Problems in the Westminster Confession of Faith

Problems are posed for the Westminster confession of faith. According to Wiki the Westminster confession is the standard confession of faith for the Presbyterian Church, which has been adopted and modified by other denominations.

The Westminster Confession of Faith is a Reformed confession of faith. Drawn up by the 1646 Westminster Assembly as part of the Westminster Standards to be a confession of the Church of England, it became and remains the "subordinate standard" of doctrine in the Church of Scotland and has been influential within Presbyterian churches worldwide.

In 1643, the English Parliament called upon "learned, godly and judicious Divines", to meet at Westminster Abbey in order to provide advice on issues of worship, doctrine, government and discipline of the Church of England. Their meetings, over a period of five years, produced the confession of faith, as well as a Larger Catechism and a Shorter Catechism. For more than three hundred years, various churches around the world have adopted the confession and the catechisms as their standards of doctrine, subordinate to the Bible.

If problems presented below with the confession of faith are unresolvable, the Presbyterian faith is in error.

The Westminster Confession of Faith

Chapter I
Of the Holy Scripture
I. Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men unexcusable;[1] yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of His will, which is necessary unto salvation.[2]Therefore it pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and in divers manners, to reveal Himself, and to declare that His will unto His Church;[3]and afterwards for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the Church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing;[4] which makes the Holy Scripture to be most necessary;[5] those former ways of God's revealing His will unto His people being now ceased.[6]

[3] HEB 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets.

Problem – Heb 1:1 does not restrict divine revelation to scripture alone, but merely states God has spoken through the prophets. How then does one know what was and was not spoken through the prophets if there is no instruction in the scriptures that says what the prophets say is only in scripture?

Problem – According to point 9 below, the infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself. And according to point 10, the supreme judge of all controversies is the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture. So if we assume points 9 and 10 are true, where does the Holy Spirit tell men in scripture that what the prophets said are all recorded, only in the scriptures?

and afterwards for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the Church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing;[4] which makes the Holy Scripture to be most necessary;[5] those former ways of God's revealing His will unto His people being now ceased.[6]

Problem – the will of God is said to be committed wholly to writing, yet the NT states traditions of the apostles are binding on the faithful. How does one know that the will of God is only found in the scriptures when the scriptures as shown below state tradition is binding?

1 Corinthians 11:2 (RSV) . . . maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you. (NRSV, NEB, REB, NKJV, NASB all use “tradition[s]”).

2 Thessalonians 2:15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

2 Thessalonians 3:6: Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us.

Problem – The NT states the gospel was delivered orally by the apostles. How then does the example of the apostles square with the Westminster confessions claim that the oral gospel has ceased?

1 Corinthians 15:1-3 Now I would remind you, brethren, in what terms I preached to you the gospel, which you received, in which you stand, [2] by which you are saved, if you hold it fast — unless you believed in vain. [3] For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures,

1 Thessalonians 2:13 And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers.

Jude 3 . . . contend for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.
(cf. Lk 1:1-2; Rom 6:17; 1 Cor 11:23; Gal 1:9, 12; 2 Pet 2:21)

Problem – If oral traditions have ceased and are no longer binding, why does the NT equate the word of God with traditions that have been delivered and received?

Bible equates tradition with the gospel and other terms such as “word of God,” “doctrine,” “holy commandment,” “faith,” and “things believed among us.” All are “delivered” and “received”:

1) Traditions “delivered” (1 Cor 11:2), “taught . . . by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thes 2:15), and “received” (2 Thes 3:6).
2) The Gospel “preached” and “received” (1 Cor 15:1-2; Gal 1:9, 12; 1 Thes 2:9).
3) Word of God “heard” and “received” (Acts 8:14; 1 Thes 2:13).
4) Doctrine “delivered” (Rom 6:17; cf. Acts 2:42).
5) Holy Commandment “delivered” (2 Pet 2:21; cf. Mt 15:3-9; Mk 7:8-13).
6) The Faith “delivered” (Jude 3).
7) “. . . things which have been accomplished among us” were “delivered” (Lk 1:1-2).

