I am researching *substantiated references to statements from Presbyterian Denominations* ; I am not seeking 'biblical responses' or individual opinions. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Many Presbyterian Denominations uphold the Westminster Confession and other 'statements of faith' which follow on from it. As a result, many promote the law as being the 'rule of life' for the Christian believer. But this does not appear to me to be what Paul the apostle is advocating in Galatians 5:22-25. > But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance: ***against such there is no law***. And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. If we live in the Spirit, let us also ***walk in the Spirit***. [Galatians 5:22-25 KJV] Paul, here, states that Christian believers have 'crucified the flesh'. Clearly this is a spiritual matter not a physical one. *Their faith aligns them with Christ.* Thus, as Paul says in another place, God ... hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;) and hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus, Ephesians 2:5,6. These things are not physical, but spiritual and a *matter of believing.* Thus, if their flesh is crucified (by faith in Christ) the law is no longer held before them. ***For the law has nothing to say to someone who is dead.*** The law has seen a just conclusion to sin, in that death. >For he that is dead is freed from sin. [Romans 6:7 KJV] Rather, in his epistle to the churches of Galatia, Paul points the Galatian believers to the working of the indwelling Spirit (not to an external rule of law). And he emphasises that the workings of the Holy Spirit produce in them : love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance. If such is within them, says Paul, there is no law that will condemn them. Against such, he says, there is no law. As he says in yet another place : >There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. [Romans 8:1,2 KJV] Or, if I remove the translated English ambiguity from the Greek text, and then translate the Greek word, *nomos*, with another one of the legitimate English word translations : >... the rule of the Spirit (of life in Christ Jesus) hath made me free from the rule of sin and death. What do Presbyterian Denominations say in regard to Galatians 5:22-25 to support their idea that the law is the 'rule of life' for the believer ? --------------------------------- EXTRACTS from the Westminster Confession, Chapter 19 : - The moral law doth **forever [sic] bind all**, as well justified persons [sic] as others , to the obedience thereof. - Although true believers be not under the law as a covenant of works, to be thereby justified or condemned; yet is it of great use to them, as well as to others; in that, **as a rule of life,** informing them of the will of God and their duty, it directs and binds them to walk accordingly ... - ... and **the threatenings of it** serve to show what even their sins deserve, and what afflictions in this life they may expect for them, Westminster Confession - Chapter 19 --------------------------------------------------------------- All scriptural quotes and references are to the KJV and the Received Text.

After the reforms of the 16th century, the Scots Confession served as the primary confession for the Church of Scotland for just over 80 years. In 1648 it was replaced by the The Humble Advice of the Assembly of Divines , a later revision of which is widely known as the Westminster Confession of Faith and is still used today in many Protestant denominations. Meanwhile I don't hear much about the Scots Confession. I'm curious what changes switching to the Westminster Confession brought over the Scots Confession of the previous century. According to what the Westminster divines set out in the WCF, on what points would the Scots confession have been considered either incomplete, not clear, or outright wrong?

Many denominations affirm the doctrine of the [real presence of Christ in communion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_presence_of_Christ_in_the_Eucharist) , that in the communion Christ is in some sense really present in a way that is distinct from his general presence in the world and the church. In contrast, [memorialism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memorialism) is the position that communion is a purely symbolic act of remembrance, such that Christ is not present any more than usual. Different denominations have different versions of the doctrine of real presence. The Westminster Confession explains the Reformed Protestant version of real presence as follows: > WCF 29.7: 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. This seems to me to be quite a measured statement: far from the doctrines of trans/con-substantiation, and emphasising that the benefits of Christ's death are only received by faith. So do memorialists actually oppose this version of real presence, as explained in the Westminster Confession? If so, what exegetical or theological arguments lead them to reject it?

