# Are you 100% confessional ?



## lynnie

Just sort of curious. I was have been in two different PCA churches and I don't think I ever met anybody who was 100% confessional. They all took exceptions.

I am not arguing or disagreeing with the exceptions or criticizing anybody....I guess I am just wondering if anybody here is actually 100% confessional in what you assent to, even if you fail to live up to it all the time.


----------



## MW

lynnie said:


> I guess I am just wondering if anybody here is actually 100% confessional in what you assent to, even if you fail to live up to it all the time.



The Churches which stand constitutionally with the Disruption in Scotland (1843) all require of their office-bearers to own the whole doctrine of the Confession, and to assert, maintain, and defend it.


----------



## Hamalas

As far as I know, I am.


----------



## Herald

Yes. Although I am prone to error and inconsistency at times.


----------



## Leslie

I'm accused of not being confessional since I take exception to some items. It depends on how one looks at it. The confessions do not claim infallibility for themselves, only for the scriptures. So it is unconfessional to claim that the confessions are infallible. Does being 100% confessional mean that every proof text is indeed, taken in context, a proof text for the item for which it is listed? I think not. I believe that the confessions are by and large an accurate reflection of the teachings of scripture at this point in history. When and if the miraculous events of Revelation surrounding the second coming occur, there will again be revelation which might (or might not) prove the confessions inaccurate at some points. Is this not consistent with the position of the confessions themselves?


----------



## Afterthought

It seems to me there's a difference between infallibility and inerrancy; the former belonging to God, while the latter being achievable by man. Since I am not a church officer, have some doubts about confessional membership, and still consider myself as one still learning the Confession (that is, I have not consciously and finally rejected anything in the confession as error yet, believing myself to require further study in such matters and illumination of the Scriptures by God), I'm not sure I can consider myself "confessional," the category possibly not being applicable (because of the first two reasons), and it wouldn't be fair to say I definitely believe portions of the confession to be in error (because of the third reason).

Edit: In the three confessional congregations I've been to, the ministers have all claimed to be 100% confessional to the revised version of the WCF in their denominations.


----------



## Jack K

I took some exceptions back in the day in the PCA. They were judged as not disagreeing with the vitals of the confession. But it's not too hard to find office-bearers who take no exceptions, even among men who are very careful about such things, and even in the not-terribly-strict PCA.


----------



## Scott1

There are many officers- ruling elders, deacons and teaching elders who do not declare (it's not a unilateral "take" exceptions) differences with any statement and/or proposition of doctrine in the Westminster Standards.

The PCA under current practice has a category of "merely semantic" differences (this is something the Presbytery evaluates not the man stating the difference), which really is no difference at all. Viewing it that way, there are even more, such as myself, who do not differ.

We owe a great debt of gratitude to our forefathers in the faith who produced these standards, summarizing the system of doctrine of the Scripture in the clearest, most concise manner known to man. They remain, almost 400 years later unparalleled.


----------



## Dearly Bought

armourbearer said:


> The Churches which stand constitutionally with the Disruption in Scotland (1843) all require of their office-bearers to own the whole doctrine of the Confession, and to assert, maintain, and defend it.



This holds true in the Presbyterian Reformed Church, although the historical background is somewhat different. As a student aspiring to the ministry (D.V.), I do own the whole doctrine of the Confession without exception.


----------



## sevenzedek

I hear that the PCA is full if those who take exception because of what happened some years ago. At one time, there was an opportunity on the table for the merging of PCA and OPC. During that time, there were members of the PCA who who were afraid to join OPC because they saw them to be more liberal. Then, PCA merged with another Presbyterian denomination that turned them, in some areas, liberal-ish. I forget the name of the denomination. This would account for the liberal shift in the PCA from its former roots.

As far as my own subscription to the Westminster Standards, I have read through them about five or six times in the last year, but I haven't studied them very well and I am in the process of studying them more; even memorizing the WSC as well. I am somewhat confused about what it means to fully subscribe to them. We know they aren't flawless documents. Could the wording ever be better? Could there ever be a flaw?


----------



## David Pope

I was recently examined by our Session for church office and took no exceptions. Dr. Morton Smith has written a book on the importance of subscription that was helpful to me in my consideration of such things.


