# Hold 100% to the Westminster Standards?



## charliejunfan

I am wondering how many on the PB claim to hold 100% to the original Westminster Standards?

I think I will strive to understand and defend the Standards in whole, any others?


----------



## Timothy William

I don't think I hold fully. However, nor do I think there is any area where I am convinced contra the WCF; there are areas (not many) where I am not sure, but none where I am convinced or close to convinced that the WCF is mistaken, if that makes sense.


----------



## Quickened

I'll wait before voting. I am under the process of reevaluating my beliefs on the baptism stance. Then i will go over the standards again in prayer and see. I think i should be good though


----------



## KMK

I assume you only want Presbyterians/Anglicans to vote...


----------



## Edward

Which version?


----------



## charliejunfan

the original, and yes ken, only those who would hold to Westminster as their confession


----------



## Michael

_Holding_ to Westminster Standards as an accurate representation of what is taught in Scripture and _keeping_ all aspects of such are two different things. That said, I vote yes.


----------



## shackleton

100% would mean believing that the Pope is the Antichrist. That and some of the things concerning the law and worship I am not on board 100%.

-----Added 3/29/2009 at 03:52:32 EST-----



KMK said:


> I assume you only want Presbyterians/Anglicans to vote...



Anglicans...? I did not think they were confessional.


----------



## Marrow Man

It is a more difficult question because of the different versions. The ARP version, for instance, does not have the "Pope is the Antichrist" statement (but retaining the "he is in no sense the head of the church" phraseology). There are other more minor amendments, etc. in our version (e.g., the allowing of hymns); they were done within the context of the courts of the ARP and are not private scruples and such, which makes a different too, In my humble opinion.


----------



## etexas

shackleton said:


> 100% would mean believing that the Pope is the Antichrist. That and some of the things concerning the law and worship I am not on board 100%.
> 
> -----Added 3/29/2009 at 03:52:32 EST-----
> 
> 
> 
> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> I assume you only want Presbyterians/Anglicans to vote...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anglicans...? I did not think they were confessional.
Click to expand...

We are not! We Anglicans are Creedal. Ken....is being, well, Ken. Just ignore him!


----------



## Edward

charliejunfan said:


> the original



Based on that, I can vote 'no'. It's not what I subscribed to.


----------



## ww

I subscribe to the 1788 WCF which is the Confession of the OPC and PCA.


----------



## jwithnell

I read the poll question without realizing you meant in its original version. I hold to the WCF as they have been given in the US. I've puzzled over some of the baptism language, but am sure it is a matter of semantics rather than an actual diversion from the teachings of the confession.


----------



## OPC'n

Hmmm, I had to vote not completely as I still haven't got a good answer on the Sabbath day change....otherwise yes and yes I observe the Sabbath the way other Sabbatarians do...just couldn't debate anyone concerning the day change since I don't see how that happen either. sigh


----------



## Contra Marcion

whitway said:


> I subscribe to the 1788 WCF which is the Confession of the OPC and PCA.


----------



## etexas

For some reason I thought there was a difference in the OPC and PCA WS??? Was there at some point, or am I totally confused?


----------



## ww

etexas said:


> For some reason I thought there was a difference in the OPC and PCA WS??? Was there at some point, or am I totally confused?



If there was I'm not aware of it.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

There are some minor differences I'm thinking; the one that pops to mind is that the PCA did not formally adopt the scripture proofs (the PCUSA ones).



whitway said:


> etexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> For some reason I thought there was a difference in the OPC and PCA WS??? Was there at some point, or am I totally confused?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If there was I'm not aware of it.
Click to expand...


----------



## etexas

whitway said:


> etexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> For some reason I thought there was a difference in the OPC and PCA WS??? Was there at some point, or am I totally confused?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If there was I'm not aware of it.
Click to expand...

No worries! Just a dumb Anglican! Actually I am friends with both OPC and a PCA Pastors in town, I can check it with one of those guys.


----------



## ww

etexas said:


> whitway said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> etexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> For some reason I thought there was a difference in the OPC and PCA WS??? Was there at some point, or am I totally confused?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If there was I'm not aware of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No worries! Just a dumb Anglican! Actually I am friends with both OPC and a PCA Pastors in town, I can check it with one of those guys.
Click to expand...


I like orthodox Anglicans and I've never met one who was dumb now I've met some non orthodox ones who weren't too bright.


----------



## etexas

NaphtaliPress said:


> There are some minor differences I'm thinking; the one that pops to mind is that the PCA did not formally adopt the scripture proofs (the PCUSA ones).
> 
> 
> 
> whitway said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> etexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> For some reason I thought there was a difference in the OPC and PCA WS??? Was there at some point, or am I totally confused?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If there was I'm not aware of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Thank you Chris. I kept thinking there were (minor) differences.


----------



## Edward

whitway said:


> I subscribe to the 1788 WCF which is the Confession of the OPC and PCA.



I'm not sure that is exactly correct. 

See American Revisions to the Westminster Confession of Faith


----------



## ww

Edward said:


> whitway said:
> 
> 
> 
> I subscribe to the 1788 WCF which is the Confession of the OPC and PCA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure that is exactly correct.
> 
> See American Revisions to the Westminster Confession of Faith
Click to expand...


This only clarifies that the OPC did not accept the 1903 additions "*Of the Holy Spirit" and "Of the Love of God and Missions" and a Declaratory Statement softening the Confession's position on Election*. This was added by the PCUSA so in effect they returned to the 1788 Revision as it was originally.


----------



## DonP

So basically the OPC and PCA do not require adherence to the Confession anyway. 

And what exactly is the system of doctrine that you do have to adhere to if you take an exception to the Confession. 

I thought the Confession was THE System of Doctrine. 

