Why the Westminister Confession?

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

djhonea

Puritan Board Freshman
I would first like to say that I mean no offense by the title of the thread:) I am newish to the idea of submitting to the WCF and have found no objections to the content in in. (Mostly because I have already subconsciously submitted to its authority). But I would like to know why it has been given the authority that is has within the reformed community. Is there any book that tells the story of its origins or good article that I can read that can affirm my trust in it. I am far from a scollar and love what I read in it but when my Arminian family and friends look at me like I'm crazy for loving it I would like to give them a background on why it is what it is. I appreciate your suggestions and answers and am excited to learn from you guys and grow in my knowledge of God!

Thanks,
Daniel
 
Hi brother, and welcome.
I am relatively new to reformed doctrine, too. My personal favorite so far is Robert Shaw's 'The Reformed Faith'. It has a good exposition of the WCF and some background. The introduction is priceless. The book has helped me a great deal when I was having problems with some of the WCF's statements.

Let me advise against 'submitting to authority', though. I find great satisfaction in testing and proving everything myself, as the Scriptures tell us to do, and I am sure that you will benefit from this also.

May the Lord smile upon us and bless us, and lead our ways always, brother.
 
As the WCF is a summary of what the reformed community says the bible teaches, it does have authority. It provides a way for others to hold elders accountable to teach biblical doctrine. For instance, the WCF 2.1a, b, & c says this:

There is but one only,a living, and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection...

If one of my elders then teaches that there are more Gods than one, or that God has made an error, I have an authoritative way to hold him accountable. Such a statement as I have quoted is faithful to scripture and is secondarily authoritative. The bible, however, teaches these truths primarily. So, the bible is our primary authority while the WCF is our secondarily authority. In other words, the reason the church has given authority to the WCF is because the elders responsible for teaching the truth agree that these teachings are congruent with scripture.

The WCF is helpful and necessary as way to protect the church. It is not enough to say that we believe the bible. The Jehovah's Witnesses say they believe the bible. So do the Mormons. So does does T.D. Jakes. The bible doesn't give us a list of doctrines concerning trinity. These truths must be understood from the scriptures and then taught. This is what the framers have done. They understood many things from the scriptures and then taught them through the WCF. If an elder is to have any authority in the church, their understanding of the scriptures must have a part to play. The WCF is an expression of that.

The WCF also provides for others a biblical backbone on which to apply Christian teachings. One of the reasons it was developed was to help congregants understand Christian teachings. What this means is that a person is going to get much more out of sermons and bible readings if they have a good grasp of what the confession says. It also helps prevent the church from being led astray into heresy.

I found one of Sinclair Ferguson's sermons on the history of the WCF very helpful. I can't find it right now. Perhaps someone else might find it on Sermon Audio; the website from which I downloaded it in the past.
 
Marrow Man said:
Why the Westminister Confession?
Click to expand...

Why not? :cool:

BTW, it's Westminster, not Westminister. :)
Click to expand...

I think this is a good question. There are many things that could be said for the WCF. Answering specific objections may be more helpful. I think many people have concerns about getting away from the bible—the only rule to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy God. I think some may see the WCF faith as replacing the bible. If course, it doesn't.

What are other rejections that could be raised?
 
It should be noted that all orthodox Protestants also affirm the truthfulness of the statements of Nicea (325) and Chalcedon (451). To believe these pronouncements doesn't automatically replace the Bible in authority. We believe the Westminster Confession (as Prebyterian and Reformed) to be a most faithful summary of what is taught in Scripture. It strongly supports the Scripture rather than replace it, as folks often charge. For them, they stand on their own inerrant and infallible interpretation.....:D
 
Last edited:
If your family is anything like mine you can talk until you are blue in the face and they will still think you are crazy! ;) Knowing the history probably won't change how they feel about you embracing true Reformed Protestantism! However, knowing the history of the WCF may help you to appreciate this unifying document & summary of Reformed Theology more than you obviously do at this point.

History of the Westminster Assembly of Divines - Contents might be a good place to start!?!
 
Gforce9 said:
It should be noted that all orthodox Protestants also affirm the truthfulness of the statements of Nicea (325) and Chalcedon (451). To believe these doesn't automatically replace the Bible in authority. We believe the Westminster Confession (as Prebyterian and Reformed) to be a most faithful summary of what is taught in Scripture. It strongly supports the Scripture rather than replace it, as folks often charge. For them, they stand on their own inerrant and infallible interpretation.....:D
Click to expand...

I believe one of the modern issues that hinders the acceptance of the WCF is the prevalent notion of personal choice and identity. As reformed Presbyterians, we stand as community in our understanding of the scriptures. This idea goes against the idea of authority and submission—something to which modern man is very allergic. Modern man believes a person can take a personal stand on issues, but gets very confused when the church does this as a unified body.
 
What is needed perhaps for those with more time than I have at the moment, is links to defenses of having confessions of faith, whether the Westminster, or some other?
 