I'm really trying to study the topic of election versus free will. A common theme supporting election is the difference between a general call and an effectual call. But there seems to be no differentiation in the original Greek between one call and another. For example, Matt 22:14 is often cited as a general call. Romans 1:6 is an effectual call. But both verses use the same Greek word for "call" (*κλητοὶ*, *klētoi*). I was hoping that the two theological terms would be based on distinct Greek words, similar to how various meanings of "love" are associated with five different Greek words (*agape*, *eros*, *philia*, etc). My question: who is deciding which verses refer to general vs. effectual? The term was coined by the Westminster Confession of Faith in 1647. But other than that, **is there an objective vs. subjective translation/language standard to which we can scrutinize these verses**? Words matter and I **always** go back to Greek/Hebrew when studying. There are literally tons of examples if you just search your concordance or lexicon for "called."

Some Protestants adhere to the Westminster Confession of faith. This quotation "our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts." How does the Holy Spirit bear witness to our hearts the infallible truth and divine authority of the Bible? How would one describe and discern that experience? How would one experience such a witness? Thank you.

To clarify what I mean by *private revelations*, I'm referring to revelations by God through extra-biblical means, such as prophecies, dreams, and visions. Is the Westminster Confession's doctrine of *Sola Scriptura* incompatible with a continuationist view on private revelations? Some appear to think that the two are incompatible. For example, [Mike Riccardi writing at The Cripple Gate](https://thecripplegate.com/strange-fire-the-puritan-commitment-to-sola-scriptura-steve-lawson/) affirms: > Think of a magnificent, ancient temple and a foundation upon which everything rests. That’s *sola Scriptura*. Everything that we believe, obey, embrace, and hold dear in the convictions of our soul is based upon this foundation of *sola Scriptura*. Rome said, “We accept Scripture, but it is Scripture *and*. Scripture *and* church tradition; Scripture *and* ecclesiastical hierarchies; Scripture *and* the church councils; Scripture *and* papal authority. And the Reformers said, coming back to the Bible, “No, it is *sola Scriptura*: Scripture alone.” And if anything else is added to the foundation of the church, there will be cracks in the foundation and it will not hold up the teaching and the preaching of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. **At the same time, they said no to the Anabaptists and the libertines who wanted to add their dreams and visions and new revelations. They said no; it is Scripture *alone***. > > ... > > And what I want you to note is in [WCF] chapter 1 section 1, **they begin with a statement on the cessation of any new revelation. They were determined to state that they will believe only the Bible**. So please note, in the first section of chapter 1, they saw it necessary for the preserving and propagating of truth that would make the Holy Scripture to be most necessary. In other words, it has to be written down, so the message would be preserved and propagated far and wide with a uniformity of statement. > > **“Those former ways of God’s revealing His will unto His people being *now ceased*.”** This is front-loaded at the very outset. No wiggle room. These Puritan divines who gathered perhaps the greatest generation of believers in the UK, began with this cessationist statement. > > ... > > In the sixth section [WCF 1.6], we read of its sufficiency. **“The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life is in Scripture.” No need to look anywhere else. No need to have anything else added. No appendices needed**. They affirm the Scriptures that I have already read to you, that all things necessary for salvation and sanctification, for the glory of God is found in our Bible. In this sixth section also is another cessationist statement: **“Nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit or traditions of men.”** Do not be bringing your “Thus says the Lord” into this house if it’s not found in chapter and verse. > > ... > > Number 10 [WCF 1.10] is a final summation of the authority of the Scripture. “The supreme judge by which all controversies are to be determined and…examined…can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.” **Not speaking in your revelations, in your dreams and visions, in your tongues. Speaking in the Scripture *alone*.** And the Word of God will be the highest arbitrator in all matters in the life of the church. > > ... > > ### Sola Scriptura: Deluded by the Quakers > > Whenever God opens the windows of heaven to bless his people, the devil opens the gates of hell to blast. While the Puritans were meeting in Westminster in the 1640s, at exactly that same time virtually across town, the devil was doing his work. There arose a fringe group that would come to be known as the Quakers, also known as the Religious Society of Friends. **They claimed to be receiving new revelations, prophecies. And with that they were being led astray into hyper-emotionalism and mysticism**. > > ... > > And out of this commitment to be “open and uncautious” to **continuing revelation by the Spirit, they were led into all kinds of mystical experiences and bizarre patterns**, not the least of which was going naked as a sign. > > He was the person al chaplain to Oliver Cromwell. John Owen Addressed Parliament. This brilliant man gave himself to **combat this Charismatic emotional departure from *sola Scriptura* with its new revelations**. And Owen affirmed the deeper issue, which was *sola Scriptura*. --- I got the inspiration to ask this question from: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/101344/61679 https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/101366/61679