Since no one has defined exactly what the System of Doctrine is, some general concept of the 5 point soteriology, it leaves it pretty loose. 

In fact I heard of one minister being ordained in the PCA after taking an exception to limited atonement a few years back. 

So if the BOCO overrides the Confession and says you don't have to believe in the entire Confession, just the system of doctrine, why don't they just get rid of the Confession and just write up what the minimum for unity really is, the system of doctrine and then everyone adhere to that? 

In the OPC they don't even have to record their exceptions so they can change them regularly with no discipline or oversight. At least the PCA makes the effort to say lets get the man on record of what he doesn't agree with so he can't go anywhere else without letting us know. 

Why not just for unity sake, submit to the entire Confession or amend it again until enough agree? 
Effectively you do that with exceptions and in the OPC it has the precise theological term wiggle room. And again a allusion to the system of doctrine contained in the Confession. 

Wow if I said I believe the Bible contains the word of God I am not sure my pastor would let me be a member. I know its not the same but ....


----------



## ww

PeaceMaker said:


> So basically the OPC and PCA do not require adherence to the Confession anyway.
> 
> And what exactly is the system of doctrine that you do have to adhere to if you take an exception to the Confession.
> 
> I thought the Confession was THE System of Doctrine.
> 
> Since no one has defined exactly what the System of Doctrine is, some general concept of the 5 point soteriology, it leaves it pretty loose.
> 
> In fact I heard of one minister being ordained in the PCA after taking an exception to limited atonement a few years back.
> 
> So if the BOCO overrides the Confession and says you don't have to believe in the entire Confession, just the system of doctrine, why don't they just get rid of the Confession and just write up what the minimum for unity really is, the system of doctrine and then everyone adhere to that?
> 
> In the OPC they don't even have to record their exceptions so they can change them regularly with no discipline or oversight. At least the PCA makes the effort to say lets get the man on record of what he doesn't agree with so he can't go anywhere else without letting us know.
> 
> Why not just for unity sake, submit to the entire Confession or amend it again until enough agree?
> Effectively you do that with exceptions and in the OPC it has the precise theological term wiggle room. And again a allusion to the system of doctrine contained in the Confession.
> 
> Wow if I said I believe the Bible contains the word of God I am not sure my pastor would let me be a member. I know its not the same but ....



We definitely have some issues to work on within our denominations Don! I don't want a situation in our denominations where the WCF is just a facade.


----------



## charliejunfan

So is the WPCUS the only Presbyterian Denom in the US to hold to the original Standards then?


----------



## DonP

Reply to Whitway
Well how can it not be until we go to full and strict subscription to something

There is no way to discipline anyone as long as they say well I except that. And I hold to the 5 points and predestination. 

That becomes our Confession defacto right? 

So amend it or submit to it I say. You amended it once, unenecessarily in MHO because they did not understand the purpose of the king calling a day to make sure the wars stopped and there was peace to have a GA, and I guess there is no real need to say the POPE is the antiChrist but hey its not a big deal to say he is either. 

Anyway can you imagine what the amendment would look like if we tried to do one today ??? 
Look how much work it takes to amend the BOCO or figure out what is errant in Federal vision. 

So I say to avoid the sin of disunity, which has to be as bad as saying the pope is the antiChrist, just submit to it!! 

Love you brother in the battle !!
PS I was in the OPC for 10 years and went to Pres and GA most of the time


----------



## charliejunfan

I agree with you Don, since the Divines knew what they were doing, and since no man will agree 100% on everything or be right on everything this side of heaven, we need to unify in un-edited Confessional subscription!


----------



## ww

PeaceMaker said:


> Reply to Whitway
> Well how can it not be until we go to full and strict subscription to something
> 
> There is no way to discipline anyone as long as they say well I except that. And I hold to the 5 points and predestination.
> 
> That becomes our Confession defacto right?
> 
> So amend it or submit to it I say. You amended it once, unenecessarily in MHO because they did not understand the purpose of the king calling a day to make sure the wars stopped and there was peace to have a GA, and I guess there is no real need to say the POPE is the antiChrist but hey its not a big deal to say he is either.
> 
> Anyway can you imagine what the amendment would look like if we tried to do one today ???
> Look how much work it takes to amend the BOCO or figure out what is errant in Federal vision.
> 
> So I say to avoid the sin of disunity, which has to be as bad as saying the pope is the antiChrist, just submit to it!!
> 
> Love you brother in the battle !!
> PS I was in the OPC for 10 years and went to Pres and GA most of the time



Thanks Don! I've been in the PCA for about 10 years myself and in the OPC for just a few weeks although I've visited a few OPC churches over the years. I think both have their strong points as well as opportunities. I wouldn't claim that the OPC is the "Only Perfect Church" like some do.


----------



## DonP

whitway said:


> Thanks Don! I've been in the PCA for about 10 years myself and in the OPC for just a few weeks although I've visited a few OPC churches over the years. I think both have their strong points as well as opportunities. I wouldn't claim that the OPC is the "Only Perfect Church" like some do.



Wow you don't even know what you are in for then. Have some off line chats with Pastor Glenn Farrel of Boise. He is like minded to me and has only been in OPC since 05 and he is shocked in the NW pres. So its not the same everywhere. 

They are about to split in 3 pieces not just 2. The BT Kleininan crowd is building forces. 

But on paper, they were maybe the best church. But not mine. too loose on discipline and against applicatory preaching. Over the top BT 

I hope they go back to what Machen was.


