# Exceptions to the Westminster Confession of Faith



## Scott Bushey (Jul 6, 2015)

I am compiling a list; a survey of sorts:

If you consider yourself Presbyterian and confessional, do you take any exceptions to the Westminster Confession; if so, what areas?

Thanks in advance.


----------



## earl40 (Jul 6, 2015)

I think if you click on each person signature you can see the profile with the exceptions? I may be wrong, but I read that this was to be included in our profile.


----------



## Gforce9 (Jul 6, 2015)

Scott,
An interesting observation: I understand the PCA allows for exceptions. It is also my understanding the OPC allows for no such exceptions, and requires subscription to the whole, cohesive document. Someone with more knowledge can correct me on that. I wonder what the real difference is if a PCA officer excepts the Sabbath (or some aspect of it)"on paper" and the OPC officer excepts the Sabbath, but not "on paper"? I wonder what the official position of our fraternal churches are?


----------



## Romans922 (Jul 6, 2015)

In the PCA, no individual can declare their own 'exceptions'. 'Exceptions' are decided by the Presbytery. What any one individual can claim of themselves are 'differences' with the Westminster Standards, but the Presbytery may find that you have more 'exceptions' than you declare 'differences' (and vice versa). 

Myself, I do not hold to exclusive Psalmody, but is that an 'exception' I can't say. My Presbytery has granted me no 'exceptions'.


----------



## earl40 (Jul 6, 2015)

Romans922 said:


> In the PCA, no individual can declare their own 'exceptions'. 'Exceptions' are decided by the Presbytery. What any one individual can claim of themselves are 'differences' with the Westminster Standards, but the Presbytery may find that you have more 'exceptions' than you declare 'differences' (and vice versa).
> 
> Myself, I do not hold to exclusive Psalmody, but is that an 'exception' I can't say. My Presbytery has granted me no 'exceptions'.



How would you explain the difference between exceptions and differences? I ask in that I really would like to know.


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Jul 6, 2015)

In the OPC, a candidate declares any differences ("scruples") that he may have with the Westminster Standards (as adopted by the OPC). The Presbytery grants no "exceptions" (concerned, among other things, to create an official list of acceptable exceptions and a confession within a confession). This does mean, however, that the OPC permits no confessional scruples. 

If the Presbytery determines that any such scruples run afoul of the system of doctrine taught in Scripture and given expression in the Standards, the candidate is not approved (at least at that point) and may be eligible for further examination later. If the Presbytery deems that the stated differences are of such a nature as not to disturb the system as described above, it may proceed to licensure or ordination. In any case, if the Presbytery determines to proceed with the candidate, such is complainable and thus reviewable. 

This is a bit different from the PCA but not different in the sense that the PCA allows differences to be expressed and we allow no such differences. That has never been the case among us nor in the mainstream of historic American Presbyterianism. 

Peace,
Alan


----------



## Romans922 (Jul 6, 2015)

earl40 said:


> Romans922 said:
> 
> 
> > In the PCA, no individual can declare their own 'exceptions'. 'Exceptions' are decided by the Presbytery. What any one individual can claim of themselves are 'differences' with the Westminster Standards, but the Presbytery may find that you have more 'exceptions' than you declare 'differences' (and vice versa).
> ...




Differences are like what Alan just stated, they are differences that you see yourself having with the Standards, also sometimes called 'scruples'. When an officer is examined before his Session or Presbytery, he is to state his differences with the Standards. 

Exceptions in the PCA are those things the Session/Presbytery determine that a candidate differs with the Standards and either allows them or does not allow them based on the seriousness of the difference determined. Those things the Session/Presbytery see as differences are not necessarily the same as the candidate sees in himself.


----------



## Jack K (Jul 6, 2015)

Gforce9 said:


> I understand the PCA allows for exceptions. It is also my understanding the OPC allows for no such exceptions



A candidate in either denomination might state a difference with the confessions and still be approved, though it's probably fair to say that presbyteries and sessions in the PCA are generally (but not always) more likely to allow more latitude than those in the OPC, for a number of denominational reasons.

