the westminster confession of faith? well....

[THE W]

the place of the westminster confession of faith..

Just something i've been thinking about. I believe i need some educating on this subject. just want to say beforehand that this is seriously an honest question. I'm also a total n00b to the WCF and know virtually nothing that's in it.

I've read about people teaching their children the catechisms and how people hold strongly to the confession and some will quote the confession in answering theological questions.

Unless i'm mistaken, the WCF is not an inspired writing, and there are many books by uninspired authors that expound upon God's Word. What makes this one so special?

my question comes from thinking about how i could say to someone that I'm a member of a RP Church and they start quoting the confession saying that i stand by whatever is in it. I don't know about being held to something that in the end isn't actually the Word of God.

help me understand.

 

[Scott1]

The Westminster Standards (Confession of Faith, Larger and Shorter Catechism) are taken to be faithful summaries of what the Scriptures teach. They summarize doctrines of Scripture to which they speak.

 

[Pergamum]

Everybody ends up summarizing their faith when asked, "So, what do you believe?" A confession helps to do this. Since the Confessions are divided by chapters and Scripture proofs are often included, this makes it easy for people to reference. Since so many people claim to believe "only the Bible" (despite a wide variance of beliefs) it helps to additionally voice agreement with a confession.

 

[Scott1]

One of the great truths of Scripture, something the Reformers restored to the church, is that Scripture interprets Scripture.

This means that what is sometimes unclear on its own terms is interpreted in the context of what is clear about the subject in other parts of Scripture. Because God is not confused, and He must be understood by His creatures (you and me).

The Westminster Standards are a helpful tool in placing doctrine within the context of the doctrine elsewhere in the (unified) Scripture.

That doesn't mean that every (or any) word of the Westminster Standards are infallible or inerrant as are Scripture.

But they are taken as a faithful summary of what the Scriptures teach on matters to which they speak. The Westminster Standards, in that regard, are helpful. More than helpful, they are precise and careful to convey that summary in a way that is without equal- 365 years ago, and today.

 

[MarieP]

I don't know about being held to something that in the end isn't actually the Word of God.

Lots of people say they hold to the Word of God, but they have some pretty crazy ideas- take the Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Oneness Pentecostals, and Harold Camping, for example. A confession not only can guard against error but can actually promote church unity. You, a paedobaptist, wouldn't want to join a credobaptism-only (how's that for my paedo friends!) church, only to find that the elders refuse to baptize your baby.

As C. H. Spurgeon wrote of the confession I subscribe to (the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith):

This ancient document is a most excellent epitome of the things most surely believed among us. By the preserving hand of the Triune Jehovah we have been kept faithful to the great points of our glorious Gospel, and we feel more resolved perpetually to abide by them.

This little volume is not issued as an authoritative rule, or code of faith, whereby ye are to be fettered, but as an assistance to you in controversy, a confirmation in faith, and a means of edification in righteousness. Here the younger members of our church will have a body of divinity in small compass, and by means of the scriptural proofs, will be ready to give a reason for the hope that is in them.

Be not ashamed of your faith; remember it is the ancient Gospel of martyrs, confessors, reformers, and saints. Above all, it is the Truth of God against which the gates of hell cannot prevail. Let your lives adorn your faith, let your example recommend your creed. Above all, live in Christ Jesus, and walk in Him, giving credence to no teaching but that which is manifestly approved of Him, and owned by the Holy Spirit. Cleave fast to the Word of God, which is here mapped out to you.

 

[GloriousBoaz]

I think the reason that the WCF is held to the standard that it is is because of its content in the way that it summarizes scripture faithfully in places that are compromised in other theological systems. With that said it is indeed imperfect and just plain wrong at places.

My advice is that you argue theology from the scriptures, they are sufficient, this is the essence of Sola Scriptura. There is a difference between submitting your conscience to something vs. finding value in certain points of commentary on the scriptures given by gifted teachers and expositors. For me I will only subject my conscience to the scriptures and refer to the the Westminister only on those points where it comports with the Scriptures.