----------



## ww

PeaceMaker said:


> whitway said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks Don! I've been in the PCA for about 10 years myself and in the OPC for just a few weeks although I've visited a few OPC churches over the years. I think both have their strong points as well as opportunities. I wouldn't claim that the OPC is the "Only Perfect Church" like some do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow you don't even know what you are in for then. Have some off line chats with Pastor Glenn Farrel of Boise. He is like minded to me and has only been in OPC since 05 and he is shocked in the NW pres. So its not the same everywhere.
> 
> They are about to split in 3 pieces not just 2. The BT Kleininan crowd is building forces.
> 
> But on paper, they were maybe the best church. But not mine. too loose on discipline and against applicatory preaching. Over the top BT
> 
> I hope they go back to what Machen was.
Click to expand...


Well I'd be surprised if there was a split at all since 72 years has passed and they have endured worse than minor quibbles over the application of Law and Gospel. But that's just my


----------



## charliejunfan

I'll be the one to say that OPC has a much better reputation among the more conservative reformed(well there is an FV problem...but there is in every reformed church, and no in this particular thread baptists are not considered reformed) 

The PCA has gone soft and feministic(no, not all just most! and stupid RUF is very seeker freindly), our RUF pastor told us the other night that Rick Warrens book the Purpose Driven Life was a good book, waaaayyyy tooo freindly towards heresy. He is a nice guy though, he just needs some more schoolin in the ways of his spiritual fathers


----------



## Scott1

> *PeaceMaker *



If you wish to learn about and debate the nature of confessional subscription, you may find helpful a search of past threads about that topic. Then, if you wish, start a new thread on that topic.



PeaceMaker said:


> So basically the OPC and PCA do not require adherence to the Confession anyway.
> 
> That's not an accurate characterization.
> 
> With regard to the PCA, every "statement and/or proposition" of the standards must be vowed as understood and received as a faithful summary of the doctrine of Scripture unless a peer-reviewed “exception” is granted (to a particular 'non essential' statement/proposition).
> 
> 
> And what exactly is the system of doctrine that you do have to adhere to if you take an exception to the Confession.
> 
> I thought the Confession was THE System of Doctrine.
> 
> No.
> 
> The Westminster Standards (not only the Confession) are taken to _summarize_ a system of doctrine contained in Scripture.
> 
> Every statement or proposition might not be absolutely essential to the system as a whole. Understand also that the Standards are not intended to summarize all doctrine in the Scripture.
> 
> That’s why semantics differences, for example, are recognized. A proposition, for example, about light recreation of the Sabbath might, in the judgment of some presbyteries, not be “essential.” (Other presbyteries might not grant that).
> 
> Since no one has defined exactly what the System of Doctrine is, some general concept of the 5 point soteriology, it leaves it pretty loose.
> 
> The Westminster Standards do contain a summary of (some, but not all) doctrine of Scripture, but that doesn’t mean that “difference” with one single statement or proposition in it would necessarily defeat the entire system.
> 
> 
> In fact I heard of one minister being ordained in the PCA after taking an exception to limited atonement a few years back.
> 
> I don't think so. The limited atonement and infant baptism long ago were protected by church court precedent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.pcahistory.org/documents/bowen-vs-easterncarolina.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if the BOCO overrides the Confession and says you don't have to believe in the entire Confession, just the system of doctrine, why don't they just get rid of the Confession and just write up what the minimum for unity really is, the system of doctrine and then everyone adhere to that?
> 
> The “BOCO” does not say “you don’t have to believe the entire Confession, just the system of doctrine…” Not sure where you are getting that.
> 
> Nor does the Book of Church Order “override” the Confession. [Our Book of Church Order is often referred to by the acronym BCO]
> 
> The constitutional standards are _subject to_ and _subordinate to_ Scripture:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BCO (preface)
> 
> III. THE CONSTITUTION DEFINED
> The Constitution of the Presbyterian Church in America, which is
> *subject to* and *subordinate to* the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments,
> the inerrant Word Of God, consists of its doctrinal standards set forth in the
> Westminster Confession of Faith, together with the Larger and Shorter
> Catechisms, and the Book of Church Order, comprising the Form of
> Government, the Rules of Discipline and the Directory for Worship; all as
> adopted by the Church.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the OPC they don't even have to record their exceptions so they can change them regularly with no discipline or oversight. At least the PCA makes the effort to say lets get the man on record of what he doesn't agree with so he can't go anywhere else without letting us know.
> 
> Someone more familiar with the OPC system can respond to this. My understanding of the OPC standard of subscription is not at all as you describe it here. If anything, their standard may be even slightly more protective.
> 
> Why not just for unity sake, submit to the entire Confession or amend it again until enough agree?
> 
> Not sure what you mean.
> 
> Someone granted an 'exception' still submits to the Standards, not as a matter of belief in that statement/proposition, obviously, but in practice.
> 
> Effectively you do that with exceptions and in the OPC it has the precise theological term wiggle room. And again a allusion to the system of doctrine contained in the Confession.
> 
> Not at all. It provides a mechanism for peer reviewed, minimalist exceptions in every generation. Presbyterianism has done this historically ["scruples"]
> 
> Wow if I said I believe the Bible contains the word of God I am not sure my pastor would let me be a member. I know its not the same but ....
> 
> You're right- your example here is not the same at all.
Click to expand...


----------



## ADKing

charliejunfan said:


> So is the WPCUS the only Presbyterian Denom in the US to hold to the original Standards then?



The Presbyterian Reformed Church also holds to the original standards.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

I said no because I believe the Confession teaches Exclusive Psalmody in 21.5 and that is a step I am not ready to take (but I do get closer all the time, ole Dr. Prutow and Dr. O'Neill can be pretty persuasive).


----------



## NaphtaliPress

There was at least one change before 1903 that would be included in the OPC/PCA versions of the standards and I may be wrong but I think some minor things from 1903 may have been retained.
http://www.puritanboard.com/f54/degrees-consanguinity-45665/#post577814



whitway said:


> Edward said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitway said:
> 
> 
> 
> I subscribe to the 1788 WCF which is the Confession of the OPC and PCA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure that is exactly correct.
> 
> See American Revisions to the Westminster Confession of Faith
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This only clarifies that the OPC did not accept the 1903 additions "*Of the Holy Spirit" and "Of the Love of God and Missions" and a Declaratory Statement softening the Confession's position on Election*. This was added by the PCUSA so in effect they returned to the 1788 Revision as it was originally.
Click to expand...