----------



## Scott1

A few comments may be helpful, below:




Leslie said:


> I'm accused of not being confessional since I take exception to some items.
> 
> *There are a few reformed denominations that require an affirmative subscription to every statement and/or proposition of doctrine in their Confession, but not many. Most, such as the PCA, while requiring a peaceable study of the church's doctrine, do not require a comprehensive understanding of the Confession, far less an affirmation of every statement in it.
> 
> It would be rare and infrequent, as best I'm aware, for a denomination to say someone was not "confessional" because they thought they had a difference at one or two minor points of doctrine. That's anecdotal, but only trying to place this in an understandable context. It depends what difference one thinks they hold as against the time tested standard they confess.*
> 
> It depends on how one looks at it. The confessions do not claim infallibility for themselves, only for the scriptures. So it is unconfessional to claim that the confessions are infallible.
> 
> *The Confessions are taken to be a faithful summary of the doctrine of Scripture to which they speak. And, that summary is not inerrant or infallible as is Scripture.
> 
> But let's not marginalize the impact or authority of the Confessions when we say they're not infallible...*
> 
> Does being 100% confessional mean that every proof text is indeed, taken in context, a proof text for the item for which it is listed? I think not. I believe that the confessions are by and large an accurate reflection of the teachings of scripture at this point in history. When and if the miraculous events of Revelation surrounding the second coming occur, there will again be revelation which might (or might not) prove the confessions inaccurate at some points.
> 
> *God's special revelation (His Word) has not revealed many details about what happens after His second coming, but in the meantime, He has completed revelation, sufficient for us, in His Word.
> 
> The Confessions help us understand the Word, the truths in it, unify us in truth confessed to each other and an unbelieving world, and hold us accountable as we stray, until that time.*
> 
> 
> Is this not consistent with the position of the confessions themselves?


----------



## housta

David Pope said:


> I was recently examined by our Session for church office and took no exceptions. Dr. Morton Smith has written a book on the importance of subscription that was helpful to me in my consideration of such things.



Brother, what is the name of Dr. Smith's book?


----------



## Logan

I subscribe to the Westminster (original) without any reservations, according to my understanding of it.


----------



## ZackF

Logan said:


> I subscribe to the Westminster (original) without any reservations, according to my understanding of it.



Logan, I ask this out of ignorance and not spite. Don't you Covenanters have a modified confession from the original also? 

For what it's worth, I would say I am about a 98% 1789er. Even with that revision, I still have some quibbles about the nature and duties of the civil magistrate.


----------



## Logan

No, the RPCNA uses the original Westminster, but then has alongside that its "Testimony", which explains a few things or furthers it (for example, a capella psalm singing is part of the Testimony).

There are three places I am aware of that the testimony rejects the WCF:

The last part of 24:4
"The man may not marry any of his wife’s kindred nearer in blood than he may of his own; nor the woman of her husband’s kindred nearer in blood than of her own."

And speaking of the magistrate, the last part of 23:3
"yet he 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. 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."

And 31:2 is also rejected
"As magistrates may lawfully call a synod of ministers, and other fit persons, to consult and advise with, about matters of religion; so, if magistrates be open enemies to the Church, the ministers of Christ of themselves, by virtue of their office, or they, with other fit persons, upon delegation from their Churches, may meet together in such assemblies."


----------



## THE W

I'm working on it..


----------



## Andres

As providence would have it, I had breakfast this morning with Pastor Mark and brother Rom and we discussed this very subject! In addition to Logan's references, I would also add that at WCF 25.6, the RP Testimony notes, _"Many antichrists will be present in the world throughout history. Prior to Christ’s coming the final “man of lawlessness” will be revealed. He will be destroyed by Christ. 1 John 2:18; 1 John 4:3; 2 Thess. 2:8._



Logan said:


> No, the RPCNA uses the original Westminster, but then has alongside that its "Testimony", which explains a few things or furthers it (for example, a capella psalm singing is part of the Testimony).
> 
> There are three places I am aware of that the testimony rejects the WCF:
> 
> The last part of 24:4
> "The man may not marry any of his wife’s kindred nearer in blood than he may of his own; nor the woman of her husband’s kindred nearer in blood than of her own."
> 
> And speaking of the magistrate, the last part of 23:3
> "yet he 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. 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."
> 
> And 31:2 is also rejected
> "As magistrates may lawfully call a synod of ministers, and other fit persons, to consult and advise with, about matters of religion; so, if magistrates be open enemies to the Church, the ministers of Christ of themselves, by virtue of their office, or they, with other fit persons, upon delegation from their Churches, may meet together in such assemblies."


