, the subject of the 1903 revisions came up recently as noted here.


----------



## javajedi

1789/OPC

If EP is seen as explicit then as a non-EP that would be an exception.


----------



## javajedi

ChristopherPaul said:


> Nevermind Andrew, I see now that that link is not really a comparrisson between the 1646 and 1789. It is comparisson betwen the 1646 and the OPC standard (which I guess is 1903).
> 
> Thanks for the clarification.



Actually the OPC rejected the 1903 revisions, except for 2 points.

From a link provided a couple of posts back:

_The OPC did not adopt the revisions to the Confession made by the PCUSA in 1903 [...], except for omissions in chapters 22 (about refusing a lawful oath) and 25 (about the pope being the Antichrist)._​
That was actually one of several issues that resulted in the split with Carl McIntire and the Bible Presbyterians. McIntire wanted the entire 1903 revisions. See this article.


----------



## ChristopherPaul

javajedi said:


> 1789/OPC
> 
> If EP is seen as explicit then as a non-EP that would be an exception.



The OPC does not consider non-EP to be an exception.


----------



## AV1611

From my bio:



> *Confessionally Speaking:* I assent to the 1729 Goat Yard Declaration of Faith and I agree with the doctrine contained in the Gospel Standard Articles of Faith. I like the Three Forms of Unity and the Westminster Standards as well as the London Baptist Confessions.


----------