----------



## brianeschen

Joshua said:


> charliejunfan said:
> 
> 
> 
> So is the WPCUS the only Presbyterian Denom in the US to hold to the original Standards then?
> 
> 
> 
> No. In addition to Pastor King's info, the Reformed Presbyterian Church General Assembly has as its standards the original Westminster Confession of Faith.
Click to expand...

 . . . and I believe the RPCUS does as well.


----------



## HanleyBri

The WPCUS strictly subscribes to the Westminster Standards (The Westminster Confession of Faith, the Larger Catechism, the Shorter Catechism, the Directory of Public Worship, the Directory for Family Worship, and the Form of Presbyterian Church Government) as they were originally adopted by the Church of Scotland (1645-48) and the colonies of North America (1716). 

Click Here to see our constitution--->>WPCUS

Our Covenant of Union which all officers of the church sign ---->>WPCUS Covenant of Union


----------



## Scott1

The thread title, "Hold 100% to the Westminster Standards?" and the poll question, "100% Westminster Standards subscription" imply polling for "exceptions" [scruples].

The description below the poll question is "hold 100% to the original Westminster Standards?" implying the original Parliament version (without a couple changes made when adopted by the American Presbyterian Church).

So if you are polling for changes made to the original version, those distinctions may have gotten lost on some of the respondents so, for sake of clarity, and you may want to re-do this so the result is free and clear.


----------



## jaybird0827

I'm one of the 100%-ers.


----------



## Prufrock

Free Church (continuing)? Do they hold "original," (since we do, indeed, have them in the US now)?


----------



## HanleyBri

*FCC officers subscription*

The FCC officers subscription is strict and mentions the (original) Westminster Confession of Faith. 

I have a list of denominations and what they subscribe to: Reformed and Presbyterian Denominations



Prufrock said:


> Free Church (continuing)? Do they hold "original," (since we do, indeed, have them in the US now)?


----------



## Prufrock

Looks like that could be a pretty useful database. Thanks for providing it.


----------



## Reformed Baptist

As a Reformed Baptist this has been an interesting thread. The yes, and no's are nearly evenly split. Interesting.


----------



## Edward

whitway said:


> Edward said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitway said:
> 
> 
> 
> I subscribe to the 1788 WCF which is the Confession of the OPC and PCA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure that is exactly correct.
> 
> See American Revisions to the Westminster Confession of Faith
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This only clarifies that the OPC did not accept the 1903 additions "*Of the Holy Spirit" and "Of the Love of God and Missions" and a Declaratory Statement softening the Confession's position on Election*. This was added by the PCUSA so in effect they returned to the 1788 Revision as it was originally.
Click to expand...


So the OPC is incorrect in this statement "except for deletions in chapters 22 (about refusing a lawful oath) and 25 (about the Pope being the Antichrist). (For further information see the Report of the Committee on the Constitution submitted to the Second General Assembly [1936].) "

Perhaps you should bring this to their attention.


----------



## ww

Edward said:


> whitway said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Edward said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure that is exactly correct.
> 
> See American Revisions to the Westminster Confession of Faith
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This only clarifies that the OPC did not accept the 1903 additions "*Of the Holy Spirit" and "Of the Love of God and Missions" and a Declaratory Statement softening the Confession's position on Election*. This was added by the PCUSA so in effect they returned to the 1788 Revision as it was originally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the OPC is incorrect in this statement "except for deletions in chapters 22 (about refusing a lawful oath) and 25 (about the Pope being the Antichrist). (For further information see the Report of the Committee on the Constitution submitted to the Second General Assembly [1936].) "
> 
> Perhaps you should bring this to their attention.
Click to expand...


No that is correct. What I am understanding this to mean is that in essence they adopted the 1903 without the additions but with the deletions that were found in the 1788 so technically it is the 1788. In either event I embrace the WCF with the American Revisions circa 1788 or 1903 no matter to me.


----------



## Stomata leontôn

I do. I love them and I think it's a pity that, owing mainly to the politics surrounding the English Civil War long ago, the majority of American Christians have not officially adopted them.


----------



## Davidius

It would be a real kick to talk to all those who said they hold to the WCF 100% and see how widely their interpretations of particular sections vary.


----------



## HokieAirman

Although I am not intimately familiar with every aspect of the WCF, of the aspect which I am, I agree 100%...My family has not reached the point of doing a study on the WCF, though we've started several times. I have done a cursory study of them, and found nothing outstanding; however, there are things that last week, I was not aware were in the WCF...like I said cursory. I abstain.


----------



## YXU

Prufrock said:


> Free Church (continuing)? Do they hold "original," (since we do, indeed, have them in the US now)?



Here is a quote from the ministerial vow of our church.



> 2. Do you sincerely own and believe the whole doctrine contained in the Confession of Faith, approven by former General Assemblies of this Church, to be founded upon the Word of God; and do you acknowledge the same as the confession of your faith; and will you firmly and constantly adhere thereto, and to the utmost of your power assert, maintain, and defend the same , and the purity of worship as presently practised in this Church?
> 3. Do you disown all Popish, Arian, Socinian, Armian, Erastian, and other doctrines, tenents, and opinions whatsoever, contrary to, and inconsistent with, the foresaid Confession of Faith?


----------



## Edward

HokieAirman said:


> I have done a cursory study of them, and found nothing outstanding; however, there are things that last week, I was not aware were in the WCF...like I said cursory.