Now I say all this as a guy that in my old circles would get rebuked a lot for quoting men (Sproul, Macarthur, Washer, Spurgeon, Horton, Ferguson, you name it) "more than scripture" so I am not against using these types of things as supporting evidence for arguments, or in any way denying the doctrine of teachers of the Word that are gifted by God for that task, nor am I seeking to trample on anyone's love for the Westminster; unless that is, it is their golden calf and then I will trample away as it is my duty from scripture to do so.

 

[Steve Curtis]

just plain wrong at places.

That, of course, is just one opinion - and certainly not the only opinion. Some people do actually subscribe to the entirety of the WCF

 

[Steve Curtis]

I'm also a total n00b to the WCF and know virtually nothing that's in it.

The first thing I would suggest is to simply read it! It's not that long of a document

 

[sevenzedek]

I attend an OPC. The Westminster Standards (WS) provide a way for the elders to hold each other accountable. The congregants are not required to agree with everything it states. The doctrines of the WS are not the work of one man.

The WS are the work of many elders—the church in unison. Since we all see and know in part, it is a very good thing that many eyes, hands, and feet (so to speak) come together to work out the teachings of the Bible.

Confessionalism leaves little room for rogue pastors to lead the sheep astray; even though that does happen from time to time (e.g. OPC). Many minds must come to an agreement. In this way of doing things, the church is greatly unified and protected. If the elders do not proclaim the truth on an essentially important topic, the congregant could form an opinion or take their cue from a harmful teacher at some point. The WS are a guard against the enemy who would come up another way.

When the General Assembly (GA) meets to discuss the doctrine they will teach, they must come to an agreement. You can see this taking place in Acts 15.

The WS also provide a way for the congregation to hold the elders accountable to the Bible. I said "Bible" rather than the "WS" on purpose. The WS is a summary of what we believe the Bible teaches. The teachings of the Bible are more plainly written in the WS and it is simply wise to have summary statements of the truth (e.g. the doctrine of the Trinity; the difference between justification and sanctification; guards against transubstantiation). If an elder teaches something contrary to what is made explicit the WS (e.g. homosexuality is okay), the congregant has a way to hold him accountable. In such an evil age of Bible-twisting, this is greatly needed!

In this way, we don't need to argue about what the Bible teaches concerning essential Christian doctrine. There is a place for that—the big GA where the elders; who are accountable for the souls of their congregants, meet to expound the Scriptures. The WS are the result of such efforts and God's sheep submit to their elders.

Reformed Presbyterians have a very high view of church. They take their cues from the behavior of the early church (remember Acts 15) and wisdom.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

The RPCNA has a constitution. You can read it here.
http://reformedpresbyterian.org/downloads/constitution2010.pdf

It places the Denominations Testimony concerning the WCF parallel to the WCF. It clarifies aspects of it as it also testifies to current understanding on contemporary issues and situations. It also clarifies if the denomination rejects any part of its teaching. Here is the Testimony that is placed next to Chapter 24 on Marriage and Divorce. It will give you a flavor of what I am speaking about.

Chapter 24: Of Marriage and Divorce
(Larger Catechism: 137-139; Shorter Catechism: 63-66, 70-72) (The Testimony also treats “Education of Children” in this chapter.)
1. Marriage is an ordinance of God; however, to be unmarried is also an equally honorable state, and it may be the will of God for a person to remain single. Every effort should be made to submit to the direction of God in this matter, and to maintain a chaste and obedient life style.
1 Cor. 7:7-8.


2. Premarital sex relations or promiscuous sex practices as well as homo- sexuality and other perversions of the natural order are violations of God’s law and purpose. All should strive to discipline their sexual desires, maintain purity of thought and practice, and avoid situations which lead to sexual temptation.
1 Cor. 6:9, 15-20; 1 Cor. 5:1-5, 9-11; 1 Cor. 7:8-9; Rom. 1:26-28; Phil. 4:8; Prov. 5.


