# Exceptions to the Confession - for Presbyterians



## C. Matthew McMahon

What do you think are "six" _allowable_ "exceptions" to the Westminster Confession?

In other words, what are six areas of subscriptuon to the standards that in the acceptable parameters of being "deviant" but not "serious error."

I'll give one:
I would say "the distinguishing of the antichrist." The Pope may not be "THE" antichrist, though he is "an" antichrist.


----------



## Peter

Why the number six?


----------



## Dan....

Allowable for whom? For teachers? Office bearers? communicant members?

By the way: The American Revision does not include the "Pope =anti-Christ clause", hence there is no need of citing an exception there for the majority of Confessional Presbyterians.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Here's what I said to my presbytery:

(for the record, the first exception was ruled "not exceptionable" per stated policy)

Fathers and Brothers of the Presbytery,

I state with firmness of conviction that I hold to no exceptions to the Constitutional documents of the Church, save that which appears below:

1)	WCF XXI.5 Though it may have been the intent of the writers to limit singing in worship to the inspired Psalter, I believe singing the whole theology of Scripture (in uninspired hymns) has biblical warrant. (This appears to be the majority position in the PCA.)

2)	WCF VII.4 I am very much in doubt that the term "œTestament" meaning a "œwill" is so "œfrequently set forth in Scripture" as was assumed in 1646. In my view it is much more consonant with the historical, religious usage of the Greek term (as we find in the Septuagint) to translate the word with fair consistency as "œcovenant," which in fact modern translations have tended toward since 1900.


----------



## Arch2k

to Bruce


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

> _Originally posted by Peter_
> Why the number six?



I can see six allowable thus far, and was just curious as to others. 

For office bearers Dan.

So far we've named three:

1) antichrist
2) psalms
3) testament

Others?

[Edited on 8-8-2005 by webmaster]


----------



## crhoades

Don't people usually take one on the idea of not even recreating on the Sabbath?


----------



## Arch2k

1. Chapter XXIII Of the Civil Magistrate
(i.e. 1789 revision or original)

2. Chapter XXIV Of Marriage and Divorce, Section IV  
(The PCA revision excludes "The man may not marry any of his wife's kindred, nearer in blood then he may of his own: nor the woman of her husband's kindred, nearer in blood than of her own.")


----------



## NaphtaliPress

> _Originally posted by Dan...._
> By the way: The American Revision does not include the "Pope =anti-Christ clause", hence there is no need of citing an exception there for the majority of Confessional Presbyterians.


This was one of the 1903 revisions, not one from 1788. The OPC chose to adopt two of the 1903 revisions, of which this is one, but not the rest.
The break down as I've determined it for this revision is as follows:


> *Pope as the Antichrist in CF 25.5*
> BP (1938); PCUSA (1903); PLAN {of union 1949}: "œThe Lord Jesus Christ is the only head of the Church, and the claim of any man to be the vicar of Christ and the head of the Church is unscriptural, without warrant in fact, and is a usurpation dishonoring to the Lord Jesus Christ." PCUS (1939) "œThe Lord Jesus Christ is the only head of the Church, and the claim of any man to be the vicar of Christ and the head of the Church, is without warrant in fact or in Scripture, even anti-Christian, a usurpation dishonoring to the Lord Jesus Christ." Both versions are in BOFC. OPC (1936) and PCA (1973) omit everything after "œbe head thereof." ARP (1976): "œThere is no other head of the church but the Lord Jesus Christ; nor can mere man in any sense be the head thereof."


What is known as the consanquity clause has an interesting history as well, but was only first revised in the mainline PCUS/PCUSA in 1886 (interesting same year; I believe there may have been "talks" at the time).


> *Consanquity Clause in WCF 24.4*
> The last sentence of 24.4 deleted: ARP; (2001); BP (1938); OPC (1936); PCA (1973); PCUS (1886); PCUSA (1886). RPCNA rejects the last sentence of the paragraph as well (Testimony, 24.21-22). The PCUSA/PCUS went further later; the PCUSA (in 1953) and the PCUS (in 1963) rewrote the original chapter 24 on marriage and divorce. The text of both chapters are incorporated in the PCUSA Book of Confessions, adopted at the union of the PCUS and PCUSA.