Wait - you have been ordained a deacon in the PCA, and you weren't trained in and examined on the WCF? What about the BCO 24-1?


----------



## Pergamum

I have a quibble over an article...the Pope is AN Antichrist but I cannot affirm for sure if he is THE Antichrist. 

Also, the originals are theocratic, hooray for the 1788 revision.

-----Added 4/21/2009 at 06:43:13 EST-----



Davidius said:


> It would be a real kick to talk to all those who said they hold to the WCF 100% and see how widely their interpretations of particular sections vary.



Why don't we make this a new thread! I would like to see how closely they agree or widely they disagree as well.

-----Added 4/21/2009 at 06:46:35 EST-----



Reformed Baptist said:


> As a Reformed Baptist this has been an interesting thread. The yes, and no's are nearly evenly split. Interesting.



Yes, I was once accused of being "unconfessional" here - but it looks like I am in good company here and that I even hold more closely than the majority to the Confessions...ironic.


----------



## YXU

Davidius said:


> It would be a real kick to talk to all those who said they hold to the WCF 100% and see how widely their interpretations of particular sections vary.



It depends, I have observed three categories of people. 

1. Ignorant men, who say they hold to the confession but have not read it yet, they may have both the confession and images of Jesus, not knowing the confession condemns such images.
2. Bad men, who confess they hold to the confession, even if they know they disagree with certain portion of the confession. These are they, for example, having known already that the confession condemns images of Christ, yet still have them and ignore the confession they confess. 
3. Honest men, who truly believe the doctrines in the confession are all the true doctrines of the Bible, however, as you said, have some different interpretation of it. I would say probably psalm singing will be that example, some may say the confession does not mean exclusive psalm singing.

The first 2 categories of people can be ignored. I believe the 3rd category is the problem you are addressing, but I doubt their interpretations would vary "widely"


----------



## Scott1

We might add a fourth category:

Men who believe the Standards do faithfully summarize the doctrine of Scripture and do, in good faith receive them, but who, acknowledging their own weakness...

realize that they cannot know every possible practical application of them
and
know they cannot possibly perfectly keep them.


----------



## chbrooking

I voted with respect to the current OPC version. Didn't know we were talking about the original. That should have been in the OP.

With respect, though I am a 100%er, I don't think it is a fair characterization to say that, since the OPC doesn't record exceptions there is no accountability. Subscription itself is a matter of integrity. It takes integrity to state and defend an exception. I expect that, should there be changes in one's theology, he will notify Presbytery as he has sworn to do. If I can't trust him to do that, can I trust him to enough to vote in favor of his ordination at all? I'm mildly offended by the notion that we can't trust someone who takes an exception.

-----Added 5/4/2009 at 03:07:55 EST-----



Davidius said:


> It would be a real kick to talk to all those who said they hold to the WCF 100% and see how widely their interpretations of particular sections vary.



This is actually one of the reasons I'm not in favor of strict subscription. I'm afraid it might encourage people to keep those different interpretations to themselves. I actually hashed out areas where I thought I was not in line with the confession, both with the candidates and credentials committee and on the floor of Presbytery. They all said the differences did not rise to the level of an exception.


----------



## Peairtach

100% to the original. Although according to theonomists (Theonomists?) I'm not 100% because I don't interpret "general equity" the way they do.

There no doubt are many other areas of interpretive disagreement among those who are 100%.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Davidius said:


> It would be a real kick to talk to all those who said they hold to the WCF 100% and see how widely their interpretations of particular sections vary.



Anyone want to start this thread?


----------



## dudley

I voted the same way Pastor Clark Brooking did.


chbrooking said:


> I voted with respect to the current OPC version. Didn't know we were talking about the original. That should have been in the OP.
> 
> With respect, though I am a 100%er, I don't think it is a fair characterization to say that, since the OPC doesn't record exceptions there is no accountability. Subscription itself is a matter of integrity. It takes integrity to state and defend an exception. I expect that, should there be changes in one's theology, he will notify Presbytery as he has sworn to do. If I can't trust him to do that, can I trust him to enough to vote in favor of his ordination at all? I'm mildly offended by the notion that we can't trust someone who takes an exception.
> 
> -----Added 5/4/2009 at 03:07:55 EST-----
> 
> 
> 
> Davidius said:
> 
> 
> 
> It would be a real kick to talk to all those who said they hold to the WCF 100% and see how widely their interpretations of particular sections vary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is actually one of the reasons I'm not in favor of strict subscription. I'm afraid it might encourage people to keep those different interpretations to themselves. I actually hashed out areas where I thought I was not in line with the confession, both with the candidates and credentials committee and on the floor of Presbytery. They all said the differences did not rise to the level of an exception.
Click to expand...


I rise always to the level of exception and realize that I have grown and changed over the years. It is one of the reasons I was not afraid to follow my conscience and beliefs and leave Roman Cathoicism from a RC family and become a Protestant and a Presbyterian.

Dudley


----------



## UKPuritan40

Yigang Xu, thank you for your post on the issue of confession holding. I am too new on Puritan board to have a "thanking button" on posts. I am not sure how many posts I have to make to get one.

Susan Nye Ferrell
Member Sovereign Redeemer OPC, Boise


----------



## Glenn Ferrell

PeaceMaker said:


> Wow you don't even know what you are in for then. Have some off line chats with Pastor Glenn Farrel of Boise. He is like minded to me and has only been in OPC since 05 and he is shocked in the NW pres. So its not the same everywhere.



I do agree with PeaceMaker on a number of issues; but, lest it be thought I have spoken ill of my presbytery in private, please allow me to say: 

1) I’ve never said anything in private regarding the OPC Presbytery of the Northwest I will not say in public.

2) I don’t believe I have ever used the word “shocked” to describe my reaction to my presbytery. I understood something of their confessional boundaries before my examination and admission.