Reading in D.Martyn Lloyd-Jones last night, "The Church And The Last Things" ;

"Now you can not look at those things, even from the secular standpoint, without seeing that the doctrine is rather important. Our fathers regarded it as of such vital importance that there were prepared to undergo very great hardships and to suffer the loss of almost all things because of their concern about the doctrine of the nature of the Church.

To them it was not something that could be regarded with indifference. Whatever the persecution, even at the risk of their lives, many of them founded conventicles and insisted upon meeting together.

So if we had no other reason for considering this doctrine, we should be compelled to study it out of respect for the names and for the greatness of our distant forefathers. People do not suffer like that for truth and for a cause if it is an indifferent matter."
 
Vladimir said:
Let me advise against 'submitting to authority', though.
Click to expand...

Heb 13:17 Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.
Click to expand...
Eph 4:11-13 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; *12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: *13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith...
Click to expand...

There is nothing wrong with saying, "I don't know, therefore, I submit to the teaching of my elders who have proven themselves to be faithful in the past." If, time and time again, the Reformed confessions prove themselves to be a faithful summary of biblical doctrine, then what is wrong with submitting to them in areas where you are ignorant? Just because they are all dead doesn't mean they aren't 'pastors and teachers'.

Unity in the faith necessarily requires submission to a common confession. Anyone who is unified with a church is submitting to a confession of some kind. Many times the confession is unstated and reads "you believe what you want, and I will believe what I want, and we will call each other Christians." But, really, what kind of unity is that?

There is a good article by Rich L. here on the board somewhere, but I can't find it.
 
KMK said:
Vladimir said:
Let me advise against 'submitting to authority', though.
Click to expand...

Heb 13:17 Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.
Click to expand...
Eph 4:11-13 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; *12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: *13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith...
Click to expand...

There is nothing wrong with saying, "I don't know, therefore, I submit to the teaching of my elders who have proven themselves to be faithful in the past." If, time and time again, the Reformed confessions prove themselves to be a faithful summary of biblical doctrine, then what is wrong with submitting to them in areas where you are ignorant? Just because they are all dead doesn't mean they aren't 'pastors and teachers'.

Unity in the faith necessarily requires submission to a common confession. Anyone who is unified with a church is submitting to a confession of some kind. Many times the confession is unstated and reads "you believe what you want, and I will believe what I want, and we will call each other Christians." But, really, what kind of unity is that?

There is a good article by Rich L. here on the board somewhere, but I can't find it.
Click to expand...
:agree:

Also, I started searching for a link to the article you mentioned but the link I found is dead (ERROR)
If you find it please share!!!
 
Vladimir mentioned Robert Shaw's exposition of the Westminster Confession. That work serves both purposes needed here: It begins with an excellent treatment of the history of the Church confessing the faith, along with the reasoning and importance of doing so, and then the work itself is a Scriptural explanation of the chapters of the confession. It is available online. It is an excellent starting point for further study once one has already read the Standards along with the Scripture proofs. From there you can branch out into whatever specific areas strike your interest. Shaw does not give an exhaustive treatment -- just an excellent overview.
 
Regardless of whether you subscribe to the Westminster Standards, the Three Forms of Unity, the London Baptist Confession of Faith, the Thirty Nine Articles (Anglican), or the Book of Concord (Lutheran), it is my opinion that the WCF is the finest confession ever written. After completing a doctoral seminar on the Westminster, my admiration for it has grown immensely.

Here are some resources:

Authentic Christianity : An Exposition of the theology and the Ethics of the Westminster Larger Catechism Vol 1-5, Joseph C. Morecraft
Commentary on the WCF, A - A. Hodge (Hodge, A.A.)
Exposition of the WCF, An - R. Shaw (Shaw, Robert)
Guide to the WCF, A - J. Gerstner (Gerstner, John; Kelly, Douglas; Rollinson, Philip)
Notes on the WCF - J. Macpherson (Macpherson, John)
Presbyterian Standards, The (Beattie, Francis R.)
The Westminster Assembly: Reading Its Theology in Historical Context (Westminster Assembly and the Reformed Faith), Robert Letham
The Westminster Confession Into the 21st Century, Volume I-III, J. Ligon Duncan
Theology of the Shorter Catechism - A. Hodge (Hodge, A. A.; Hodge, J. Aspinwall)
Truths We Confess: A Layman's Guide to the Westminster Confession of Faith, 3 Vols., R.C. Sproul
Westminster Confession of Faith (1646) (Author Not Specified)
Westminster Confession Of Faith Study Book: A Study Guide for Churches Joseph A. Pipa, Jr.
Westminster Larger and Smaller Catechisms (Author Not Specified)
 
I subscribe to the LBC1689. I'm not posting this to go against WCF. I simply like the idea of a written confession for stating what I may make a incomplete or indirect presentation of. When people come at me with caricatures of what they think I believe in, it is often quite effective to hand them a copy, or in this age provide a link, and let them see for themselves what I hold to. After the confession sets down the groundwork, more profitable discussion can follow.
 
 
Hey guys!
I greatly appreciate all the input! I have so much to start off with now:) I own the Robert Shaw exposition and the Williams study guide on the WCF.
God Bless
 
KMK said:
Vladimir said:
Let me advise against 'submitting to authority', though.
Click to expand...

