Gospel Guidebook: Getting and Keeping It Right 
한국어 日本語
Problems with the Westminster Confession of Faith's Description of Faith
by Robert P. TerryPublished June 21, 2025
The Reformed tradition understands some important truths of the Gospel and the implications of the Gospel, mainly as it pertains to God's glory, limited atonement, the active and passive obedience of Christ, and double imputation. However, it is not enough to confess these truths, and yet at the same time, misunderstand what it means to believe the Gospel. The Reformed tradition, for the most part, does not understand the nature of saving faith. No further proof is needed than to quote 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. This is quite typical of the Reformed tradition.
Salvation isn't by works. Reformed people insist that they agree with this. But, at the same time, they also inconsistently say that works are evidence of salvation, or as stated in the mantra above, they say that works must be present with faith in justification. It makes no sense. If salvation isn't by works, then how can works be evidence of salvation? It's completely illogical. To say that works are evidence of faith is to define faith to include the seed of works. (And this is why they love to use the illustration of faith being like a fruit tree that bears fruit.) However, the Apostle Paul goes to great lengths to tell us that faith is apart from works, signifying that works do not accompany faith, nor are works inherent to faith. Again, Paul speaks of the ungodly man who doesn't work but believes, signifying once more that belief can never be accompanied by works. There can be no mixture or accompaniment of faith and works. Faith doesn't produce works. To say (or even imply) that works are inherent to faith or accompany faith is to deny faith altogether. Faith is bare belief, the mere persuasion that the historical record of the Gospel is true. But this type of faith is completely alien to all the Reformed confessions and catechisms. For example, the Westminster Confession of Faith (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 pure double talk. 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, might not be so bad if properly understood within the realm of 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...," quite dogmatically saying that other graces, including love, are involved in salvation. As another example of outright double talk, the WCF says in Chapter 11.1 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 again paradoxically says 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 paragraphs later says that the elect are saved because the Spirit of Christ works faith in their hearts. Even worse, the WCF goes on in Chapter 14.2 to say, "But the principal acts of saving faith are accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life, by virtue of the covenant of grace." Describing saving faith as "accepting, receiving, and resting" requires faith to be an appropriating act where the appropriator makes true what wasn't true until it was appropriated, rendering the cross of Christ useless without the appropriator's mystical "heart work" (which, of course, is ascribed to the Spirit of Christ in Chapter 14.1 in order to obfuscate the implications of having to work for one's salvation). Again, this is bad enough, but it's actually much worse than this. 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 confession 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! But Reformed theologians still continue to wave the banner of faith alone, and their followers just nod their heads in agreement. So, how exactly do they rationalize waving the banner of faith alone, yet requiring faith never be alone? It's easy for them. Just like the WCF, they simply define faith to include a whole lot of things besides the faculty of the mind that accepts propositions as being true. Again, let's remember that the WCF said in Chapter 11:2 that faith is the alone instrument of justification, but then defined faith in Chapter 14:2 to include "acting differently according to the content of the Word, yielding obedience to commands, trembling at threats, embracing the promises of God, and accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone." Do you see how easy it is to say "Faith alone!" while at the same time defining faith to mean everything but the kitchen sink?
As for the other confessions, catechisms, and creeds, they might not be as blatant as the WCF in its definition of faith, but they are just as inexcusable in describing faith as an appropriating act that includes the seed of good works (see my critique of the Heidelberg Catechism here). All the them are ashamed of the biblical words "belief" and "believe" and replace them with mystical and elusive words, such as "true faith," "hearty trust," and "upright faith." To put it bluntly, the Reformed confessions, catechisms, and creeds have corrupted the apostolic Gospel beyond recognition. For the Apostles, the Gospel was simple: Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. Whoever believed this had life in His name. This Gospel is hardly known today. Of course, every one says that they believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, but as soon as they make faith an appropriating act and say that "true faith" is evidenced by good works (see, for example, Heidelberg Catechism Lord's Day 7, 23, and 32 here), they show by their words and works that they don't believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.