The chapter on the Civil Magistrate received treatment far earlier as most know and some have already noted.


> *The Civil Magistrate--CF 23.3*
> RPCNA rejects everything after the colon. ARP(1799) and PCUSA(1788) rewrote this section. Following PCUSA are: Book of Confessions; BP, OPC, PCA; PCUS; PCUSA/UPCUSA. The original UPCNA (1858) also changed this.


CF 20.4 and 31.2 have also received revision in various branches of American Presbyterianism.


----------



## rmwilliamsjr

i asked my Pastor this question with reference to the 3 common exceptions in the PCA's Southwest Presbytery and he said that the most common exceptions are:
1-recreation clause of Sabbath 
2-6 24 hr days of the Creation week (OEC and FI are allowed under the PCA creation report)
3-singing hymns rather than EP (CCM is allowed)



btw in the 1840's there were 3 GA trials on the consanguinity clause
see: http://www.peterwallace.org/dissertation/4conscience.htm


----------



## SolaScriptura

1. Sabbatarianism
2. EP
3. Creation as 6 literal 24 hour days
4. Millennial views
5. pope as the antichirst
6. celebration of holidays


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

Here is what is listed:

1) antichrist
2) psalms
3) testament
4) recreation clause on the Sabbath
5) Civil Magistrate clause removal / addition
6) Marriage and Divorce
7) Millennial views
8) Creation as literal 6

I would also throw in there

9) general equity clause (which allows for Theonomy)

Which of these 9 do you think we should really allow/not allow as exceptions?

Should we "allow" an exception on creation? the law (Sabbath)?


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> 
> 
> 9) general equity clause (which allows for Theonomy)


YAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## SRoper

1. "in the space of six days"
2. "Testament"
3. "singing of psalms"
4. "recreations"
5. "should not marry with ... papists"
6. "Nor can the Pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof; but is that Antichrist"
7. "[give the bread and the cup] to none who are not then present in the congregation."

Oops, I went over the limit there.


----------



## SRoper

"Should we 'allow' an exception on creation? the law (Sabbath)?"

I would say yes for the first, but the second is more problematic.


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> Here is what is listed:
> 
> 1) antichrist
> 2) psalms
> 3) testament
> 4) recreation clause on the Sabbath
> 5) Civil Magistrate clause removal / addition
> 6) Marriage and Divorce
> 7) Millennial views
> 8) Creation as literal 6
> 
> I would also throw in there
> 
> 9) general equity clause (which allows for Theonomy)
> 
> Which of these 9 do you think we should really allow/not allow as exceptions?
> 
> Should we "allow" an exception on creation? the law (Sabbath)?



Numbers 1, 5 and 6 are already built into the WCF used by 95% of Presbyterians, so I see no need to concern oneself unless you are in a body that does not accept the American revisions.

Number 7 is not an exception unless one is historic premil (in which case it might be permissible) or dispensational premil (in which case it would not). The confession is neither amil or postmil.

Number 3 is a difference of language, not substance, hence inherently permissible.

Number 2 is permissible, and the de facto interpretation of 95% of WCF churches.

Number 4 is permissible within bounds - recreation with the kids is OK, walks, etc, attending professionla sports, etc. is not

Number 8 is permissible, but I would restrict the teaching.

I would also restrict the teaching on Number 9. (Sorry Jacob).


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

Fred, what are some other exceptions you've run into with candidates?

(Not kooky ones like "I deny the Covenant of Works" - which they do in the South Florida Presbyterary. But ones that would not be "such a big deal for the PCA, or OPC for that matter.")


----------



## SolaScriptura

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> Not kooky ones like "I deny the Covenant of Works" - which they do in the South Florida Presbyterary.



Are those who deny this Covenant coming from RTS Orlando? If not, where are they coming from?


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> [
> I would also restrict the teaching on Number 9. (Sorry Jacob).



I am in a very good mood at the moment so I will simply smile and laugh at myself on that one!