Problem – If oral traditions have ceased and are no longer binding, why doesn’t the NT actually say such?

Problem – If the NT does not actually state or imply that oral traditions have ceased and are no longer binding, doesn’t that mean the Westminster confession is in error on this matter of doctrine?

Problem – St Peter says the oral word of God endures forever? If St Peter is correct, how does his statement square with the Westminster confession that the oral gospel has stopped and does not endure forever?

but the word of the lord endures forever.”
And this is the word which was preached to you.

Problem – St Paul says tradition is binding and is to be passed on to other men. Was St Paul wrong to make such instruction, when the Westminster confession says oral tradition is no longer binding?

2 Timothy 1:13-14 Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus;

[14] guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us.
2 Timothy 2:2 and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.

On the canon of scripture -

II. Under the name of Holy Scripture, or the Word of God written, are now contained all the books of the Old and New Testament, which are these: Of the Old Testament: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, I Samuel, II Samuel, I Kings, II Kings, I Chronicles, II Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, The Song of Songs, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi. Of the New Testament: The Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, The Acts of the Apostles, Paul's Epistles to the Romans, Corinthians I, Corinthians II, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Thessalonians I , Thessalonians II , To Timothy I , To Timothy II, To Titus, To Philemon, The Epistle to the Hebrews, The Epistle of James, The first and second Epistles of Peter, The first, second, and third Epistles of John, The Epistle of Jude, The Revelation of John. All which are given by inspiration of God to be the rule of faith and life.[7]

Problem – The above canon implies the Holy Spirit authored these texts. How does one come to know which books were written by God, when divine authorship of any text is super natural and therefore beyond the ability of men to know?

Problem – According to statement 9, the infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself. Therefore, the canon of scripture as indicated by the books above, itself must be determined by the scripture itself. Such requires that the determination of the canon is self referencing, and therefore illogical.

Problem – If the canon of scripture is not known infallibly, then the canon is a fallible collection of infallible books. Yet such means we do not know any book is infallible, hence the authorship of any book is not known with the certitude required to conclude that God wrote any text in the canon.

Problem – Historically the canon was determined by the Catholic Church. The Presbyterian church came into existence around the time when Henry VIII made himself head of the Church in England. As the Presbyterian church repudiates any authority of the Catholic Church, what is the authority the Presbyterian Church uses to determine the canon of scripture?

Problem – If there is no God given authority outside the text, there is not means to determine the extent of the canon with any God given authority. How does the Presbyterian church determine the extent of the text without such authority?

Problem – If the problems with the canon of scripture are unresolvable why then believe anything within the text, apart from some attachment to human wisdom expressed within the text?

III. The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the canon of the Scripture, and therefore are of no authority in the Church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings.[8]

Problem – How does the Presbyterian communion know the Apocrypha is not inspired when the same communion is unhistorical, and does not have the means to determine what text is inspired?

Problem – The Westminster Confession is a confession of faith. When does scripture teach that God has revealed that the Apocrypha is not inspired?

Problem - The Westminster Confession is a confession of faith. Why confess that some texts are not inspired as part of a confession of faith? Very odd thing to do. Its like saying I believe God did not reveal something and that’s what I believe God wants me to believe. How do I know, when there is no evidence for this non belief within the scriptures?

Problem – The above three problems expose the real agenda behind the Westminster confession of faith, as an expression of Presbyterianism in opposition to the Catholic Church, who does embrace the so called Apocryphal books as scripture. The statement III exposes the hidden intent of the Presbyterian divines, who were only interested in promoting a false form of English Christianity apart from the Church of Rome.

IV. The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, depends 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.[9]

1 TH 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

Problem - Inspiration requires that God is the principle cause and men are secondary, free instrumental causes of the text. The text is written by both God and men, hence must be identified by an authority other than by God alone. For what is authored by man is recognised by man. Hence the scriptures as authored by men must be recognised by a body of men. Yet only that body which has an authority from God to recognise the text as authored by God can truly claim to have any sufficient reason to know the extent of the canon. The Presbyterian claim in point iv above is in error.