3. By God’s appointment the marriage relationship is to continue as long as both parties are living. Marriage may not be contracted for any other period. After the death of one party the other party may lawfully marry another. Matt. 19:4-6; Rom. 7:2-3; Gen. 2:24-25; 1 Cor. 7:39.


4. Marriage is a covenant relationship made before God between a man and a woman.
Prov. 2:17; Mal. 2:14; cf. Hos. 2:16-23.


5. The validity of marriage depends on the mutual agreement of the parties, rather than upon official administration; yet for the glory of God and the protection of the parties, and so that the greatness of the privilege and the seriousness of the responsibility of the marriage may be properly impressed on the parties, marriage should be con- tracted in the presence of a qualified officer and competent witnesses. Matt. 19:6; 1 Cor. 10:31; 1 Pet. 2:13.


6. The marriage of Christians should ordinarily be solemnized by an ordained minister of the Gospel.
1 Cor. 14:33, 40.


7. Parties to marriage should comply with the civil laws regarding marriage as long as these laws are not contrary to Scripture.
1 Pet. 2:13.


8. God created man, male and female, with specific responsibilities to each other.
Gen. 2:18-25.


9. As sexual beings, men and women are, in ordinary circumstances, to marry for the expression of love, the satisfaction of their needs, and the mutual enjoyment of each other, as well as the continuation of the race.
1 Cor. 7:3-5.


10. God has ordained a natural order within the family: the husband is the head of the family, having a relationship to his wife like that of Christ to the Church. He is ordinarily the provider for his family. He is to love his wife as Christ loves His Church and as his own body. He is to love, discipline and instruct his children, and to lead his family in worship.
1 Tim. 5:8; Eph. 5:25-28; 1 Pet. 3: 7; Prov. 19:18; Prov. 22:6; Eph. 6:4; Deut. 6:4-9.


11. The wife is to be a helper to her husband. The Scripture commands submission to her husband in the Lord. She is to join her husband in the wise use of family resources, the care and instruction of children and the maintenance of the home as a place of love, cheerfulness and hospitality. Gen. 2:18; Eph. 5:22-24; Prov. 31:10- 31; 1 Pet. 3:1, 6.


12. Children are commanded to obey and honor their parents in the Lord. Ex. 20:12; Deut. 5:16; Eph. 6:1-3.


13. Family administration involves mutual responsibility. The exchange or confusion of roles in the family in ordinary circumstances results in God’s displeasure and in consequent unhappiness.
Eph. 5:22; Eph. 6:4; Ps. 128; Col. 3: 18-21.


14. We deny that the submission in the Lord of a wife to her husband contradicts the equality, in value and dignity, of her person to his.
Gen. 1:27; Gal. 3:28.


15. While we abhor the sinful abuses of a husband’s authority and the abdication of his responsibilities within marriage, common since the Fall, we deny that his headship is, in and of itself, a result of sin.
Gen. 2:18; 1 Cor. 11:3-10; Eph. 5:23; 1 Tim. 2:11-13.


16. Although in certain circumstances in the service of God it may be unwise for a person to marry, we deny that Scripture forbids officers of the Church to marry.
1 Cor. 9:5; 1 Tim. 4:3.


17. We deny that marriage is a more spiritual state than the single life, or that it is necessary for eternal salvation.
1 Cor. 7:7-8.


18. We deny that marriage is necessary for officers in the Church.
1 Cor. 7:7.


19. Unborn children are living creatures in the image of God. From the moment of conception to birth they are objects of God’s providence as they are being prepared by Him for the responsibilities and privileges of postnatal life. Unborn children are to be treated as human persons in all decisions and actions involving them. Deliberately induced abortion, except possibly to save the mother’s life, is murder.
Ex. 20:13; Ex. 21:22-23; Ps. 139:13-16.


20. Christians should not marry those who give only nominal adherence to the Christian faith.
1 Cor. 7:39; 2 Cor. 6:14.


21. We reject the last sentence in paragraph 4 of the Confession of Faith.


22. The prohibition of marriage with a deceased wife’s sister or a deceased husband’s brother is not warranted by Scripture.
Lev. 18:18; Deut. 25:5-10.


