Which confession do you subscribe to?

Status
Not open for further replies.
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).
 
Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Who voted 'other'; fess up. The board requires you subscribe to one of the listed creeds.:scholar:

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

:ditto: 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.

:ditto: I'm particularly comparing that (Historicist) to the partial-Preterist view.
 
Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Who voted 'other'; fess up. The board requires you subscribe to one of the listed creeds.:scholar:

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 :D ) 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 :cool:

Bryan
SDG
 
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.

:banana::banana:

Viva de la Diecientos Ochenta y Nueve!

:)
 
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?
 
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?

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

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

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?
 
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?

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

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?

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.
 
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?

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

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?

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
(i) the Belgic Confession of Faith (1561)
(ii) the Heidelberg Catechism (1563)
(iii) the Canons of Dort (1618-1619)
(iv) WCF
 
Ha, I'm not the only one here that hold to the Calvinistic Methodist Confession! :up:

Too bad I live in Canada where very few people have ever heard of such a thing :banghead:
 
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 :banghead:. You can hit it all you want, but it hits back alot harder.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top