3) The PNW was gracious and broad enough to admit me when I took exception to the American WCF XXIII:3 and affirmed the original instead. They also tolerate me with my stricter understanding of the RPW and the distinctives we practice at SRPC.

4) I’d estimate the PNW is one of the broader presbyteries of the OPC. I sometimes disagree with the prevailing opinion; but I’ve never left a presbytery meeting without respect for the integrity and diligence with which my fellow presbyters do the work of Christ’s Church. I’ve also received a respectful hearing, even when I’ve diagreed with that prevailing opinion.

5) I’d favor tightening up the understanding of confessional subscription and practice within the OPC; but I do not anticipate its imminent demise. I appreciate its stability and the mutual respect I observe in all the courts of the denomination.

6) For the record, I subscribe to the original WCF without exception, and understand the Standards to require a strict interpretation of the Regulative Principle, Exclusive Psalmody, a high view of the Lord’s Day, non-observance of so called “holy” days, the Establishment Principle, national covenanting, and civil enforcement of both tables of the law.

7) The PNW of the OPC is broader than some parts of the denomination; but has been broad enough to include me without requiring compromise, for which I’m grateful. I am willing to answer any question regarding the OPC or my presbytery in private or public.


----------



## TimV

Pastor Ferrell, do you consider allowing African and other third world converts to keep their wives in polygamous situations a violation of the WCF? My undertanding is that our denomination keeps a man from becoming an officer if he has more than one wife, but does the OPC require new converts from Africa et. al. to divorce their other wives to be considered faithful to their confessions?"


----------



## Glenn Ferrell

TimV said:


> Pastor Ferrell, do you consider allowing African and other third world converts to keep their wives in polygamous situations a violation of the WCF? My undertanding is that our denomination keeps a man from becoming an officer if he has more than one wife, but does the OPC require new converts from Africa et. al. to divorce their other wives to be considered faithful to their confessions?"



I’m not sure the OPC has ever taken an official position on this matter. I’m sure polygamous men could not be office bearers within the denomination. 

I believe a probable interpretation of the “husband of one wife” requirement for office bearers in the New Testament is that polygamous converts had been admitted to the church. Thus, they may have been permitted to retain the marriage relationships entered into, but not to hold office.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Tim, Glenn 
The WCF calls polygamy a sin; the moderators have already ruled that that is not to be debated on PB. How a denomination manages new converts with multiple spouses is something the courts of a church must decide. If one wants to discuss that; open a new thread. But that polygamy is a sin, is established; no Presbyterian church has ruled otherwise or changed WCF 24 or WLC 139. If anyone wants to challenge that it is a sin; take it up with your church's courts. Not here.


----------



## Peairtach

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Davidius said:
> 
> 
> 
> It would be a real kick to talk to all those who said they hold to the WCF 100% and see how widely their interpretations of particular sections vary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone want to start this thread?
Click to expand...


What are the main areas of interpretive disagreement?


----------



## grit

so..... am I right to see the poll as pretty much a wash, based on terms of perspective and definition?


----------



## MW

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Davidius said:
> 
> 
> 
> It would be a real kick to talk to all those who said they hold to the WCF 100% and see how widely their interpretations of particular sections vary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone want to start this thread?
Click to expand...


Why would one who loves and maintains the truth enter into dialogue with a mocking sceptic who laughs at those "speaking the same thing?"


----------



## ChristianTrader

armourbearer said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Davidius said:
> 
> 
> 
> It would be a real kick to talk to all those who said they hold to the WCF 100% and see how widely their interpretations of particular sections vary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone want to start this thread?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would one who loves and maintains the truth enter into dialogue with a mocking sceptic who laughs at those "speaking the same thing?"
Click to expand...


I think the issue is whether or not they are speaking the same thing, but instead just speaking the same words.

CT


----------



## charliejunfan

I don't know anymore.... I am definitely not 100% the original in my current studies.


----------



## MW

ChristianTrader said:


> I think the issue is whether or not they are speaking the same thing, but instead just speaking the same words.



Those who maintain the "same rule" can and do have slight differences of opinion, as is indicated by Phil 3:15, 16. The concern is over allowing a sceptic, who ridicules the idea of maintaining the "same rule," dictate discussion and provoke unnecessary division.


----------



## ChristianTrader

armourbearer said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the issue is whether or not they are speaking the same thing, but instead just speaking the same words.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those who maintain the "same rule" can and do have slight differences of opinion, as is indicated by Phil 3:15, 16. The concern is over allowing a sceptic, who ridicules the idea of maintaining the "same rule," dictate discussion and provoke unnecessary division.
Click to expand...


Is that a charitable reading of the above statement? Is what is being mocked the idea of maintaining the "same rule" or that such "same rule" is actually being maintained?

CT


----------



## MW

ChristianTrader said:


> Is that a charitable reading of the above statement? Is what is being mocked the idea of maintaining the "same rule" or that such "same rule" is actually being maintained?



If differences of opinion are expected amongst those who maintain the "same rule," as per Phil 3:15, 16, then getting a "kick" out of seeing people differ in opinion who hold to the "same rule" (Westminster Confession) is indeed making a mockery of this key principle of biblical unity.


----------



## Brian Withnell

I saw this many days ago, and I waited before I did my vote, and this message. I wanted to be sure I would do so both accurately and with benefit to those that would read the message.

I am well less than 100% of the original ... I am an OPC officer, and therefore must have agreed with the more recent. But even then, I would say that I might find some minor point that I might eventually come to differ from not because I today see any problem with the present form of the OPC version of the WCF, but because I see great wisdom in Chapter 1 of the confession as being specifically chapter 1. The divines did not start the confession the same way the Belgic Confession starts ... it does not start with God, and then add the word, it starts with the word and from that pours forth all other doctrine. The Westminster Divines had it right because they knew that any other writing but what is scripture is subject to error. They knew that not only from the standpoint of not saying anything about God apart from the scripture, but they put the scripture as primacy even above the confession.