23. Before seeking divorce, it is the responsibility of the innocent party to attempt reconciliation with the guilty party in the same manner as in any case of sin, first by his or her own appeal, and then, if need be, by calling on the elders of the church.
Matt. 18:15-17.


24. In any marriage threatened with dissolution, or even if divorce has occurred, both parties ought to strive for reconciliation on the basis of repentance for sin and willingness to forgive.
Eph. 5:25-33; Eph. 4:31-32; 1 Cor. 7:10-14.


25. Members of the household of faith should beware of seeking marriage counsel from unbelievers or from those who have failed to integrate their faith with their professional work.
Matt. 18:15-17; 2 Cor. 6:14-17.


26. Desertion can be a ground of divorce only when the departing person is an unbeliever.
1 Cor. 7:15; Matt. 18:17.


27. If the unrepentant guilty party in a divorce marries another, he commits adultery.
Matt. 19:9.


28. Where the guilty party shows evidence of repentance for the sin of breaking a marriage, the Church may receive or restore him or her to membership. Gal. 6:1.


29. God is the source of all truth. The knowledge which man can attain merely reflects part of God’s creation, and cannot properly be understood apart from God. Therefore there can be no true education without a knowledge of God and His dealings with man, as revealed in the Scriptures. He enlightens man’s mind in the under- standing of the physical and cultural world. Christians are to ask the aid of the Holy Spirit in the educational task. Ps. 24:1; Ps. 111:10; Prov. 2:6; Prov. 9: 10; Ex. 31:3-6.


30. Education of children is primarily the responsibility of parents, though they may delegate part of this responsibility to the church or other agencies. The earliest and most important educational institution is the home, where children are taught, by precept and example, basic principles of godly liv- ing. Parents should educate each child to the extent of their resources and the child’s ability, seeking to develop his God-given talents that he may serve God most fully and effectively. In order to promote the general welfare, the state may prescribe educational stan- dards and should provide educational opportunities, both in harmony with God’s law.
Deut. 6:6-9; Ps. 34:11; Ps. 78:2-7; Prov. 22:6
.
31. In the providence of God public schools have provided great social benefits. Yet in serving a highly pluralistic society they have attempted to be re- ligiously and morally “neutral,” which is sinful. To a large extent instruction is based on a secular, humanistic philosophy which ignores God and sees man’s welfare as the highest good. Local schools vary widely, however, according to the standards of the community and the quality of the teachers. All Christians, especially those who are teachers, school administrators or board members, should bear witness to the whole truth of God as it relates to education.
Matt. 12:30; 2 Sam. 23:3-4.


32. Where necessary and possible, Christian parents should cooperate in supporting or establishing schools whose curriculum presents a biblical world and life view, and place their children in them. This requires maintenance of the highest academic quality along with Christian orientation in every subject and activity.


33. We reject any attempt by the state to force a secular, humanistic philosophy on Christian schools.


34. Parents should take care to counteract any unbiblical teaching given to their children, whether in public or Christian schools. As youth increase in their knowledge and discernment, the home and the Church should help them to examine what is presented in school, to distinguish between God- given truths and human theories, and to integrate the facts learned with a Chris- tian view of man and the universe. Isa. 8:20.

I would heartily encourage you to read through the WCF. It is one of the best topical systematic summaries of scripture that the Church has ever produced. But at the same time remember the Catechism and the Confession are both attached to each other. The Catechism helps explain the theology of the Confession. I was a Reformed Baptist for many years and neglected the whole reading of the WCF but not the London Baptist Confession. I wish I hadn't. They are both excellent works done by their respective Theologians and very much worth learning as they pull excellent teaching out of the scriptures. They are sub-standards but provide boundaries for the protection of the Church when they are understood and adhered to. The denominations that have become apostate have neglected the teaching and summary of the Standards and lost their foundations.