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> Fred, what are some other exceptions you've run into with candidates?
> 
> (Not kooky ones like "I deny the Covenant of Works" - which they do in the South Florida Presbyterary. But ones that would not be "such a big deal for the PCA, or OPC for that matter.")



By far the most common are creation (FW, DayAge) and Sabbath (both recreation and "Continental view" ). 

I have also seen exceptions regarding:


the exclusion of Aramaic in 1.8
the use of "passions" in 2.1
the implication that all things fall out by secondary causes in 5.2 (a grammatical exception)
the language "covenant of works" in 7.2 (not the substance)
images of Christ (WLC 109)
the expiration of the judicial/civil law in 19.4
liberty with respect to alcohol in 20
the exclusive nature of the list of elements in 20.3-5

I have also seen some ones that made me think- the best is the one that takes exception to the Standard's language about original sin being linked to our first parent*s*, implying that Eve was somehow involved, and that militated against Romans 5.

Finally, I have heard of whoppers - I won't even go into them here.


----------



## wsw201

One of the exceptions that I have been seeing popping up is on peadocommunion but with restrictions concerning teaching this position.


----------



## wsw201

Question: How would you define a exception?

I would say that an exception is a view that disturbs the essence or substance of what the Standards teach.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

I'm surprised no one has mentioned an exception to the establishment principle as affirmed in WLC #191.


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> I'm surprised no one has mentioned an exception to the establishment principle as affirmed in WLC #191.



What is the "establishment principle"? 

I see nothing in 191 that I would disagree with.


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> One of the exceptions that I have been seeing popping up is on peadocommunion but with restrictions concerning teaching this position.



Yes, this is becoming more and more common. It is also now sure to draw a no vote from me and a speech on the floor.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> I'm surprised no one has mentioned an exception to the establishment principle as affirmed in WLC #191.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is the "establishment principle"?
> 
> I see nothing in 191 that I would disagree with.
Click to expand...


The establishment principle is the doctrine that teaches that magistrates and nations have a duty to uphold and confess the true religion. 

WLC #191:



> Question 191: What do we pray for in the second petition.?
> 
> Answer: In the second petition (which is, Thy kingdom come), acknowledging ourselves and all mankind to be by nature under the dominion of sin and Satan, we pray, that the kingdom of sin and Satan may be destroyed, the gospel propagated throughout the world, the Jews called, the fulness of the Gentiles brought in; the church furnished with all gospel officers and ordinances, purged from corruption, *countenanced and maintained by the civil magistrate:* that the ordinances of Christ may be purely dispensed, and made effectual to the converting of those that are yet in their sins, and the confirming, comforting, and building up of those that are already converted: that Christ would rule in our hearts here, and hasten the time of his second coming, and our reigning with him forever: and that he would be pleased so to exercise the kingdom of his power in all the world, as may best conduce to these ends.



From whence, we get the concept of a "state" or "established" church. It is directly contrary to the First Amendment of the US Constitution which prohibits the establishment of religion by Congress. The establishment principle has been discussed at some length in various threads. I have recommended works on the subject previously in this thread.


----------



## fredtgreco

I find it very interesting that this is the Scripture citation for that phrase in WLC 191:



> 1 Timothy 2:1-2. I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.


----------



## wsw201

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> One of the exceptions that I have been seeing popping up is on peadocommunion but with restrictions concerning teaching this position.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, this is becoming more and more common. It is also now sure to draw a no vote from me and a speech on the floor.
Click to expand...


Been there done that!


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> I find it very interesting that this is the Scripture citation for that phrase in WLC 191:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1 Timothy 2:1-2. I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.
Click to expand...


This verse is an important part of the Scriptural testimony of the establishment principle. Note the term "godliness," the promotion of which, as Calvin says, is the chief duty of magistrates, and hence is to be the aim of our prayers.

Calvin on 1 Tim. 2.2:



> With all godliness and decency. The second fruit is the preservation of godliness, that is, when magistrates give themselves to promote religion, to maintain the worship of God, and to take care that sacred ordinances be observed with due reverence.



[Edited on 8-9-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]


----------



## Peter

While I am against any exception to the Confession (which amounts to a rejection of a doctrine) of those listed above I think laxity on Sabbath keeping is the worst.