> 10. The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.



These [now] ancient writers, the Westminster Divines, are to be judged by scripture, and I fully believe they would be displeased with the idea of viewing the scripture through the lens of the WFC. Do I believe the WFC is an accurate description (not prescription) of the system of doctrine contained in the Bible? Absolutely, at least as it was amended. Do I think that Barack Obama ought to be the one that ...


> hath authority, and it is his duty, to take order, that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire; that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed; all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed; and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administered, and observed.



He is the civil magistrate, and I no more want BHO to be the one that thinks he should keep pure the church by suppressing blasphemies and heresies. I certainly would not have wanted Bill Clinton to do that either.

Neither would I have wanted either of them to follow the next sentence.


> For the better effecting whereof, he hath power to call synods, to be present at them, and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God.



Math mind take over ... in order to show a proposition false, it is only necessary to provide a single counter example. This has been done.

Now that is certainly true that the WCF in the original is far from inerrant truth itself. (One need look no farther than the book of Daniel for examples, yet there are those here today that fit the counter example well.) Now we need to look at the WCF from the corrections so far detected. Is it now inerrant? I doubt it is without error ... as it implies all human writing is not without error.

I find it ironic that people would think the confession is 100% accurate, because the confession implies its own imperfection. It becomes like the statement "This is a lie." If it is true, then it is false, which means it isn't a lie, which means it is true ... which goes on forever.

We hold the confession to be an accurate description of that system of doctrine contained in the scripture. We also hold that all men everywhere, when they seek to define the system of doctrine contained in the scripture will be in error in part every time they do so. We cannot be infallible, and our error will not be obvious to us.


----------



## MW

I often hear the WCF lauded for its first chapter, and especially its submission to the Scriptures as the ultimate authority; but to say one might have a change of mind _on this basis_ is somewhat counter-productive, because one might equally have a change of mind with respect to chapter one of the Confession and its convicion that holy Scripture is the supreme standard.


----------



## DonP

*Retraction*



Glenn Ferrell said:


> I do agree with PeaceMaker on a number of issues; but, lest it be thought I have spoken ill of my presbytery in private, please allow me to say:
> 
> 1) I’ve never said anything in private regarding the OPC Presbytery of the Northwest I will not say in public.
> 
> 2) I don’t believe I have ever used the word “shocked” to describe my reaction to my presbytery. I understood something of their confessional boundaries before my examination and admission.



Sorry Pastor Ferrel. In seeking to be friendly and supportive I sometimes forget when I am in a one to one discussion that this is still public and who might later read it and interpretations may vary.

I should not have used the word shocked in reference to you. Hoping that I do not exaggerate, which is not my intent, I admit to being a bit demonstrative in my language, intense or passionate in my excitement over the things of the Kingdom. And I also was wrongly under the impression that Whitway was a minister newly coming to the OPC when I wrote that. He is so well informed in the word and doctrine.
And I agree you made no derogatory remarks about the denomination or any one.

I just think many people are perhaps unaware as to how broad some of the OPC Presbyterians or churches are.

Many people have the idea the OPC is real strict, or holds more strictly to the Confession than the PCA. After being in the NW presbytery I was surprised when I found an OPC church that was stricter to the Confession or a strict RP psalm singing congregation. So the presbyteries vary and the churches within some presbyteries vary. I learned how much one presbytery differs from another. And how much of a diversity there are in ministers in the same presbytery some times. 

*A great error in this to me is *that a new minister could be rejected by one presbytery and accepted for ordination in another. I don't think this should be so. Not on doctrinal basis anyway. This is why some ministers set out to get their presbyteries to be havens for accepting new ministers of a similar thought to their own.

in my opinion Many OPC churches would be nearly identical to some PCA churches.

And this may be due to the fact many members switch denominations in a move and there have been ministers who have gone from one to the other. Which I am glad for and think is healthy to some extent.

I do wish there was a more strict subscription and discipline to the full confession. And that the OPC would keep itself stricter and let them men who are more broad go to the PCA or elsewhere. I do not see why they want to infiltrate and change the OPC. If it is stricter and they do not want to subscribe, then fine, why not go to the PCA where they allow exceptions?

I do think this can create a potential for splits. And it is not like ministers and elders have not said that the growing diversity could eventually come to a split.
The question is how much diversity do you allow before it is too much.

So either the denomination continues to get broader or some like minded ministers leave or get defrocked. Lee Irons was censured and many like minded to him, voted for him to stay. They may not go as far as he did yet, or ever, but they wanted that breadth allowable.

And some would see themselves very similar in beliefs to him. But they hold back to some degree publicly because they know it would not be looked upon well. Their hope is that more and more like Minded men, influenced by Kline and that version of BT will join the OPC and their presbytery making it an accepted norm.

in my opinion many ministers have not looked into the issue deep enough to see the real dangers that are in this "BT" teaching.
Just as many voted in favor of allowing the minister to stay who was a proponent of tongues in church, though he did lose in the GA vote. So he and his church left the denomination. But look how long and how far that church was let go before this was addressed? Such that the majority of the church was in favor of leaving the OPC. Sad.

The challenge is how do you discipline and keep order if there is no requirement to subscribe in total to the Confession? One differs here, another differs there. Each wants their own freedom so they allow others to have theirs. Diversity increases.
Especially without a denominational seminary, where the professors are controlled by the denomination regarding what is taught and which teachers are hired.