 

[Tirian]

God bless brother - you should talk to one of the elders in the church about the WCF. The RP church would most likely have "membership" classes or bible-study classes you could take that would give you an introduction to it in a group environment.

Ps 48

 

[sevenzedek]

The denominations that have become apostate have neglected the teaching and summary of the Standards and lost their foundations.

I agree. They either assume or take for granted many doctrines. This is a bad thing; especially in a culture where ideas travel the speed of light and are readily accessible to the tap of a finger. Now more than ever, the church needs comprehensive statements of faith. With all the flawed personal study Bibles and devotionals that fill Christian book stores, the WS is a safe haven of truth. I dare say that study Bible notes have replaced confessions as a statement of faith in an age where one is prone to say, "We don't need a confession. We stand on the Bible alone." Well, that is not enough. Your "Jesus Calling" study Bible doesn't say the same thing as your "Dad's" study Bible. Are these flawed and/or deficient? The Jehovah's Witnesses make the same claim to the Bible as a source for doctrine. Standards clear the debris and say, "THIS is what we believe the Bible teaches concerning the faith." While not everyone agrees with all aspects of the WS, there are many who believe they are the most accurate summary of what the Bible teaches. This is why many have a high regard for them and place them one under the Bible itself. The Bible becomes the primary foundation of truth while the WS become the secondary foundation of truth as it is built upon the Bible as the primary.

 

[KMK]

What makes this one so special?

Try writing your own summary of Christian doctrine in your own words. Then you will understand what makes WCF so special.

 

[Edward]

I would suggest doing two things - work through the WCF and scripture proofs, and identify any areas where you think the confession is contrary to scripture. Second, work through G.I. Williamson's book on the Confession. After those two things, bring any issues you have for explanation.

There are variances among various denominations as to what each has adopted at this point (civil magistrate, pope as the antichrist, and marriage and divorce being the most common areas). But the WCF is the most faithful summary of scriptural truth that can be found.

 

[Prufrock]

Wade,

Yes, the Westminster Standards are good theological literature; and, yes, an individual may profit by treating them as individual reading material. But this is not cause of their unique importance in the presbyterian church, nor does it accurately describe what they fundamentally are. It is the cause neither of people quoting them, nor of their teaching them, nor of their assumption that they hold importance to and sway over you.

As for what at the Westminster Confession is, it is neither a personal document, nor something one takes up as an individual for a personal Credo, nor inspirational writing, nor a "systematic theology," nor any other such thing; rather, it is an ecclesiastical document, the subordinate standard of the church. It is what the church, through its office-holders; the church as an institutional, sojourning body confesses regarding its faith concerning God as found in the scriptures. For those teaching the scriptures in the individual churches, it provides both uniformity and liberty - uniformity because every elder in the church knows every other will hold to and be held by these fundamental, defining doctrines; liberty, because he knows he cannot be charged on those smaller points of difference of which the church, through the drafters and maintainers of the standards, recognized freedom to differ.

And so, when people quote the confession to you in the context which you described, it is not because they think, simply, it to be a good summary, for there are many other good summaries, corporate and private; it is because, as a presbyterian, it is the formal, official, subordinate standard of your church, the ecclesiastically binding and authoritative statement of the biblical doctrines around which the church is constitutionally and formally united.

I hope that helps.

 

[AlexanderHenderson1647]

Here are some thoughts I'd offer. People carry the collected wisdom of someone - whether it be themselves or a group or a 'celebrity' or denomination. The common misunderstanding of "Sola Scriptura" is "Me and My Bible Say ____." That is as unBiblical as it gets. For someone to say, "I just believe the Bible" begs the question, "What do you believe about the Bible?" "What is the Bible/What makes 'the Bible' 'the Bible?'" "Can I get modern visions/messages that are equal to the Bible?" "Do you believe all the Bible?" "Is the Bible understandable?" "Can anyone read the Bible and get to the truth?" "Does the Bible Contradict itself?" Etc" In essence, it is no summary at all - you get to start from scratch. While such a statement is not wrong, when carried to the often promoted view "Me and My Bible" or, as someone has recently coined the derisive term, "SolO Scriptura," it is not only wrong it is also both aimless and dangerous. And mind you, this gives NO quarter to the Roman view of ecclessiasticly derived canonicity ("We say what is Bible and what is not because we are God's church leaders") nor exclusively relegated interpretation ("only we can say what it means as church officers") nor implicit faith in church teaching/interpretation ("Just trust us - God says you must because He gave US the authority and wisdom, you are to just 'believe.')