The Westminster Confession says the following: > [WCF 1.8](https://www.presbyterian.org.au/index.php/index-for-wcf/chapter-1-holy-scripture) : The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and **by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages**, are therefore authentical; Robert Estienne's [*Editio Regia*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Editio_Regia) , the first edition of the Greek New Testament with a critical apparatus, had been published almost a century before the Westminster Assembly. By that time it would have been well known across Europe that there were substantial variants in Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. What did the Westminster divines (ie, theologians attending the assembly) mean by saying that the New Testament has been "kept pure" by God? Does this phrase express a rejection of the task of textual criticism? If so, what was the text that they considered to have been "kept pure", and what did they make of all the variants?

Chapter I, Article IV of the Westminster Confession (1647) reads: >The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God. This is very similar to Article I in the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (1978): >WE AFFIRM that the Holy Scriptures are to be received as the authoritative Word of God. > >WE DENY that the Scriptures receive their authority from the Church, tradition, or any other human source. But nowhere does Scripture define its own composition. Would not some extra-Biblical source or sources have to be credited here as a relevant "testimony of man or Church" upon which the authority of Scripture itself must somehow depend? Such sources would include Church Fathers, Church councils, consensus within one's denomination or branch, trust in the Bible publisher(s), or, at the very least, personal belief or intuition. Is this a valid point? Has it ever been addressed by those who hold to the Westminster Confession? If so, how is it addressed?

[Samuel Rutherford](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Rutherford) was an important 17th-century Presbyterian theologian who had significant influence in the drafting of the Westminster Standards, still widely used as a part of the constitutions of many Presbyterian denominations. Recently, during deliberations on marriage in my denomination, a speaker raised the point that Samuel Rutherford and others did not believe that Christian pastors should preside over weddings – that instead, it was the civil magistrate's role to marry people. However, I haven't been able to find evidence that Rutherford believed this. I looked in his *Lex, Rex*, but a cursory search didn't turn up anything. I found a bit of background in J. V. Fesko's *Theology of the Westminster Standards*, which says: > In their deliberations over the creation of the [*Directory for the Public Worship of God*] some divines argued that marriage is merely a “civil contract,” but others, such as Rutherford, believed there is something divine about marriage, but did not regard it as formally part of worship. This doesn't shed much light on the specific question of the Rutherford's view of the role of Christian ministers, however, and Fesko doesn't cite his source on this particular point. What was Rutherford's position on the role of ministers in marriage, and where does he comment on this issue?

**Q: Do Arminian Protestants agree with Chapter 3 Article 1 of the [Westminster Confession of Faith](http://files1.wts.edu/uploads/pdf/about/WCF_30.pdf)?** We read: > CHAPTER 3 - Of God’s Eternal Decree > > 1. **God**, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass: ***yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin***, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established. **The scriptures they use are:** > **[****65****]** (Ephesians 1:11, Romans 11:33, Hebrews 6:17, Romans 9:15, 18) > > ****: (James 1:13, 17, 1 John 1:5) > > ****: (Acts 2:23, Matthew 17:12, Acts 4:27-28, John 19:11, Proverbs 16:33) Do Arminian Protestants find the exegesis of this confession accurate? Why or why not?