Problem - Point IV says the authority of the Holy Scripture does not depend upon the testimony of any man. Yet the OT states the OT canon was from Moses, and the prophets, who were all men. And the chair of Moses (Matt 23:2) was an authority outside the scriptures that had an authority from God apart from the scriptures.

Problem - Point IV says the authority of the Holy Scripture does not depend upon the testimony of any man. Yet Point IV is a testimony of man, so the authority of scripture does not depend upon the testimony of point IV. Hence the authority of scripture does not depend upon any content of point IV. Hence the confession contains a self defeating statement.

Problem - Point IV says the authority of the Holy Scripture does not depend upon the testimony of any man. Yet the scriptures do not state the authority of the Holy Scripture does not depend upon the testimony of any man. Hence the confession contains a statement that is inconsistent with its own assertion that all controversies in matters of religion are determined by the Holy Spirit who has spoken in the scriptures. Hence the confession is in error.

Problem - Point IV says the authority of the Holy Scripture does not depend upon the testimony of any man. But testimony must be given to establish the authority of scripture. If testimony is not given by any men, where does the testimony come from? If it comes only from God, how do we know, if not from the scriptures themselves? If so, such testimony is from God in the scriptures, but not known that the text is authored by God. The denial of any human testimony of the scriptures is very problematic within the confession.

Problem - Point IV says the authority of the Holy Scripture does not depend upon the testimony of any man. So how do men know what was written by God? Did the text fall from heaven? If not, where, when and how in Church history was the canon determined?

Problem - Point IV says the authority of the Holy Scripture does not depend upon the testimony of any man. Yet this statement is contrary to church history that gives witness to church councils that did determine the extent of the canon. Hence the confession contains a statement that is unhistorical. But what is unhistorical is not from God, who is the Lord of history. Hence point IV is contrary to what God has done in history and therefore contrary to Christ as the Lord of history.

Problem - 1 TH 2:13 equates the word of God with oral tradition, but the confession equates the word of God with the scriptures. The confession requires a faith in a proof text that says oral tradition is no longer in existence and hence no longer the word of God. So the confession requires one to believe the inspired word of God is known just as the oral word of God was known, but is now not binding. Hence the word of God in the scriptures is known based upon inconsistent evidence.

Problem – Point IV says “the authority of scripture . . . depends not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself)”, and gives examples from the scriptures of men accepting the word of God. The examples assume the acceptance of the word of God by men in the apostolic age is a testimony of the existence of the word of God. Hence the canon of scripture is dependent upon the testimony of men in the examples given, contrary to the claim in Point IV. Hence the confession is inconsistent with regard to its claims.

Problem - Point IV says “the authority of scripture . . . depends not upon the testimony of any man, or Church”, yet the examples given (1 TH 2:13) show the apostles, who were pillars of the Church and preached the word of God, did give testimony of the word of God as the Church. So the Church in the apostolic age gave witness to the authority of scripture, in an age when the NT was not written. Hence the claim that the authority of scripture is not dependent upon the Church is an error.

IX. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.[23]

Problem – If the infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself, how does the scripture interpret itself when scripture is only a text? Doesn’t the statement the infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself require that the scripture be a person with intellect and will to actually do the interpreting of the text by itself without the need for any human agency?

Problem – If the infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself, where does this doctrine come from when scripture does not say this? 

Problem - If the infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself, where does this doctrine come from when the scriptures does not teach men need go only to the scriptures to find doctrine?

Problem - If the infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself, why then must the scriptures be searched? Are the scriptures searching themselves, or are they being searched by another thing?

Problem – If the infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself, what then is the role of biblical exegesis and the methods used? Are such methods also required to be infallible or not?

Problem – If biblical exegesis is required to understand the text, then such is fallible and open to error. Doesn’t that mean the scriptures are open to error through false exegesis? If so, how does that square with the statement that the scriptures interpret the scriptures?

