It was very necessary for the early church to stand against doctrinal errors, such as Arianism and Sabellianism but, in the doing so, some chose to state a creed (the Athanasian Creed), rather than simply make reference to original scripture and it could be argued that the Athanasian Creed came to be regarded as 'scripture'.

Since the seventeenth century the Westminster Confession (and in its other forms, the Savoy Declaration and similar) has become the so-called 'subordinate standard' by which serious Christians (who acknowledge doctrinal issues and acknowledge the necessity of taking a stand on them) state their doctrine.

But is it the case, over the past few centuries that the Westminster Confession has, in fact, become 'The Standard' and that the scripture has been relegated to a subordinate place ?

I am finding that when I disagree with certain aspects of the WC (such as, for example, with the concept that 'Adam was created righteous' - which I would say is a contradiction in terms) I am, in certain quarters, being treated as an heretic.

And I am finding that I am being referred - in cases of disagreement - not to the scripture, but I am being pointed in the direction of the WC.

WC paragraph numbers are being quoted to me, not textual references from the bible.

Is it the case, that the Westminster Confession is now regarded as 'The Standard' and the scripture - to all intents and purposes - is regarded as 'The Subordinate Standard' ?