As someone who generally affirms the Westminster Confession of Faith, one comment I hear periodically is that I therefore must believe that the Pope is the Antichrist. However, the Confession published by my denomination (the [PCA](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presbyterian_Church_in_America)) does not say anything like that. It does, however, include the following note: > This text of the Westminster Confession of Faith is that adopted by the Orthodox Presbyterian Church in 1936 and by the Presbyterian Church in America in 1973. It is derived from a 1646 manuscript edited by S. W. Carruthers and incorporates revisions adoped by American Presbyterian churches as early as 1789. So apparently the "Westminster" Confession of Faith I subscribe to is not exactly the same as the one written by Westminster Divines in the 1640s. This is a bit disconcerting, as I [recently argued](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/52589/21576) that Reformed theologians would never simply "update" the Confession if they suddenly changed their minds regarding some core doctrine. My question, then, is: **what is an overview of the changes made by American Presbyterians to the Westminster Confession of Faith up to 1936?** Put another way, what are the several most significant edits to the WCF made by the large/longstanding Presbyterian denominations in the United States, up to and including any changes made by the Orthodox Presbyterian Church in 1936? ---- In case it's not clear, this means no [Savoy Declaration](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savoy_Declaration) , even though it was adopted by Americans (they were congregationalists, not presbyterians), no [Philadelphia Confession](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1689_Baptist_Confession_of_Faith) (Baptists), and no explanatory notes (a la the "Testimony" of the RPCNA). Similarly, no mere spelling or grammar fixes, or even "modernizations" or other wording tweaks that generally preserve the original meaning.

The doctrine of the clarity of Scripture (often called the perspicuity of Scripture) is a Protestant Christian position teaching that > "...those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and > observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some > place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the > unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a > sufficient understanding of them". Westminster Confession of Faith According to denominations which hold to the doctrine of the clarity of scripture, is Trinitarianism something which is necessary to be known and believed for salvation, and therefore clearly propounded and opened such that not only the learned, but the unlearned may attain to a sufficient understanding of them?

In American Presbyterianism and Reformed theology more generally, one of the controversial issues has been the fate of children dying in infancy. The Westminster Confession of Faith reads: > Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ ([10.3](https://www.opc.org/wcf.html#Chapter_10)) The Confession thus leaves open the possibility that *some* infants are not elect and therefore not saved, and [historically this has incited significant debate](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/52703/21576) . In 1903 the PCUSA adopted a [declaratory statement](http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds3.vi.ii.iii.html) affirming universal salvation of those dying in infancy, against the opposition of "old school" theologians like B. B. Warfield. But Warfield only opposed making the position a confessional standard; personally he actually agreed with it: > For myself, I believe with all my heart that all dying in infancy are saved, and I believe that I can prove it from Scripture. (["Does the Confession Need Revision?" II](https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_the_Revision_of_the_Confession_of_Faith/3#55)) To me this view seems problematic because Reformed theology typically holds that adults who never hear the gospel are unsaved. So universal salvation of deceased infants would mean that some of the children of these adults go to heaven, despite neither the infants nor the adults ever having the opportunity to hear the gospel. Why do Reformed theologians think they would be treated differently? Other questions here deal generally with the question of infant salvation, so I'll be very specific here: - According to Reformed theologians, what is the biblical basis for the idea that all those who die in infancy are saved? - Reformed theologians could include the Presbyterian opponents of Warfield, but I'm most interested in the arguments made by conservatives like Warfield. - I'm looking for biblical basis. Saying "it wouldn't be fair" isn't going to cut it, unless the Bible is used to make this argument by these Reformed theologians. - I'm not interested in the basis for *some* dying infants being saved – I want to know the basis for *all* dying infants being saved. - I'm not interested in the "how" – whether dying infants have faith or not is not relevant; only that they are saved. ---- **Related questions** (and why they aren't duplicates): - [What do Protestant churches teach about the fate of deceased infants?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/50090/21576) - This is an overview question, not a biblical basis question. - [How is the view of guaranteed salvation for infants justified?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/32018/21576) - Similar, but is wider in scope, allowing for non-biblical and non-Reformed answers. For example, the conclusion of the [accepted answer](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/32040/21576) is extremely questionable from a Reformed perspective. - [What is the Biblical basis for asserting that infants can have faith in Christ under a Calvinistic framework?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/14138/21576) - Similar, but two key differences: (1) there is a difference between infants *having faith* vs. simply *being saved* (my question is more general in this sense) and (2) my question refers to the idea of *all infants* being saved, while this question does not address that point.