----------



## ProtestantBankie

So the Testimony is the confessional document in the RP Church, and the Confession is subordinate to it?

There are contradictions between them?

In which case being 100% in agreement with testimony means not being fully confessional?

Sorry this should probably be a new thread!


----------



## Logan

Personally I take exception to the exceptions.

Also, I wouldn't say that the Confession is subordinate, the Testimony is more complementary and expository. In ordination the question is asked "Do you believe in and accept the system of doctrine and the manner of worship set forth in the Westminster Confession of Faith, the Larger and Shorter Catechisms, and the Testimony of the Reformed Presbyterian Church, as being agreeable to, and founded upon, the Scriptures?"


----------



## NaphtaliPress

The RP Testimony achieves the same thing by another document that others achieve by modifying the Confession of Faith, etc.


----------



## Andres

NaphtaliPress said:


> The RP Testimony achieves the same thing by another document that others achieve by modifying the Confession of Faith, etc.



Exactly.


----------



## lynnie

I really appreciate all the interesting replies.


----------



## Scott1

sevenzedek said:


> I hear that the PCA is full if those who take exception because of what happened some years ago. At one time, there was an opportunity on the table for the merging of PCA and OPC. During that time, there were members of the PCA who who were afraid to join OPC because they saw them to be more liberal. Then, PCA merged with another Presbyterian denomination that turned them, in some areas, liberal-ish. I forget the name of the denomination. This would account for the liberal shift in the PCA from its former roots.
> 
> As far as my own subscription to the Westminster Standards, I have read through them about five or six times in the last year, but I haven't studied them very well and I am in the process of studying them more; even memorizing the WSC as well. I am somewhat confused about what it means to fully subscribe to them. We know they aren't flawless documents. Could the wording ever be better? Could there ever be a flaw?



I'm not sure of the history you speak of. Generally, the OPC, being a much smaller (and smaller congregation) denomination, is considered more strict and uniform (not liberal) than the PCA. Lots of exceptions, but there is a lot more variety in the much larger and widespread PCA. I think much of that flows from the demographics of size.

The "joining and receiving" of the RPCES (Reformed Presbyterian Church Evangelical Synod) denomination in 1982 I don't think is viewed as making the denomination more liberal-ish. There were sober concerns on both sides, but the merger has worked very well as the doctrinal alignment and practice was very close.

The PCA present system of declaring differences is still having its process worked out. But basically, it requires officers to declare differences, if any, with any statement and/or proposition of doctrine in the Westminster Standards and have them evaluated by their spiritual court. The Presbytery now has to put teaching elder differences in the words of the elder in his own words as part of the record which eventually gets reviewed even at the General Assembly level (Committee for Review of Presbytery Records). The Presbytery has to evaluate them as being (my words):

1) merely semantic
2) minor difference
3) major difference

I think (opinion here) there has been some twisting of the meaning of the system as it was intended, e.g. that somehow teaching elders with major differences could be admitted, or that the General Assembly does not have a review role of any differences "granted," etc.

But the system is strict, and reasonable, perhaps would benefit from some additional clarity with regard to the above points. The biggest challenge is the will to enforce the letter and spirit of the system, the falleness of human nature is always at the door.

It allows for evaluation of conscience-based "scruples," and provides for review.
It's not a mix-and-match system or forum shopping approach as some uncharitably describe it. Not in good faith.


----------



## JM

by God's grace...closer everyday.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Logan said:


> I subscribe to the Westminster (original) without any reservations, according to my understanding of it.
> 
> Then in a later post you state this....
> Personally I take exception to the exceptions.