As for getting on an Internet message board like this one and pubilcizing one's differences... such a move is not always wise. It may detract from the peace of the church (or disturb the peace on the message board!). Besides, the process a good session/presbytery uses to determine whether or not a man's views align with the confessions or are in accord with the system of doctrine is often not a simple matter easily stated in a post. Certainly, for the peace of the church and the protection of my own good name, I would want to provide substantial context if I were to draw attention to any differences I felt I had—more context than a typical post allows. There are times and places to be open about such things, but simply standing up and announcing one's differences "out of the blue" is not something I'd be eager to do, especially if I were still a PCA officebearer.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 6, 2015)

Romans922 said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> > Romans922 said:
> ...



For example, I hold to historic premillennialism. Would that be more along the lines of "difference" rather than "exception"?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jul 6, 2015)

ReformedReidian said:


> Romans922 said:
> 
> 
> > earl40 said:
> ...



For what it's worth, in my opinion, scruples, differences and exceptions are too close to consider. To me, it's double speak. The reformed have their own language.


----------



## Romans922 (Jul 6, 2015)

ReformedReidian said:


> Romans922 said:
> 
> 
> > earl40 said:
> ...



If you believe that to be differing with what the Standards say, then you would make that known to your presbytery as a candidate (that would be called a 'difference').


----------



## jfschultz (Jul 7, 2015)

So far, it seems that this thread has been on the PCA vs OPC differences on this issue, and only one answer to Scott's question.

It seems that "exclusive Psalmody" and the Sabbath are the frequent exceptions in the PCA. (Have you noticed that while holding to exclusive Psalmody, Westminster seems to be silent on instruments.)

As for me:
1) I hold the Sabbath as a matter of confession rather than exception.
2) The singing of the Psalms should be a common and frequent, but not necessarily exclusive.
3) On civil magistrates, I confess that I am not convinced on where the line should be drawn. I am of the opinion that the 1646 grants the civil magistrate too much and yet the 1789(US) denies him too much.


----------



## Jack K (Jul 7, 2015)

jfschultz said:


> It seems that "exclusive Psalmody" and the Sabbath are the frequent exceptions in the PCA.



I would be surprised to learn that men frequently state a scruple regarding exclusive psalmody, since the vast majority of PCA or even OPC guys I know do not read the confession as requiring psalms exclusively (or directly addressing non-psalm singing at all). I certainly didn't bring it up when I was examined. I saw no need to.


----------



## simons (Jul 8, 2015)

The WestMinster confession would by far be one of the most cogent and comprehensive statement of faith. having said that, i still think, there are some areas, its still amiss. for example, i personally never agreed to the idea of Covenant of works, which will give adam life. ( NO NO...i am not a federal vision person..FV is a heresy and unification with the church of Rome). I do agree on Covenant headship of adam, but i dont think , that adam could have merited anything in front of God. ( i would rather agree with this with the PRC and Herman Hoeksema.) also the statement regarding divorce and remarriage is also i cant agree with. marraige vows are Binding, "till Death do us apart," and not the divorce Judge. 
But still in all matters of christian faith, as i said earlier, its the most delightful, and complete creed to read, teach and follow. 
if more ppl went back to the creed in honesty, the church could have easily fought both the FV and the NPP.


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Jul 9, 2015)

simons said:


> The WestMinster confession would by far be one of the most cogent and comprehensive statement of faith. having said that, i still think, there are some areas, its still amiss. for example, i personally never agreed to the idea of Covenant of works, which will give adam life. ( NO NO...i am not a federal vision person..FV is a heresy and unification with the church of Rome). I do agree on Covenant headship of adam, but i dont think , that adam could have merited anything in front of God. ( i would rather agree with this with the PRC and Herman Hoeksema.) also the statement regarding divorce and remarriage is also i cant agree with. marraige vows are Binding, "till Death do us apart," and not the divorce Judge.
> But still in all matters of christian faith, as i said earlier, its the most delightful, and complete creed to read, teach and follow.
> if more ppl went back to the creed in honesty, the church could have easily fought both the FV and the NPP.



Simons,

I think you should read, review, and adhere to the signature requirments. This way we also know who we are speaking (writing) to in this forum. Here is a link: http://www.puritanboard.com/faq.php?faq=vb_faq#faq_signaturereqtsfaq


As to the OPC and the minister, our BCO requires the presbytery to ask the following for verifying the qualifications of the minister:


> The presbytery shall require him to answer affirmatively the
> following questions:
> 
> (2) Do you sincerely receive and adopt the Confession of
> ...



I would take this as there CANNOT be any exceptions to the standards in its historical context.


----------