The reformed, *Westminster Confession of faith*, reads in chapter three : > God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His > own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass Does *foreordained* mean God wanted certain historical evils like wars to happen? And that there is nothing *we could have done*, for those events not to happen, since God, *from all eternity*, willed them?

Ch3 of the W.C.of F. says "neither is God the author of sin". One can make something which is entirely different from oneself. e.g. if someone makes a cake they do not become a cake themselves. If God had a holy motive why Jesus alone should fulfil the Law {total obedience} then God might have a holy motive to withhold from man the grace to obey His Law/command. I can find no place where the writers of the W.C.of F. tried to justify the statement "neither is God the author of sin". Did they ever try to justify it?

This question is directed at those who subscribe to the Westminster Standards, particularly Westminster Larger Catechism 109, which reads: > The sins forbidden in the second commandment are [...] the making any representation of God, of all or of any of the three persons, either inwardly in our mind, or outwardly in any kind of image or likeness of any creature whatsoever ([Westminster Larger Catechism, Answer 109](http://opc.org/lc.html)) This language is usually understood to forbid any artwork that attempts to represent Jesus, even simple drawings or sculptures. But it seems as though the language of the catechism should be applied even more strictly. Couldn't the bread and wine used in the celebration of the Lord's Supper be considered a "representation of God," particularly given the language of the Westminster Confession of Faith, 29.5? > The outward elements in this sacrament [...] [represent] the body and blood of Christ. ([WCF 29](https://www.opc.org/wcf.html#Chapter_29)) One counterargument is that the elements only represent Christ's *human body*, not his *human-divine person*. But the same could be said of a stone in a manger scene or a line drawing in a children's book, and these are seen as forbidden by WLC 109. How do those who strictly hold to WLC 109 deal with the apparent conflict or tension with use of bread and wine in the observance of communion? ---- For general argumentation in defense of the principles found in WLC 109, see [Why do some Christians object to images of Jesus?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/45469/21576)

In the Westminster Confession of Faith, [Chapter XXV](https://reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/ch_XXV.html) , article 6, we read: >There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ. Nor can the Pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalts himself, in the Church, against Christ and all that is called God. There is also [this document](http://archive.churchsociety.org/publications/tracts/CAT429_Anglican-Rome.pdf) which goes through the wording of several Anglican theologians, leaders, and government officials, arguing precisely that same thing (and thus arguing against any effort of collaboration). The documents states: >If the English Reformers are to be believed, and the official language of the Church of England for a couple of generations at least after the Reformation is to be accepted, the Church of Rome is the Apocalyptic “Babylon the Great ,” and the Pope that “Man of Sin” delineated by the Apostle, as one of the manifestations of Anti-Christ. Thus, is the above article of faith in effect stating that, for the Anglican church, the Pope is the Antichrist? Is this thus official doctrine?

In the original version of the [Westminster Standards](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westminster_Standards) , a highly regarded Protestant doctrinal statement, there's a line that is particularly famous: > There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ. **Nor can the Pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof; but is that Antichrist**, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalts himself, in the Church, against Christ and all that is called God. ([Confession, 25.6](https://reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/)) However, in my experience in churches holding to the Westminster Standards, baptisms performed by Roman Catholics are normally considered valid. That is, if an adult seeking entry into a Presbyterian church was baptized as an infant by a Roman Catholic priest, he will not be "baptized again" – his RC baptism is considered valid. But it seems unlikely that this was the view of the Westminster Divines, given their view of the pope. So, I wonder: **did the authors of the Westminster Confession regard Roman Catholic baptisms as valid?** If yes, they apparently believed that (1) the pope is the Antichrist and yet (2) those voluntarily aligned with him and under his authority (RC priests) can perform valid baptisms. How is this apparent contradiction explained? Another possible explanation is that they *didn't* accept Roman Catholic baptisms, but as later generations [became less willing to accept the "Pope is Antichrist" statement](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/52703/21576) , it has become more common in today's Reformed churches to accept RC baptisms. What did the Westminster Divines think about the validity of Roman Catholic baptisms? How was that view informed by their view of the papacy?