 What about the Church's testimony? It points to something that the RPCNA has thought to be inconsistent with the scripture. I point specifically to the Chapter on Marriage 24.4 


> The man may not marry any of his wife's kindred nearer in blood than he may of his own, nor the woman of her husband's kindred nearer in blood than of her own.





> 21. We reject the last sentence in paragraph 4 of the Confession. The prohibition of marriage with a deceased wife’s sister or a deceased husband’s brother is not warranted by Scripture.
> Lev. 18:18; Deut. 25:5-10.


----------



## Rev. Todd Ruddell

Logan said:


> Personally I take exception to the exceptions.
> 
> Also, I wouldn't say that the Confession is subordinate, the Testimony is more complementary and expository. In ordination the question is asked "Do you believe in and accept the system of doctrine and the manner of worship set forth in the Westminster Confession of Faith, the Larger and Shorter Catechisms, and the Testimony of the Reformed Presbyterian Church, as being agreeable to, and founded upon, the Scriptures?"



Article 12 of the RPCNA Testimony Introduction: All of these documents, the Westminster Confession of Faith, the Testimony of the Reformed Presbyterian Church, and the Larger and Shorter Catechisms, are of equal authority in the church; except that where noted, earlier documents are to be interpreted by the later ones.


----------



## Philip

I take minor exceptions on a couple of points but am in substantial agreement.


----------



## sevenzedek

Scott1 said:


> I'm not sure of the history you speak of. Generally, the OPC, being a much smaller (and smaller congregation) denomination, is considered more strict and uniform (not liberal) than the PCA.



I think you misunderstood me. What I was saying is that the PCA once looked at the OPC as liberal-ish a long time ago.

The PCA currently appears somewhat liberal, if I may make this distinction in the context of my words only, to stand less liberal than the OPC because of their allowance for standard exceptions. I only know what I hear.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

If I am not mistaken the days of creation where a sticking point between the PCA and OPC. I do think the earlier PCA would have considered the OPC as being more liberal on that point at least.


----------



## Scott1

sevenzedek said:


> Scott1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure of the history you speak of. Generally, the OPC, being a much smaller (and smaller congregation) denomination, is considered more strict and uniform (not liberal) than the PCA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you misunderstood me. What I was saying is that the PCA once looked at the OPC as liberal-ish a long time ago.
> 
> The PCA currently appears somewhat liberal, if I may make this distinction in the context of my words only, to stand less liberal than the OPC because of their allowance for standard exceptions. I only know what I hear.
Click to expand...


To be clear, I'm not aware of a time where the first part was a widespread perception or part of the history of these two very fine denominations.

Nor would I characterize it like the second part, but would say, more varied, and that coming with size and demographics, at least in part.


----------



## jandrusk

Perhaps this was work being referenced by Dr. Morton Smith?

Harmony of the Westminster Confession and Catechism: Dr. Morton Smith - Hardcover, Book | Ligonier Ministries Store


----------



## sevenzedek

Scott1 said:


> sevenzedek said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scott1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure of the history you speak of. Generally, the OPC, being a much smaller (and smaller congregation) denomination, is considered more strict and uniform (not liberal) than the PCA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you misunderstood me. What I was saying is that the PCA once looked at the OPC as liberal-ish a long time ago.
> 
> The PCA currently appears somewhat liberal, if I may make this distinction in the context of my words only, to stand less liberal than the OPC because of their allowance for standard exceptions. I only know what I hear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To be clear, I'm not aware of a time where the first part was a widespread perception or part of the history of these two very fine denominations.
> 
> Nor would I characterize it like the second part, but would say, more varied, and that coming with size and demographics, at least in part.
Click to expand...


Thanks. I'll investigate my source.


----------



## David Pope

housta said:


> David Pope said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was recently examined by our Session for church office and took no exceptions. Dr. Morton Smith has written a book on the importance of subscription that was helpful to me in my consideration of such things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brother, what is the name of Dr. Smith's book?
Click to expand...


The Case for Full Subscription to the Westminster Standards in the Presbyterian Church in America. It was published in 1992 by Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary.


----------



## SinnerSavedByChrist

Philip said:


> I take minor exceptions on a couple of points but am in substantial agreement.


 likewise with the LBCF1689.


