Quote:
Originally Posted by VirginiaHuguenot  I am grateful for the point made about revisions to the WCF and testimonies which negate portions of the WCF (and the subsequent remarks about the magistrate too), although I know nothing about the author or the context of the comments.
It is wearisome to have to affirm often that one holds to the "original" WCF, as if the original is a sidebar to the repeated revisions. The Savoy, the LBCF, the 1788, 1903 and numerous other revisions all take the original WCF as their starting point and then proceed to go off in their own theological directions. |
Dear Andrew, yes, I was appreciative of this point also. It may indicate something about a reformed mentality out there, namely that some want to be known as followers of the 17th century fathers, but don't want to admit (for whatever reason) they're ultimately not.
I suspect that being more explicit about the confession we follow (whether the original or revised WCF) would help people recognize more clearly the role of purpose of the confession.
In actual fact for all the bluster about the 16th and 17th century confessions defining the reformed faith, those who actually do follow the 16th and 17th century confessions are but a few.
Cheers.