So there are a couple of options: reinvent the wheel every time, promote some johnny-come-lately theologian, or refer to (after studying and understanding) a faithful summary that is in accord with Scripture and the historical Church of Jesus Christ, that was done under great scrutiny over the course of about five years by a group of about 120 of the wisest, godliest men that ever walked the earth, most of which were church elders, men who had hands laid on by the visible church recognizing their qualifications and gifts and recognized by the authority of the state. They'd be the first to tell you not just to believe it on their authority. In fact, they explicitly say so: "Chapter I sec. IX. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly. X. The supreme judge by which ...all decrees of councils...are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture." That is pretty self-checking. These men lay down as their accountability Almighty God Himself and God's Word - they desired and expected men, women, and children to know, study, and confirm the factuality of it.

The Bible is all that we commonly say that it is in Reformed Christian circles: fully inspired, inerrant, infallible, sufficient, able to be understood by man without extraordinary means through the illumination of the Holy Spirit, savingly so only by the children of God etc (that is far better summarized in the WCF, btw ) And that is not a bad place to start when someone asks, "How did you arrive at what you believe about God? On what authority? Describe the source of knowledge?" But, the Scripture is not used or interpreted in a vacuum. Any Christian man who arrives at a "new" truth ought to reject such a truth. One of the beauties and safties that we have as fellow believers is the fellowship of historic Christianity, especially as it has come to a spiritual maturity in the Westminster Standards. Thank God we don't have to start from square one. In fact, the times in church history when that was moreso the case, these were dark and dangerous times and heresy often abounded (see any major cult, Arianism, dispensationalism, gnosticism.) Mind you, great orthodox men have differed on issues and we will end up amongst a variety of places. We might even have a niche view on something that is of secondary importance. Even the Confessors had differences - the documents themselves were 'compromise' documents. But in terms of the Westminster Stds, we now have thousands of years of Christian hermeneutics with scads of faithful examples and shameful failures to glean from, all revised, harmonized and summarized as these churchmen sought the Lord in order to instruct their people, and not only their personal flock as individual pastors, but the whole of the British kingdom and any onlookers which attended ( and btw, there were many- all the Christian world's collective eyes were on the "London Synod.")

There is nothing wrong, nor there isn't a cop-out, in using the expression, "a faithful summary that I have studied and agree with comes from a group of Christian pastors, the Westminster Confessors..." (Mind you, there is a number of things they didn't comment on so you will have plenty of heavy lifting - at which point I recommend using a faithful commentary on the Scripture, or a couple for comparison's sake as you study the Word for yourself.) Personally, I get GREAT delight in NOT having any unique interpretations of the Bible. You'll often find that the same people who chafe at such an expression will quote their favorite Lone Ranger pastor/celebrity without qualification or promote what they "personally got" from the Scripture. It is smug arrogance and deadly!

 

[Marrow Man]

Carl Trueman is fond of saying that when someone says he doesn't need creeds and only needs the Bible doesn't make him more pious; it makes him a Socinian.

I would recommend this work to you: The Creedal Imperative: Carl R. Trueman: 9781433521904: Amazon.com: Books

 

[Scott1]

The Westminster Confession of Faith, with Scripture proofs for each statement and/or proposition of doctrine are available online:Westminster Confession of Faith

As is the Westminster Larger and Shorter Catechisms:
Westminster Larger Catechism
Historic Church Documents at Reformed.org

I like the handy layout in the PCA's "Blue Book" with the Standards at top and the Scripture proofs below. Often 2/3 or more of the page is Scripture proofs.