Problem – “other places that speak more clearly” is a subjective statement, which infers the scriptures are known subjectively by the reader. Yet the principle that the “interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself” excludes subjectivity, for the scriptures as authored by God are always objective.

Problem - “other places that speak more clearly” infers some ambiguity or lack of clarity in some texts. If there is some lack of clarity in some texts, how does one know such texts were written by God when God always acts perfectly? Doesn’t a lack of clarity infer imperfection and mitigate against the inspiration of the text?

X. The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.[24]

Problem – If the supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined is the scriptures, how does the scripture judge the extent of its own content before the content is determined? It cannot, hence point 10 is in error.

Problem – If the supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined is the scriptures, what judgement is to be made about controversies concerning matters not contained within the scriptures, such as IVF, cloning, transgender issues, environmental issues, etc?

Problem - If the supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined is the scriptures, what value is the Westminster confession? Is it binding or not? If not then is point 10 binding or not?

Problem – The scriptures and church history give witness to the Eucharist as a sacrifice. Yet low church Presbyterianism denies this doctrine.

IV. The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, depends 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.[9]

1 TH 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

Problem - Inspiration requires that God is the principle cause and men are secondary, free instrumental causes of the text. The text is written by both God and men, hence must be identified by an authority other than by God alone. For what is authored by man is recognised by man. Hence the scriptures as authored by men must be recognised by a body of men. Yet only that body which has an authority from God to recognise the text as authored by God can truly claim to have any sufficient reason to know the extent of the canon. The Anglican claim in point iv above is in error.

Problem - Point IV says the authority of the Holy Scripture does not depend upon the testimony of any man. Yet the OT states the OT canon was from Moses, and the prophets, who were all men. And the chair of Moses (Matt 23:2) was an authority outside the scriptures that had an authority from God apart from the scriptures. 

Problem - 1 TH 2:13 equates the word of God with oral tradition, but the confession equates the word of God with the scriptures. The confession requires a faith in a proof text that says oral tradition is no longer in existence and hence no longer the word of God. So the confession requires one to believe the inspired word of God is known just as the oral word of God was known, but is now not binding. Hence the word of God in the scriptures is known based upon inconsistent evidence.

Problem – Point IV says “the authority of scripture . . . depends not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself)”, and gives examples from the scriptures of men accepting the word of God. The examples assume the acceptance of the word of God by men in the apostolic age is a testimony of the existence of the word of God. Hence the canon of scripture is dependent upon the testimony of men in the examples given, contrary to the claim in Point IV. Hence the confession is inconsistent with regard to its claims.

Problem - Point IV says “the authority of scripture . . . depends not upon the testimony of any man, or Church”, yet the examples given (1 TH 2:13) show the apostles, who were pillars of the Church and preached the word of God, did give testimony of the word of God as the Church. So the Church in the apostolic age gave witness to the authority of scripture, in an age when the NT was not written. Hence the claim that the authority of scripture is not dependent upon the Church is an error.

IX. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.[23]

Problem – If the infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself, how does the scripture interpret itself when scripture is only a text? Doesn’t the statement the infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself require that the scripture be a person with intellect and will to actually do the interpreting of the text by itself without the need for any human agency?

Problem – If the infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself, where does this doctrine come from when scripture does not say this? 

Problem - If the infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself, where does this doctrine come from when the scriptures does not teach men need go only to the scriptures to find doctrine?

Problem - If the infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself, why then must the scriptures be searched? Are the scriptures searching themselves, or are they being searched by another thing?

Problem – If the infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself, what then is the role of biblical exegesis and the methods used? Are such methods also required to be infallible or not?

Problem – If biblical exegesis is required to understand the text, then such is fallible and open to error. Doesn’t that mean the scriptures are open to error through false exegesis? If so, how does that square with the statement that the scriptures interpret the scriptures?