----------



## BarryR

I hold to the 1647 Confession with no exceptions and believe it to be the best orthodox confession ever produced. I have found no reason to add to it, remove something from it, or take an exception to any part of it. Where there might be the need for further clarification, the Larger Catechism handles those instances with wonderful precision.


----------



## reaganmarsh

I hold the 1689 with no exceptions beyond a hesitation as to the advisability equating of the papacy with "the" antichrist. Beyond that, full subscription.


----------



## kodos

For me it is important that the officers of the church hold to what the Church confesses. I am not particularly interested in which orthodox confession that is. I simply want to know that the officers uphold, teach and believe what their confession states. I have had terrible experiences with officers in the PCA who take exception to large swaths of the confession to the point where the confession was virtually meaningless. If I go to XYZ denomination I would like to know that each local body's ministers professes what they teach. Otherwise you can go to one church that is EP and then travel to another church in the same denomination that is hymnody. It gets worse than that - you can have a local session where one elder believes in the 4th commandment being binding and yet another believes it to be ceremonial! How is there to be unity outside of a common confession that is practiced by all?

I for one am not an officer of any church. I am a member. This is my perspective as a member who has been hurt by a lack of confessionalism in the past. I don't have to subscribe to every jot and tittle of the Testimony (as a member). That said, I was thrilled that as a member of the RPCNA I gave an oath to keep the Lord's Day! I had never seen membership vows like that before!

I am falling in love with the Testimony as it sits alongside our Confession. It is very helpful. We for instance stress that the worship of God involves only singing the psalms unaccompanied. This is what I believe the WCF teaches. However even in the same denomination there will be disagreements between churches on what the WCF means by psalms. To make sure everyone is clear on this in the modern age, the Testimony stresses we mean the 150 inspired psalms found in God's Word.


----------



## Craig.Scott

The RP church of Scotland require full subscription without exceptions from office bearers. 

How can the RPCNA men vow before God:

" 4. Do you believe in and accept the system of doctrine and the manner of worship set forth in the Westminster Confession of Faith, the Larger and Shorter Catechisms, and the Testimony of the Reformed Presbyterian Church, as being agreeable to, and founded upon, the Scriptures?"

Even if public exceptions are made the fact you say I do to above seems to me rather cobtradictory. It is a contradiction to vow the above before Holy God when one takes exception to either the WCF or testimony. 

The same with PCA, OPC etc. unless the vow says and admits the exceptions surely it is dishonest?


----------



## Logan

Craig.Scott said:


> 4. Do you believe in and accept the* system of doctrine* and the *manner of worship* set forth in the Westminster Confession of Faith, the Larger and Shorter Catechisms, and the Testimony of the Reformed Presbyterian Church, as being agreeable to, and founded upon, the Scriptures?



Yes.


----------



## Craig.Scott

Logan said:


> Craig.Scott said:
> 
> 
> 
> 4. Do you believe in and accept the* system of doctrine* and the *manner of worship* set forth in the Westminster Confession of Faith, the Larger and Shorter Catechisms, and the Testimony of the Reformed Presbyterian Church, as being agreeable to, and founded upon, the Scriptures?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
Click to expand...


Surely you cannot say before God you subscribe too both:

WCF 23:
3. Civil magistrates may not assume to themselves the administration of the Word and sacraments; or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven;e or, in the least, interfere in matters of faith.f Yet, as nursing fathers, it is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the church of our common Lord, without giving the preference to any denomination of Christians above the rest, in such a manner that all ecclesiastical persons whatever shall enjoy the full, free, and unquestioned liberty of discharging every part of their sacred functions, without violence or danger.g And, as Jesus Christ hath appointed a regular government and discipline in his church, no law of any commonwealth should interfere with, let, or hinder, the due exercise thereof, among the voluntary members of any denomination of Christians, according to their own profession and belief.h It is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the person and good name of all their people, in such an effectual manner as that no person be suffered, either upon pretense of religion or of infidelity, to offer any indignity, violence, abuse, or injury to any other person whatsoever: and to take order, that all religious and ecclesiastical assemblies be held without molestation or disturbance.i
(e) 2 Chr 26:18; Matt 18:17; Matt 16:19; 1 Cor 12:28-29; Eph 4:11-12; 1 Cor 4:1-2; Rom 10:15; Heb 5:4
(f) John 18:36; Acts 5:29; Eph 4:11-12
(g) Isa 49:23; Rom 13:1-6
(h) Ps 105:15
(i) Rom 13:4; 1 Tim 2:2


