Christian: Is the 1646 Westminster Confession Scripture?

haha - his mind should be able to "get around" the stuff that he makes up.

Fundamentalism is a modern movement.

And

It is not the standard for Christian Orthodoxy, which goes back to the apostolic times.

outhouse said:

scripture is full of proven lies what are you talking about? oh wait, i know, you will go against what jesus said and try and seperate the old law from the new.

Click to expand...

It's worse, IMHO, when the reader of Scripture is full of lies.

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...

Fundamentalism is belief in the fundamentals of the NT:

1) the expiration (God-breathed) and infallibility of Scripture
2) deity of Christ
3) his virgin birth and miracles
4) his penal death for our sin
5) his physical resurrection and personal return

Fundamentalism is normative orthodox Reformed Christian theology, and goes all the way back to the apostles.

It's so sad that the Pied Piper thinks it is insignificant, dead, useless and worthless, here ---> http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2359462-post1474.html.

And because it is 100% Biblical, that means to him the Word of God written is likewise insignificant, dead, useless and worthless. . .sad. . .so sad. . .
and for one who calls himself a Biblical "scholar". . .it's just so sad. . .my mind can hardly get around it.

*17th shot*

outhouse said:

i can honestly state if people interpreted the bible correctly I would have no issue with it at all.

Click to expand...

Why do you care how others interpret it if you have no issue with it yourself?

outhouse said:

because people who choose to interpret it literally drag down humanity trying to push lies off to everyone else.

Click to expand...

Drag down humanity? How about law breaking. . .from drugs. . .to theft. . .to vandalism. . .to murder. . .to rape. . .to fraud. . .to child molestation. . .to adultery. . .to lying. . .to kidnapping. . .do these drag down humanity as much as interpreting Scripture literally?

peole like you jack it up so bad you can't even find someone who thinks about it the same way.

Click to expand...

Your information is sorely lacking. . .I am sometimes among thousands of them.
Do you get as upset about the literal interpretation of other works that you think are allegorical, say Alice in Wonderland?

angellous_evangellous said:

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

Click to expand...

Obviously, I don't, but I do remember having a debate with a poster some time ago by the name of Fish Hunter. You may remember him. He was particularly anti-Mormon and insisted that any discussion between the two of us be limited strictly to debating "the scriptures." He frequently referred to the Westminster Confession of Faith, right along with the Bible. It seems to me that most Christians consider the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds to be scripture. They may not call then scripture, but they sure like to use them to defend "what real Christians believe."

outhouse said:

are you trying to tell me christians are following some wording track from 1646

and call this holy, divine, writing???????


am i getting this right????

Click to expand...

Well, I don't consider it to be holy or divine by any means, but can you give me one good reason why the date it was written would exclude it? Did God become mute at some point, and suddenly become incapable of speaking? Why couldn't something written in 1646 A.D. be a divine as something written in 75 A.D.? I don't get your logic.

Katzpur said:

Well, I don't consider it to be holy or divine by any means, but can you give me one good reason why the date it was written would exclude it? Did God become mute at some point, and suddenly become incapable of speaking? Why couldn't something written in 1646 A.D. be a divine as something written in 75 A.D.? I don't get your logic.

Click to expand...

The Westminster Confession is not divine. . .but it is the most accurate representation of Scripture outside of Scripture.

Because it is totally Scriptural, it is normative orthodox Reformed Christianity.

smokydot said:

The Westminster Confession is not divine. . .but it is the most accurate representation of Scripture outside of Scripture.

Click to expand...

Based on what?

Because it is totally Scriptural, it is normative orthodox Reformed Christianity.

Click to expand...

I'll have to read it. I never have, to be perfectly honest. All I can say is that if it is totally scriptural and adds nothing to what the scriptures already say (i.e. no concepts that are not already found in the scriptures), it seems to me that it would be superflous. Why would it be needed at all if it is just a repetition of what's found in the scriptures?