Problem – “other places that speak more clearly” is a subjective statement, which infers the scriptures are known subjectively by the reader. Yet the principle that the “interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself” excludes subjectivity, for the scriptures as authored by God are always objective.

Problem - “other places that speak more clearly” infers some ambiguity or lack of clarity in some texts. If there is some lack of clarity in some texts, how does one know such texts were written by God when God always acts perfectly? Doesn’t a lack of clarity infer imperfection and mitigate against the inspiration of the text?

X. The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.[24]

Problem – If the supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined is the scriptures, how does the scripture judge the extent of its own content before the content is determined? It cannot, hence point 10 is in error.

Problem – If the supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined is the scriptures, what judgement is to be made about controversies concerning matters not contained within the scriptures, such as IVF, cloning, transgender issues, environmental issues, etc?

Problem - If the supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined is the scriptures, what value is the Westminster confession? Is it binding or not? If not then is point 10 binding or not?

Problem – The Anglican Church teaches the human head of the Anglican Church is the head of state. Where is that office taught in scripture? Nowhere. So we have an example of the Anglican Church run by a person that holds an office within the Church that is not taught in scripture.

Problem – The scriptures and church history give witness to the Eucharist as a sacrifice. Yet low church Anglicanism denies this doctrine.

Problem - The scriptures and church history give witness to the Eucharist as a sacrifice. Yet low church Anglicanism denies this doctrine, contrary to the teaching of high church Anglicanism.

Problem - the Westminster confession is only one of several confessions found in Christendom. What authority does the confession have over other confessions and why have a confession if scripture is clear.

Problem - If a man is justified by faith and the several confessions contradict each other, or differ from each other, how are we to know who is justified, when Christians do not profess the same confession of faith?

V. God does continue to forgive the sins of those that are justified;[14] and although they can never fall from the state of justification,[15] yet they may, by their sins, fall under God's fatherly displeasure, and not have the light of His countenance restored unto them, until they humble themselves, confess their sins, beg pardon, and renew their faith and repentance.[16]

[14] MAT 6:12 And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. 1JO 1:7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 1JO 2:1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: 2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

Problem - According to the Westminster confession of faith, justification is by faith alone, whereby faith alone is the instrument by which Christ’s righteousness is imputed to the sinner. Yet in section V above, God is said to continually forgive he sins of those who are justified. Evidence for this statement is from the Lords prayer, which says “forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors”. Such infers sin is forgiven by God as we forgive others. The Lords prayer is similar to the parable of the unforgiving debtor –

32 Then the king called in the man he had forgiven and said, ‘You evil servant! I forgave you that tremendous debt because you pleaded with me. 33 Shouldn’t you have mercy on your fellow servant, just as I had mercy on you?’ 34 Then the angry king sent the man to prison to be tortured until he had paid his entire debt. 35 “That’s what my heavenly Father will do to you if you refuse to forgive your brothers and sisters[e] from your heart.”

The Father’s forgiveness of sin is dependent upon Christians forgiving the sins of other against them. Yet the Westminster confession of faith teaches that the forgiveness of sin is caused by faith alone. Such means faith is the only ac a Christian must do to procure the forgiveness of sin. But scripture teach the forgiveness of sin comes through the Father forgiving sin as Christians forgive each other of sin. Evidently faith is not he only cause of the forgiveness of sin as taught in the Westminster confession of faith.

A similar problem arises with 1 John 1:9 where forgiveness of sin comes through the confession of sin. Yet the Westminster confession of faith says forgiveness of sin comes through faith alone.

The problems associated with justification by faith alone are multiple. The video entitled - Documentary: Protestantism's Big Justification Lie, is a good resource that exposes the Reformed false doctrine of justification by faith alone.

Some of the problems exposed include –

1) The reformed distinction between justification and regeneration (and consequently sanctification) is a historical novelty. The distinction means justification is a change in status before God and not a change in nature before God. The change in status means justification only causes a forensic declaration by God to the sinner. The declaration that justifies is not transformative in the believer, however sanctification is transformative of the believer. The distinction between justification and regeneration as a historical novelty implies the distinction is merely the invention of men and not the gospel given once for all through Christ and the apostles.