 

[sevenzedek]

The Westminster Confession of Faith, with Scripture proofs for each statement and/or proposition of doctrine are available online:Westminster Confession of Faith

As is the Westminster Larger and Shorter Catechisms:
Westminster Larger Catechism
Historic Church Documents at Reformed.org

I like the handy layout in the PCA's "Blue Book" with the Standards at top and the Scripture proofs below. Often 2/3 or more of the page is Scripture proofs.

Is there much difference between PCA's and OPC's?

 

[AlexanderHenderson1647]

Is there much difference between PCA's and OPC's?

None at all. Both subscribe to the American revisions of the WCF 1789.

 

[SRoper]

Is there much difference between PCA's and OPC's?

None at all. Both subscribe to the American revisions of the WCF 1789.

Plus later revisions. I don't believe our Confession found its current form until 1936.

 

[THE W]

So it seems that the WCF is something to help in our understanding of scripture and being that its more comprehensive in its expounding of scripture than other books, it's most valuable as a helpmate to the Word of God.

Cool..

I changed the title of the thread to something that doesn't make it seem like i'm trying to dismiss the WCF.

 

[THE W]

I'm also a total n00b to the WCF and know virtually nothing that's in it.

The first thing I would suggest is to simply read it! It's not that long of a document

I know what the WCFs contents is about, I just wouldn't be able to quote anything out of it if you put a gun to my head.

 

[KMK]

So it seems that the WCF is something to help in our understanding of scripture

It is that and more. It is also 'the bounds' of the Reformation church.

 

[sevenzedek]

So it seems that the WCF is something to help in our understanding of scripture and being that its more comprehensive in its expounding of scripture than other books, it's most valuable as a helpmate to the Word of God.

Cool..

I changed the title of the thread to something that doesn't make it seem like i'm trying to dismiss the WCF.

The catechisms do as well. One of the purposes of the WS framers was to provide a matrix, or backbone, on which to hang subsequent teachings in the church; the idea being that the church would get more out of the teaching. A person needs a place to hang ideas. Categories of thought provides by the WS provide a way to retain and apply more teaching. We all learn in this way.

 

[Tim]

So it seems that the WCF is something to help in our understanding of scripture and being that its more comprehensive in its expounding of scripture than other books, it's most valuable as a helpmate to the Word of God.

Wade, I don't think this statement really captures the essence of what a confession is, although it is indeed a great help in understanding the Word. Although the confession is comprehensive in the sense that it covers all the major areas of Christian doctrine, there are many theological works that go into more depth and are thus more comprehensive (i.e., complete) than the Westminster Standards.

Rather, the confession should primarily be understood as an ecclesiastical document: a document produced by the church (as an institution ordained by God and organized according to Biblical principles) as a statement of what the church believes. It is intended to be a unifying document with regard to what the church professes and teaches as Biblical doctrine. On a very practical level, it represents the beliefs that a mature believer should hold. Carl Trueman discusses such ideas in the book cited above.

 

[py3ak]

The confession represents dogma, rather than simply doctrine. This is what the church proclaims to be the teaching of Scripture, and this is what is constitutionally authoritative.

 

[JimmyH]

At my particular level of growth I see it as a compass pointing me to 'true North' as it were. The aforementioned OPC publishing WCF with Catechisms and proof texts, while it might not replace a 'good' commentary, is not only instructive but very edifying for me.

 

[jandrusk]

The WSC along with WLC and WSC are subordinate standards to the only standard of faith and life, the Holy Scriptures. They are means of expounding the truths taught in the Bible. I think this always needs to be qualified to those outside the Reformed circles.

 

[jwithnell]

As an ecclesiastical document, the WCF serves a broader purpose than has been stated so far. It binds one local congregation to the the regional church as whole. We can travel from our home town to the church in the next state and should find consistency in doctrine. And as a pew dweller, the WCF gives a standard that can be claimed if problems arise in our local congregation, and if necessary, taken to the regional church. This makes a working knowledge of the WCF necessary, even for Joe average church-goer.