I so appreciate the work by Rev Carrick, The Imperative of Preaching which addresses some of the errors of the BT hermeneutic and homiletic that has been coming out of Westminster West. Do not let the name Vos they attach to it cause you to think it is safe. I hope all ministers of both denominations read it and take to heart what he says.

May God revive us to more unity, in the spirit of the Westminster divines, by His Holy Spirit.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Infallibility/inerrency of doctrinal standards was discussed in this old thread.
http://www.puritanboard.com/f30/do-...ion-functionally-infallible-27125/#post330186


----------



## raekwon

charliejunfan said:


> I am wondering how many on the PB claim to hold 100% to the original Westminster Standards?
> 
> I think I will strive to understand and defend the Standards in whole, any others?



Better to strive to understand and defend the Scriptures, and then judge the Standards by that, I'd say.


----------



## Brian Withnell

armourbearer said:


> I often hear the WCF lauded for its first chapter, and especially its submission to the Scriptures as the ultimate authority; but to say one might have a change of mind _on this basis_ is somewhat counter-productive, because one might equally have a change of mind with respect to chapter one of the Confession and its convicion that holy Scripture is the supreme standard.



Even so, that would mean that as it presently stands, it would be in error. It becomes sort of like this. Find the three errors in the following sentence:

"This sentance contains three errores."

Because the sentence has two spelling errors, and one logic problem (it only contains two errors, except that it says it has three, which is the third error, but that would make the third error not an error) it is a paradox. 

If one were to change their mind on the infallibility of Scripture, then I'm done talking ... that is my first axiom from which all others are derived. Take out the axiom set, and one would have no basis for wisdom and logic. I reject post modernism's appeal to emotion. So the only way to have chapter 1 wrong is to reject the axiom, which is taken as true without proof.


----------



## Pergamum

armourbearer said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Davidius said:
> 
> 
> 
> It would be a real kick to talk to all those who said they hold to the WCF 100% and see how widely their interpretations of particular sections vary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone want to start this thread?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would one who loves and maintains the truth enter into dialogue with a mocking sceptic who laughs at those "speaking the same thing?"
Click to expand...


Are you calling Davidius a sceptic?


----------



## Brian Withnell

HokieAirman said:


> Although I am not intimately familiar with every aspect of the WCF, of the aspect which I am, I agree 100%...My family has not reached the point of doing a study on the WCF, though we've started several times. I have done a cursory study of them, and found nothing outstanding; however, there are things that last week, I was not aware were in the WCF...like I said cursory. I abstain.



I am dumbfounded. I cannot imagine being ordained in either the PCA or the OPC without having been through a course of study including Bible knowledge and the standards. From the PCA BOCO:


> Each nominee shall then be examined in:
> a. his Christian experience, especially his personal character and family
> management (based on the qualifications set out in 1 Timothy 3:1-7
> and Titus 1:6-9),
> b. his knowledge of Bible content,
> c. his knowledge of the system of doctrine, government, discipline
> contained in the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church in America
> (BCO Preface III, The Constitution Defined),
> d. the duties of the office to which he has been nominated, and
> e. his willingness to give assent to the questions required for ordination.
> (BCO 24-6)



The ordination vows in the same document contain:



> 2. Do you sincerely receive and adopt the Confession of Faith and
> the Catechisms of this Church, as containing the system of
> doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures; and do you further
> promise that if at any time you find yourself out of accord with
> any of the fundamentals of this system of doctrine, you will, on
> your own initiative, make known to your Session the change
> which has taken place in your views since the assumption of this
> ordination vow?



How could you in good faith take that vow without first knowing what the confession of faith and catechisms contain?

The examination certainly did not cover what I would want it to cover in my own church.



> After the close of the nomination period nominees for the office of ruling elder and/or deacon shall receive instruction in the qualifications and work of the office.



That seems to have been very minimal or lacking completely.


----------



## MW

Brian Withnell said:


> If one were to change their mind on the infallibility of Scripture, then I'm done talking



What good is an infallible and unchangeable Scripture when one allows fallible and changeable interpretation of its basic system of thought? If the Scripture is infallible then so is its teaching.


----------



## MW

Pergamum said:


> Are you calling Davidius a sceptic?



I'm calling a mocking sceptic the person who is ready to get a kick out of watching adherents to the WCF disagree. The name applies to anyone willing to own the statement. Hopefully the desire to shun the name will cause people to think twice before owning the statement.


----------



## Pergamum

It seems like Davidius' point is that many SAY that they hold 100% to the WCF and they urge greater and greater commitment to the WCF, but then when it comes down to the particulars, there is much variation. This is a surprise, to say the least, that more than half here do not hold 100% to the WCF, though commonly they urgeadheranceto it (for those doctrines to which they agree apparently).

This is ironic and surprising, not happiness over divisions.

I do not think Davidius was happy at divisions among Christians at all, as your use of the word "mocking sceptic" indicates, which is an attribution of evil motivation on your part towards a Christian brother. He was merely pointing out the irony, not happy over fights.


----------



## MW

Pergamum said:


> This is ironic and surprising, not happiness over divisions.



A "kick" is idiomatic for much enjoyment. The "kick" in this instance was in seeing "how widely their interpretations of particular sections vary."


----------



## DonP

Pergamum said:


> This is a surprise, to say the least, that more than half here do not hold 100% to the WCF, though commonly they urgeadheranceto it (for those doctrines to which they agree apparently).



Why is this surprising? 

There are all kinds of people allowed on the PB. We have dispensationals and people beginning to study who have begun to accept them to some degree but have not yet studied enough to say they are 100%. 

The important part of a Confession is not to force people to believe something. 

If you don't have an agreement on the essentials of the faith, how can we maintain discipline in the churches? 

One holds to this and one holds to that then there is no unity, there is no way to discipline. 
The question is not should we have a creed we subscribe to 100% but what are the central essential doctrines to agree to.


----------