1. Honoring the Sabbath is expressly commanded in the 4th commandment, written by the finger of God, right alongside "honor thy mother and father" and "thou shalt not kill". The mode and means of honoring the sabbath are clearly put down in scripture or easily inferred.
2. It is also very clear in the Confession. With the other exceptions there is at least a little ambiguity.

[Edited on 8-14-2005 by Peter]


----------



## JohnV

I am sure that no candidates for the ministry would deliberately take the following exception, but I am truly disheartened that many ministers do take the exception later on, and teach it to others. That exception is to Chapter One of the Confession, namely the sufficiency and perspicuity of the Word. Its not so much that they overtly object to it, for they even think they are upholding it. But what they do is add to the Scriptures their theories on certain matters that the Church cannot settle on Scripture alone, such as apologetic methodologies, millennial views, alternative views of the creation days, etc., and even now entire switches on salvation by grace alone; and, without sanction from anyone, they begin to preach it to others, even at times claiming that those who hold to other views are in sin, or are at least second-class believers in the Word. The only sanction they receive is that the denomination has decided that their particular view does not contravene the WCF, as if that is all that is needed to justify teaching it as if God's very Word. But in fact it is requiring of the people submission to God's Word PLUS submission to the pastor's views on matters of conscience. So the pastor has taken an exception to the the first chapter of the Confessions, namely arts. I, IV and VI, by imposing that which the Word does not impose, and which the denomination has not imposed. 

Such things ought to go through the church's system of evaluation first. And the proponents of these views ought to abide by the church's decision. If the denomination OK's it as a permissable view, then that is what it should be regarded as, nothing more. If the denomination decides that it is clearly taught by Scripture, then it may be preached. Not before. And if the denomination decides that proponents of other views are in sin, only then may ministers preach accordingly. Not before. 

What we are seeing is that preachers are preaching first, and only when it becomes controversial does it come before Presbytery and General Assembly. This is the reverse of what ought to happen. Some preachers think they have licence to preach whatever they themselves are convicted of, and only afterward need to submit to the ruling of the church.

They are not overtly taking exception to some of the doctrines of the WCF, for they believe they are upholding them. But they are exceptions all the same, for they rely more upon their own authority than that of the Church which licences them, and even at times ignore the Church's authority. But more importantly they hold that the Bible is not enough by itself, but that their own teachings must also be added to it. 

I have witnessed the questioning of a candidate bfore Presbytery. He appeared quite sound througout his examination, until he mentioned his exception to the six-day view of creation. From that point on the Presbytery began to break down into factions, seemingly debating the issue of the creation days through addressing their questions toward the candidate. But no one that I could discern asked for proof from Scripture, and grounds for preaching it. Very surprisingly, it did not come up at all. It is just a theory; it has no proofs whatsoever, not even from Scripture. So where in the world is the sanction from Christ to preach it as His Word? No! It was only his opinion, to the best of his understanding. So when did that become grounds for preaching it? Is it that a pastor's opinions have sanction, while an unordained person's opinions do not? 

I see this as clearly taking an exception to the first chapter of the WCF, even though all of them would vehemently claim that they are upholding it. The question would have to be returned, "Where does Scriptrue make it clear?" (art. VII) For that which is clear is what is to be preached. When ministers think themselves to be licenced theological theoreticians with authority to enforce their intellectual supremecy, then that is an exception to Chapter One of the WCF.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> One of the exceptions that I have been seeing popping up is on peadocommunion but with restrictions concerning teaching this position.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, this is becoming more and more common. It is also now sure to draw a no vote from me and a speech on the floor.
Click to expand...




Bless you for being willing to do so.


The only exception I take to the WCF, if my memory serves me correctly, is on whether or not the Papacy is THE ANTICHRIST of Scripture. I agree with everything else, including the establishment clause, etc. at this point.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Speaking of the Christian Sabbath as taught in the Westminster Stds to which many seem to take exception, our associate pastor has been preaching a series on this (no exceptions  ) while our senior pastor is in Myanmar on a missionary trip. Today's PM sermon was on Preparing for the Sabbath. See the audio links at 
http://www.fpcr.org/


----------

