Gospel Guidebook: Getting and Keeping It Right 
Problems with the Westminster Confession of Faith's Description of Faith
by Robert P. TerryUpdated June 26, 2026
(For an extended version of this article that includes a discussion on Galatians 5:6 and Ephesians 2:10, please see my article Good Works are NOT Evidence of Faith.)
The word translated faith in English Bibles corresponds to the Greek word pistis. The word pistis is the noun cognate of the Greek verb pisteuo, a word that is consistently translated "believe." In fact, pistis and pisteuo are often used together in the same exact context and sometimes in the same exact sentence, especially in the context of justification, thus signifying that these words can mean the same thing, and actually, do mean the same thing when the topic in view is justification. Therefore, excepting usage in figures of speech, faith means plain old belief, the doxastic attitude of being persuaded by the evidence for a proposition. This is what faith means in the Bible, and if it were not for the influence of religion on the meaning of words, this is what faith would mean in every realm of life. Faith is an exact synonym for the word belief. However, because of the influence of religion, the word faith has adopted various meanings other than the doxastic attitude of belief. This influence has been substantial enough that even in the field of epistemology faith is sometimes distinguished from belief as including a positive stance for the thing believed. The reason for this distinction in English between two words that are both translations for the same Greek noun pistis is that in the realm of religion, people are offended by the notion that faith is plain old belief. They don't deny it completely, but they insist that faith is more than belief, and thus, they created a distinction between faith and belief where no such distinction actually exists. It is quite common to hear them slander belief by pejoratively calling it "mere mental assent" (as if it were something more than a propositional attitude), "head knowledge," or "the faith of demons." This is a huge problem because if faith is anything more than belief in the propositions of the Gospel, then it is to that extent that the work of Christ was insufficient in justifying sinners. The cruel irony in all of this is that it has been the promoters of Christian religion who have been the biggest enemies of the cross of Christ.
Reformed theologians teach some important Gospel truths, especially in regard to God's glory and the active and passive obedience of Christ. However, it is not enough to confess these truths, and yet at the same time, not believe them (John 5:45-47, 6:64-66). As we will see, the Reformed tradition does not understand the nature of faith, and as a result, it does not believe the things it confesses. Take, for example, the Reformed mantra, "We are saved by faith alone, but the faith that saves is never alone." This mantra is commonly attributed to Martin Luther who said, "faith is not idle" in one of his discourses on faith in 1520, as well as John Calvin who said, "It is therefore faith alone which justifies, and yet the faith which justifies is not alone" in his Antidote to the Council of Trent in 1547. If the mantra is taken at face value, it is not hard to see that it is paradoxical. First, it says that faith is alone, but then it says that faith isn't alone. Obviously, it can't be both, but because of this mixing of faith with something that is other than faith (presumably good works, or the motions of good works), it ends up nullifying grace. In this instance, faith is corrupted by mixing it with something else, but faith can also be corrupted by defining it to include things other than faith. The Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF) both defines faith to include things other than faith and mixes faith with things that are not faith.
For example, the WCF says in Chapter 11.2, "Faith, thus receiving and resting on Christ and his righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification: yet is it not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but worketh by love." This is an unintelligible sentence. Faith cannot be alone and not alone at the same time. At first, I thought the WCF intended to say "[Faith] is the alone instrument: yet is not alone in the person [who has been] justified," which, if intended as a general truth statement, might not be so bad if properly understood of diachronic (i.e., ongoing) faith within the realm of progressive sanctification (even though it would still be highly questionable why the WCF would be talking about sanctification in a chapter on justification), but it is clear that this is not what the WCF intended, for in the very next clause, it clarifies that "[faith] is ever accompanied with all other saving graces..." (italics added). As another example of inconsistency, the WCF says in Chapter 11.1 (which, if read in isolation from Chapter 11:2 and Chapter 14, has much to commend it) that "[justification is] not for any thing wrought in them [i.e., the elect], or done by them, but for Christ's sake alone," but then contradicts this in Chapter 14:1, "The grace of faith, whereby the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls, is the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts." First the WCF says that justification is not because of anything wrought in the elect, but then just three chapters later says that the elect are saved because the Spirit of Christ works faith in their hearts. So, which is it? Some people might respond by saying that the WCF is distinguishing between justification and salvation, but this is not true. In Chapter 14:2, the WCF clearly says that "the principal acts of saving faith are accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life." From this we can see that justification is the object of "saving faith." So, the contradiction between 11:1 and 14:1 remains. Perhaps even worse, however, by describing "saving faith" as "accepting, receiving, and resting," the WCF requires faith to be an appropriating act where the appropriator must make true what wasn't true until it was appropriated. This renders the cross of Christ useless until it is "applied" (14:4) through "heart work" (14:1). For the WCF an unapplied Christ is no Christ at all (14:4). Now, if this weren't bad enough, the WCF goes so far as to say that "accepting, receiving, and resting" are only "the principal acts of saving faith." So, what are the non-principal acts of saving faith? The WCF tells us that they are "acting differently upon that which each particular passage thereof [i.e., the Word of God] contains; yielding obedience to the commands, trembling at the threatenings, and embracing the promises of God for this life, and that which is to come." So much for justification by faith apart from works! As mentioned in the previous paragraph, the WCF, rather blatantly, defines faith to include things other than faith and mixes faith with things that are not faith. Although Chapter 11:1 started off strong by emphasizing Christ's accomplishments and describing faith as "the act of believing," the WCF went into a complete tail spin starting with 11:2, giving us a good example of the bait and switch tactics used in the realm of religion.