# Comments wanted regarding my declared exception



## SolaScriptura (Aug 23, 2005)

If I can get all my stuff taken care of I will be going before Presbytery seeking licensure in October. What follows is my declared exception to the Standards. Since I´ve never done this before I would appreciate the feedback of PCA elders  as to what I have written. I´m not seeking to "œdisprove" the Standard so much as explain my reasons for taking exception. For the purposes of what I am to do in this space, which is to declare any exceptions I may take to the Standard, do I say too much? Not enough? Is there anything I should add, omit or rework? Your constructive advice is appreciated. Here goes:



> > _What, if any, exceptions do you take to the Westminster Standards and why? Please make sure to list all your disagreements with the Standards, even if you are unsure if they constitute an "œexception."_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Aug 23, 2005)

I would not ascribe a position to Calvin that I could not cite at least one reference to. Calling it "well known" is asking for someone to demand exactly such a reference to back up the statment.

In addition, you might u2u Chris Coldwell (NaphtaliPress here on the PB) and ask him to link you to FRPC's Blue Banner published research into Calvin's position. I wouldn't want you to claim too much, then have to backtrack or revise.

Otherwise, I thought it was well documented and explained, and while I disagree with it, I think you do as good a job as any in laying out the exception, and as you say, elsewhere you put your positive thoughts on the Lord's Day down, so I don't know ultimately how much we actually disagree.

Blessings


----------



## fredtgreco (Aug 23, 2005)

Ben,

I would modify your exception to read sas I have below. I have basically deleted your "supporting concerns." They add little to the laying out of your exception, and they could only serve to inflame, given their language, especially: 

"the validity of the strict Sabbatarian position is not sustained, *must less proven*, by an appeal to the practice of the Christian church at any previous point in its history."

"their adherence to the position seems to *lack any real value*, or they tend toward such a rigid enforcement that their dogmatism quickly degenerates into a *Pharisee*-like obsession with behavioral minutia, or (as in the case of the majority with whom I have spoken) their position is *rife with inconsistencies* as to the application of the Sabbath rules"





> I take exception to the inclusion of the phrases "œall the day" and "œthe whole time" in the following locations: WCF 21.8, WLC 117, and WSC 60. The reasons are given below.
> 
> The primary grounds upon which I take exception to the Standards are twofold:
> 
> ...



Good rule of thumb in an examination: never be cute, and never attempt to instruct the examiners. You may not be trying to do that, but it could appear so. An it really is unnecessary; your opening paragraphs do a good job of laying out your position.

I would also advise you to give some guidance to the committee as to what the practical ramifications of this are - namely, how it affects your practice. Given your previous comments on the board, I believe that would help to assuage any reluctance to grant the exception.


----------



## Puritanhead (Aug 23, 2005)

Good job Ben!


----------



## Puritanhead (Aug 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Good rule of thumb in an examination: never be cute, and never attempt to instruct the examiners.



I was very diligent in study for a Christian Foundations of Law exam, but got "a little cute" as Fred says in criticizing various legal philosophies. It's not like my prof would disagree with me. But I think it has a way of dampening your ardor, and the teacher doing the grading might become very overanalytical of your overall work because they might not think that you're approaching the exam with the requisite degree of seriousness or the right degree of solemnity for the occasion... It can be detrimental for one seeking to ace an exam. It all depends on the professor... In undergrad I knew who would tolerate "being cute..." but sometimes it is better to be safe than sorry. Hindsight is 20/20 for me.


----------



## pastorway (Aug 23, 2005)




----------



## NaphtaliPress (Aug 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> I would not ascribe a position to Calvin that I could not cite at least one reference to. Calling it "well known" is asking for someone to demand exactly such a reference to back up the statment.
> 
> In addition, you might u2u Chris Coldwell (NaphtaliPress here on the PB) and ask him to link you to FRPC's Blue Banner published research into Calvin's position. I wouldn't want you to claim too much, then have to backtrack or revise.


No U2U needed. See Calvin's Deuteronomy Sermons as referenced in _ Calvin in the Hands of the Philistines: Or, Did Calvin Bowl on the Sabbath?_ I'm not a PCA elder so it doesn't count what I think, but I certainly believe if we'd had had more faithful ministers in the past that would have stood up against the ungodliness of this exception, we might not have so many additional, and more serious errors to deal with today. 


> _ISAIAH 58:13 If thou turn away thy foot from the sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day; and call the sabbath a delight, the holy of the LORD, honourable; and shalt honour him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words: 14 Then shalt thou delight thyself in the LORD; and I will cause thee to ride upon the high places of the earth, and feed thee with the heritage of Jacob thy father: for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken it._


----------



## SolaScriptura (Aug 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> [A]s you say, elsewhere you put your positive thoughts on the Lord's Day down, so I don't know ultimately how much we actually disagree.





> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> I would also advise you to give some guidance to the committee as to what the practical ramifications of this are - namely, how it affects your practice. Given your previous comments on the board, I believe that would help to assuage any reluctance to grant the exception.



Thanks guys. Just so you know, here is my response to question 19, my view of and practice on the Lord's Day:



> > 19. What is your view of and practice on the Lord´s Day?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## fredtgreco (Aug 23, 2005)

Yes. The only thing that you might want to do - since guys sometimes read these exams quickly or in parts, is to either repeat this part in #1 (it is OK to repeat, and in word processing age, that is easy), or else give this information in #1 and reference #1 in #19.

Just to make it easier to read. I know this exam, and it is a bit hodge podge in terms of structure - hard to get a grasp on. That's why I revised it after Ohio Valley formed!


----------



## Peter (Aug 23, 2005)

Ben, your answer to question 19 is almost entirely confessional/biblical and Sabbatarian, in practice as well as in theory. In your 1st post I had difficulty determining specifically what you object to in the confession. Basically you don't like how "strict" Sabbitarians are? But you agree that the 4th commandment is moral and perpetual and that the Lord's Day is the Christian Sabbath?

[Edited on 8-24-2005 by Peter]


----------



## SolaScriptura (Aug 24, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Peter_
> Ben, your answer to question 19 is almost entirely confessional/biblical and Sabbatarian, in practice as well as in theory. In your 1st post I had difficulty determining specifically what you object to in the confession. Basically you don't like how "strict" Sabbitarians are?
> [Edited on 8-24-2005 by Peter]



Well, as you see in my respone to Q19, I say that if I "need" to go to the store, then I do so... I don't believe that a strict Sabbatarian position would allow that. Furthermore, we have family time which is sometimes playing a game of Candy Land or going on a walk or a bike ride or playing chase in the yard... Again, I don't think that these things would be allowable under a strict Sabbatarian position. 

Furthermore, my position allows for flexibility so that I don't have to play semantic games and call something an "act of necessity" to allow me to do something that happens to pop up at the last minute.


----------



## wsw201 (Aug 24, 2005)

Ben,

Are you going to request that you be able to teach and preach your position?


----------



## SolaScriptura (Aug 24, 2005)

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> Ben,
> 
> Are you going to request that you be able to teach and preach your position?



I'm not sure. I would never preach or teach contrary to what I believe, but at the same time... I've already had experience in teaching consistently with beliefs with which I am not in agreement and I don't have a problem with that.
However... I do believe that the Standards are incorrect at this point (thus why I take exception) and judging by the number of folks who take exception to this same issue, I'd say that I'm definitely not alone. How else would grassroots support ever be raised for a possible rewording (gasp!) of the Confession if an alternative is never taught?

So I don't know. What would you suggest?

[Edited on 8-24-2005 by SolaScriptura]


----------