2) The separation of justification and sanctification is clearly taught in the Westminster confession (WC) of faith - I. Those whom God effectually calls, He also freely justifies;[1] 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 alone; nor 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,[2] they receiving and resting on Him and His righteousness by faith; which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God.[3]

Because justification is extrinsic to man, man need not live in a particular way for justification to be maintained. We see this in the WC where it says - [b]V. God does continue to forgive the sins of those that are justified;[14] and although they can never fall from the state of justification,[15] [b]yet they may, by their sins, fall under God's fatherly displeasure, and not have the light of His countenance restored unto them, until they humble themselves, confess their sins, beg pardon, and renew their faith and repentance.[16].

However if justification is an act intrinsic to man, then man must live in a particular way and if he fails to live in a way, without sin, then justification can be lost, contrary to the WC which says “they can never fall from the state of justification”. However, because justification saves men from sin, an act of God that saves men from sin, when intrinsic to man, is an act of justification. If such an intrinsic act of God that saves is found in scripture, then the WC is invalidated.

Titus 3:5 - he saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit, 6 which he poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior,

As baptism saves as through the renewal of the Holy Spirit, justification is in intrinsic act of God. As justification is intrinsic, the WC claims that justification is extrinsic and sin does not affect justification is false. 

John 3:5-6 5 Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

One must be born again to enter the kingdom of God. To enter the kingdom of God is to be saved from the kingdom of sin. To be saved from sin as a rebirth is an intrinsic act which contradicts the WC.

Ephesians 2:5 5 even when we were dead through our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved),

Grace is a cause intrinsic to man that brings Christian life. The intrinsic act of regeneration that saves contradicts the extrinsicism of the WC statement about justification. The WC says the extrinsic act of justification saves men from sin, but Eph 2:5 says the intrinsic act of regeneration acts to save men from sin. The WC is false.

Colossians 2:12-14 12 and you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead. 13 And you, who were dead in trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, 14 having canceled the bond which stood against us with its legal demands; this he set aside, nailing it to the cross.

God made alive and cancelled the bond caused by sin, means baptism makes Christians alive as an intrinsic cause of God’s saving action. Justification which saves is not the extrinsic act which saves as taught by the WC.

Matthew 19:16-17 16 ¶ And behold, one came up to him, saying, "Teacher, what good deed must I do, to have eternal life?" 17 And he said to him, "Why do you ask me about what is good? One there is who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments."

To have eternal life requires man keep the commandments. Such is contrary to the WC which teaches men need not keep the commandments to have justification and eternal life.

3) A false understanding of works of the law. The reformers taught works of the law refer to all human works, as opposed to faith that are not required for salvation. Yet works of the law really only mean works of the Mosaic covenant, such as circumcision, the dietary laws and not keeping the commandments as Protestants teach. For Protestantism to be correct in its understanding of works of the law, the commandments are not required to have eternal life. Yet the scriptures clearly teach keeping the commandments are required to have eternal life. As the Protestant understanding of works of the law is false, the WC is false.

Circumcision is a work of the law opposed to keeping the commandments. The scriptural opposition of circumcision and keeping the commandments, is opposed to the Protestant union of circumcision and keeping the commandments, as both being irrelevant to salvation.

1 Corinthians 7:19 19 For neither circumcision counts for anything nor uncircumcision, but keeping the commandments of God.

1 Cor 7:19 is in line with other NT texts that teach keeping the commandments are necessary fr salvation (Matt 19:16-17, Mark 10:17-22, Luke 18:18-22). Protestantism places a false opposition between faith and the commandments, by understanding the phrase works of the law as applying to all human effort, including the sacraments and the commandments. The false opposition between faith and other activity required for salvation is necessary for the Reformed understanding of justification by faith alone.

The numerous problems with the WC and other similar Reformed confessions show the Protestant Reformation to be a false movement from men and not from God.

JM