[taxcontrol]

What I find interesting is that this person did not want to subscribe to the Westminster Confession, but rather chose a far more restrictive set of confessions in the form of the catechisms. Futher, the author does not go into which articles of the Westminster Confession they have a disagreement or find incorrect.

[Cronos]

Actually, he said that he wanted to focus on his joy of entering The Church rather than bitterness at leaving the OPC (which as it's ex-ruling elder says is no longer christian). However, the key point regarding the Westminster Confession that he brings up is We claimed to be sola scriptura, and yet to hold office in the church you had to subscribe also to the full truth of the Westminster Confession of Faith -- so if they had to hold to sola scriptura, why also HAD to subscribe to the Westminster Confession?

[Mad Dawg]

What I find interesting is that this person did not want to subscribe to the Westminster Confession, but rather chose a far more restrictive set of confessions in the form of the catechisms.

I'm not sure that's the way to look at it. To me it sounds like he's saying he thought there was a contradiction between claiming a "sola scriptura" standard AND the Westminster Confession as a another standard.

It's not that he found anything in particular wrong with the content of the Westminster Confession itself. It was that saying Bible ALONE PLUS Westminster Confession struck him as having a kind of self-incompatibility.

Maybe I'm projecting. It was something SORT of like that that persuaded me finally the leave the Episcopal Church. Particular teachings prompted me to look around, but it was the manner in which those teachings were arrived at, adopted, and discarded that persuaded me the Episcopalians simply could not be right.