• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Christian: Is the 1646 Westminster Confession Scripture?

  • Thread starter angellous_evangellous
  • Start date
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
Christians sometimes get a little confused concerning the difference between their interpretation of Scripture (how they read it) and Scripture itself (the unread text).

By way of example:

smokydot said:
Sad. . .so sad. . .

You traffic in a lot of conjecture, in lieu of factual proof. . .the 1646 Westminster Confession of Faith of orthodox Reformed theology is pure Scripture.
If the Confession is insignificant, useless, dead and worthless, then so is Scripture.

Sad. . .so sad. . .you think normative is your lifetime. . .well, Christianity has been around a tad longer than that. . .your lifetime is not its measure.
Click to expand...

This is the first time I've ever seen a Christian equate a very late confession to Scripture.

Some questions: if it is Scripture, where is it in the canon and why was it written in 1646 rather than in the first and second centuries like the rest of the NT?

Does anyone think that the 1646 Westminster Confession of Faith is "the Word of God written?"
 
Rainbow Mage

Rainbow Mage

Lib Democrat/Agnostic/Epicurean-ish/Buddhist-ish
What exactly does the Westminister Confession say, out of curiosity? Not that I think it's scripture, no of course not.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
Egyptian Phoenix said:
Well a brief looking over of it tells me clearly why a staunch Protestant Bible literalist like smokey dot would want to believe it is scripture. It agrees almost entirely with his theology and the theology of fundamentalism.
Click to expand...

haha - "almost?" If he thinks that it's pure Scripture, then I'd say he agrees with it implicitly and without any critical examination.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
smokydot said:
You just said it was equated to Scritpure.
Now you say it is Scripture.
Your deceptive agenda is showing.
Click to expand...

This is just dishonest. I didn't think that you would do that again.

I have to admit I'm impressed with at the lengths to which you will go to embarrass yourself.

What a shame.
 
S

smokydot

Well-Known Member
angellous_evangellous said:
Christians sometimes get a little confused concerning the difference between their interpretation of Scripture (how they read it) and Scripture itself (the unread text).
By way of example:
This is the first time I've ever seen a Christian equate a very late confession to Scripture.
Some questions: if it is Scripture,
Click to expand...
You just said it was equated to Scritpure.
Now you say it is Scripture.
Your deceptive agenda is showing.

"Jesus wept" is also pure Scripture.
where is it in the canon and why was it written in 1646 rather than in the first and second centuries like the rest of the NT?
Does anyone think that the 1646 Westminster Confession of Faith is "the Word of God written?"
Click to expand...
I hope not. . .that's pretty pathetic, man. . .is that all you've got? . .just pure desperation? . .Q.E.D.

What a lame attempt to earn brownie points. . .
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
smokydot said:
Oops! . .Pied Piper's strategy has failed again. . .this only demonstrates that I stand squarely in the normative classic orthodox Reformed theology
of the Christian church going all the way back to 1646. . .thanks for demonstrating that for me. . .

No wonder the Pied Piper thinks it's not "normative". . .it's before his lifetime. . .where all truth has to originate. . .oy!
Click to expand...

No. It's not normative Christianity.

And whom, pray tell, do you think influences my theology? Are they before or during my lifetime? [I'd be interested to know how my theology translates in your confused mind]

Is it possible that it predates your precious Confession?
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
smokydot said:
You just said it was equated to Scritpure.
Now you say it is Scripture.
Your deceptive agenda is showing.

"Jesus wept" is also pure Scripture.

I hope not. . .that's pretty pathetic, man. . .is that all you've got? . .just pure desperation? . .Q.E.D.

What a lame attempt to earn brownie points. . .
Click to expand...

So the Confession is pure Scripture.
"Jesus wept" is pure Scripture.

That's a pretty clear indication that the Confession is [OR EQUATES TO] Scripture as "Jesus wept" is Scripture.

And with whom exactly am I attempting to earn brownie points??

I wish that I could say this another way: STOP EMBARRASSING YOURSELF. You have set a record - 4 posts without spam - and I appreciate that. But now, resorting again to dishonesty, personal attacks, and really really bad semantic gymnastics.... you're not really conversing with anyone. You're just flaunting your inability to be civil.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
As for brownie points, I believe this was on your mind... note the "inability"...

Muffled said:
Shame on you. Name calling simply reveals an inability to debate rationally. Also I have no need of brownie points. The privilige of serving Jesus is reward enough for me.
Click to expand...
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
smokydot said:
Oops! . .another failed strategy by the manipulating Pied Piper. . .this only demonstrates that I stand squarely in the normative classic orthodox Reformed theology
of the Christian church going all the way back to 1646. . .thanks for demonstrating that for me. . .

No wonder the Pied Piper thinks it's not "normative". . .it's before his lifetime. . .where all truth has to originate. . .oy!
Click to expand...

*6th shot*
 
S

smokydot

Well-Known Member
Egyptian Phoenix said:
Well a brief looking over of it tells me clearly why a staunch Protestant Bible literalist like smokey dot would want to believe it is scripture. It agrees almost entirely with his theology and the theology of fundamentalism.
Click to expand...
Oops! . .another failed strategy by the manipulating Pied Piper. . .this only demonstrates that I stand squarely in the normative classic orthodox Reformed theology
of the Christian church going all the way back to 1646. . .thanks for demonstrating that for me. . .

No wonder the Pied Piper thinks it's not "normative". . .it's before his lifetime. . .where all truth has to originate. . .oy!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top