Heb 13:17 Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.
Click to expand...
Eph 4:11-13 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; *12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: *13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith...
Click to expand...

There is nothing wrong with saying, "I don't know, therefore, I submit to the teaching of my elders who have proven themselves to be faithful in the past." If, time and time again, the Reformed confessions prove themselves to be a faithful summary of biblical doctrine, then what is wrong with submitting to them in areas where you are ignorant? Just because they are all dead doesn't mean they aren't 'pastors and teachers'.

Unity in the faith necessarily requires submission to a common confession. Anyone who is unified with a church is submitting to a confession of some kind. Many times the confession is unstated and reads "you believe what you want, and I will believe what I want, and we will call each other Christians." But, really, what kind of unity is that?

There is a good article by Rich L. here on the board somewhere, but I can't find it.
Click to expand...

I am also guilty of this, but I do not think that you should agree with a statement you have not researched firsthand just because of the authority of the authors.
Puritans were supposed to write their own confessions as part of their scriptural training. I think that unity happens when you have your own confession down and it happens to align with another's, not when you don't have your own yet and take someone else's instead.
 
Last edited:
Vladimir said:
I am also guilty of this, but I do not think that you should agree with a statement you have not researched firsthand just because of the authority of the authors.
Puritans were supposed to write their own confessions as part of their scriptural training. I think that unity happens when you have your own confession down and it happens to align with another's, not because you don't have your own yet and take someone else's instead.
Click to expand...

We do this every day, sometimes without consciously thinking about it, on any number of issues.

We take the word of doctors who diagnose our illnesses and prescribe medication on their authority as a doctor. We take the word of mechanics who figure out what's wrong with our car. We take the word of inspectors who check the safety of our house before we buy it.

This doesn't mean that these authorities are always correct - sometimes they're very wrong indeed - but few people would refuse to believe a doctor's expert diagnosis until they have studied the matter out themselves and agree with it. Certainly it's wise to study the matter out yourself, and sometimes get a second opinion, but as a general rule it's logical and natural to trust the expert in his field until you can do the research to verify it yourself.
 
Skyler said:
We do this every day, sometimes without consciously thinking about it, on any number of issues.

We take the word of doctors who diagnose our illnesses and prescribe medication on their authority as a doctor. We take the word of mechanics who figure out what's wrong with our car. We take the word of inspectors who check the safety of our house before we buy it.

This doesn't mean that these authorities are always correct - sometimes they're very wrong indeed - but few people would refuse to believe a doctor's expert diagnosis until they have studied the matter out themselves and agree with it. Certainly it's wise to study the matter out yourself, and sometimes get a second opinion, but as a general rule it's logical and natural to trust the expert in his field until you can do the research to verify it yourself.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, brother.
 
I believe nothing essential about divine truth is omitted in the WCF

I am as many know an ex catholic and a convert to the Reformed faith and I am now a Presbyterian. For me the Westminster Confession of Faith allowed me to obtain what we Reformed protestants believe and I think it is a clear and systematic conception of sacred truth, both as a whole, and with all its parts so arranged as to display their relative importance, and their mutual bearing upon, and illustration of, each other. I use the WCF as my main source and guide as a Presbyterian. I think the WCF fortifies the mind against the danger of being led astray by crude notions, as Roman Catholicism has which or induced to attribute undue importance to some doctrine, to the disparagement of others not less essential, and with serious injury to the harmonious analogy of faith.

I firmly subscribe to the WCF and I think the best commentary on the WCF that I know of is a study guide, “The Westminster Confession of Faith: For Study Classes” with questions through each chapter. Williamson is thorough without losing you along the way. I am told many Presbyterian seminarians use this book to help study for their ordination exams. For me, it allowed me to understand basic reformed theological concepts as outlined in the WCF.

The first thing which struck me about the WCF after a careful and studious reading of the Westminster Assembly's Confession of Faith, is the remarkable comprehensiveness and accuracy of its spirit. I view the WCF as a systematic exhibition of divine truth, or what some might say is a system of theology. I think in that respect it is it may be regarded as almost perfect, both in its arrangement and in its completeness. Even at a glance over its table of contents you can see the exquisite skill in it’s arrangement. All its statements, I think, progress from the statement of first principles to the regular development and final consummation of the whole scheme of revealed truth. I believe nothing essential about divine truth and what we believe a Reformed protestants is omitted.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

ccravens
  • Locked
Westminister SC
Replies
24
Views
4K
Edward
Edward
apaleífo̱
  • Locked
Citation for Westminister Catechism
Replies
2
Views
5K
apaleífo̱
apaleífo̱
Southern Presbyterian
  • Locked
"The Westminster Confession..."
Replies
4
Views
3K
Southern Presbyterian
Southern Presbyterian
Presbyterian Deacon
  • Locked
The Scot's Confession
Replies
7
Views
5K
N. Eshelman
N. Eshelman
Me Died Blue
  • Locked
The Gallican Confession
Replies
3
Views
5K
Arch2k
A
Back
Top