It was very necessary for the early church to stand against doctrinal errors, such as Arianism and Sabellianism but, in the doing so, some chose to state a creed (the Athanasian Creed), rather than simply make reference to original scripture and it could be argued that the Athanasian Creed came to be regarded as 'scripture'. Since the seventeenth century the Westminster Confession (and in its other forms, the Savoy Declaration and similar) has become the so-called 'subordinate standard' by which serious Christians (who acknowledge doctrinal issues and acknowledge the necessity of taking a stand on them) state their doctrine. But is it the case, over the past few centuries, that the Westminster Confession has, in fact, become 'The Standard' and that the scripture has been relegated to a subordinate place ? The Free Presbyterian website argues : >When a Confession corresponds to Scripture as an account of the Church’s understanding of what the truth of God is, it is quite out of place to suggest that **requiring allegiance to the Confession** is interfering with allegiance to the Word of God. For those who recognise the authority of God’s Word as the revelation of His will in every matter, a Confession of Faith is not a substitute for Scripture but **a necessary expression and summary of what Scripture teaches**. FP Church.org The Free Church of Scotland states : >Ever since the earliest days of the church, Christians have laid out their beliefs in brief ‘creeds’ or ’confessions’ in an attempt to summarise essential Christian truths and to guard the church from error. These statements are always secondary to the Bible but they are enormously helpful. **A full summary of our teaching** is found in the Westminster Confession of Faith. Free Church of Scotland.org The Church of Scotland goes even further : >The full Confession of Faith was agreed upon by the Assembly of Divines at Westminster and examined and approved in 1647 by the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland and **ratified by Acts of Parliament in 1649 and 1690.** Church of Scotland.org Note the word "ratified"...[OED *'To confirm or validate (an act, agreement, gift, etc.) by giving formal consent, approval, or **sanction**.'*] ---------------------------------------------------- So the first *requires my 'allegiance'* to the WC. The second say that '*a full summary of their teaching* is within it' (thus, they have not added to their teaching for three hundred and seventy years). And the third advise me that the British Government *have 'ratified' it.* Has, indeed, the Westminster Confession been accepted as 'The Standard' in the Protestant assemblies, to which the text of scripture must take a subordinate place ?

The former is based on the latter, being drawn up by a special Assembly convened in London in 1643, to be a Catechism for the Christian Church in England, Scotland and Ireland. It was adopted by the (Presbyterian) Church of Scotland in 1648 as a means of Christian instruction. Here is how a 1981 Presbyterian Church of Australia words question and answer No. 1 – > “What is the chief purpose for which man is made? The chief purpose > for which man is made is to glorify God, and to enjoy him for ever. > Scripture: 1 Cor 10:31; Rom 11:36; Ps 73:24-26; John 17:22, 24; Rev > 7:17.” Yet in “The Westminster Confession of Faith for Study Classes”, the first declaration is all about God revealing himself through his works of creation and providence, but primarily through written Scripture, so to declare his will to the Church as his former ways of revealing his will to his people have ceased (Heb 1:1-2). The Shorter Catechism No. 2 appears to make the link: > “What rule has God given to direct us how to glorify and enjoy him? > The Word of God, which consists of the Scriptures of the Old and New > Testaments, is the only rule to direct us how to glorify and enjoy > him. Scripture: Gal 1:8-9; Isa 8:20; Luke 16:29-31; 2 Tim 3:15-17.” The Westminster Confession of Faith 1.6 opens up with, > “The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own > glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down > in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from > Scripture…”. Yet, ironically, the previous Study Class question is asked, “How do Protestants sometimes subordinate the authority of Scripture to men?” and I wonder if the first Shorter Catechism exemplifies this fault. Thus my question is, why would man be made the object of the first question, not God and his written word? Is there something intrinsically wrong with the first Shorter Catechism question and answer?