Here is an example of what happens over and over again.  Consider the following example what is set forth as an erroneous statement:

27. that the good works believers perform are necessary for being accepted by God

Well and good, if we keep to the right area of the documents:

Those whom God effectually calleth, he also freely justifieth: not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for anything wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ’s sake alone; nor by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them, they receiving and resting on him and his righteousness, by faith; which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God.

Though even here one must believe in order to be justified.  But surely, some will say, any misunderstanding is guarded against.  I answer, yes it is, in the Confession, but never in its defenders.  The Westminster Divines never condemned calling faith a “condition” of the Covenant of Grace but actually did so.  Rather, they distinguished a condition as “ground” or “merit” or “as righteousness” or (in the case of repentance” “satisfaction”–defining righteousness in this case as ground.  All that language is now avoided in order to try to deny that faith is, indeed, both a condition, and an “evangelical obedience” (as the quotation above absolutely states) and to ascribe all manner of false characterizations to one’s targets.

Furthermore, the word “acceptance” has meaning that applies to other statements in the Confession and Catechisms.  For example:

• “Although repentance be not to be rested in, as any satisfaction for sin, or any cause of the pardon thereof, which is the act of God’s free grace in Christ; yet it is of such necessity to all sinners, that none may expect pardon without it.”  So what is MARS saying.  That we can be accepted without being pardoned?  Or that chapter 15 of the Westminster Confession is in error and repentance is not necessary?
• Q. 153. What doth God require of us, that we may escape his wrath and curse due to us by reason of the transgression of the law?
  A. That we may escape the wrath and curse of God due to us by reason of the transgression of the law, he requireth of us repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ, and the diligent use of the outward means whereby Christ communicates to us the benefits of his mediation.

  Q. 154. What are the outward means whereby Christ communicates to us the benefits of his mediation?
  A. The outward and ordinary means whereby Christ communicates to his church the benefits of his mediation, are all his ordinances; especially the word, sacraments, and prayer; all which are made effectual to the elect for their salvation.

So, can one be accepted by God and yet remain under his wrath and curse?  Is the Larger Catechism in error?

So basically it seems like this sort of statement is going to condemn people for affirming what the Confession and Catechisms affirm.

Of course, this might be solved by asking the targets if they affirm sola fide, but that is the whole point.  These statements are supposed to be sufficient to convict someone of claiming but not really upholding sola fide.

If they were used with any sort of impartiality (something I don’t think was envisioned by their author(s?), then they would condemn the Westminster Standards of claiming to affirm but not really upholding sola fide.

Further Reading: Testimony on the MARS Testimony