And


18. We reject the portion of paragraph 3 after the colon.



This is a contraction and to take the vow is to be dishonest:




Deut. 23:23

23 That which is gone out of thy lips thou shalt keep and perform; even a freewill offering, according as thou hast vowed unto the Lord thy God, which thou hast promised with thy mouth.


----------



## Logan

Craig.Scott said:


> Surely you cannot say before God you subscribe too both:



No, and I don't think I vowed as such (not to both in every proposition anyway, who could?). What do you understand "system of doctrine" meaning? Hodge has a good discussion on the meaning of this phrase.


----------



## Craig.Scott

Logan said:


> Craig.Scott said:
> 
> 
> 
> Surely you cannot say before God you subscribe too both:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, and I don't think I vowed as such (not to both in every proposition anyway, who could?). What do you understand "system of doctrine" meaning? Hodge has a good discussion on the meaning of this phrase.
Click to expand...


No one could because they are contradictory. Unfortunately I think Hodge is re-interpreting the historical understanding of subscription to maintain his own position. It us a modernising rather than a historical view. 

This is the confessional attitude that has destroyed the integrity of other presbyterian churches, and I'm afraid I see the RPCNA as a church that goes against her Covenanter past.


----------



## kodos

Craig.Scott said:


> The RP church of Scotland require full subscription without exceptions from office bearers.
> 
> How can the RPCNA men vow before God:
> 
> " 4. Do you believe in and accept the system of doctrine and the manner of worship set forth in the Westminster Confession of Faith, the Larger and Shorter Catechisms, and the Testimony of the Reformed Presbyterian Church, as being agreeable to, and founded upon, the Scriptures?"
> 
> Even if public exceptions are made the fact you say I do to above seems to me rather cobtradictory. It is a contradiction to vow the above before Holy God when one takes exception to either the WCF or testimony.
> 
> The same with PCA, OPC etc. unless the vow says and admits the exceptions surely it is dishonest?



Before I comment further, I want to understand something - are you accusing these men of dishonesty and lying to God?


----------



## Logan

Craig.Scott said:


> Unfortunately I think Hodge is re-interpreting the historical understanding of subscription to maintain his own position.



That's a strong accusation against Hodge. Can you point to something in support of this?

I've not read through the paper completely but this seems to give a good history of the phrase "system of doctrine".

When did the your church begin requiring subscription to the "system of doctrine"?


----------



## Craig.Scott

kodos said:


> Craig.Scott said:
> 
> 
> 
> The RP church of Scotland require full subscription without exceptions from office bearers.
> 
> How can the RPCNA men vow before God:
> 
> " 4. Do you believe in and accept the system of doctrine and the manner of worship set forth in the Westminster Confession of Faith, the Larger and Shorter Catechisms, and the Testimony of the Reformed Presbyterian Church, as being agreeable to, and founded upon, the Scriptures?"
> 
> Even if public exceptions are made the fact you say I do to above seems to me rather cobtradictory. It is a contradiction to vow the above before Holy God when one takes exception to either the WCF or testimony.
> 
> The same with PCA, OPC etc. unless the vow says and admits the exceptions surely it is dishonest?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Before I comment further, I want to understand something - are you accusing these men of dishonesty and lying to God?
Click to expand...


It sounds harsh to say so, and consciously I cannot answer. But to vow before God that one will uphold the WCF yet disagree with it on the civil magistrate, Sabbath, Antichrist etc is dishonest. If one disagrees then they should not be taking the vow before God.


----------



## Craig.Scott

Logan said:


> Craig.Scott said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately I think Hodge is re-interpreting the historical understanding of subscription to maintain his own position.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a strong accusation against Hodge. Can you point to something in support of this?
> 
> I've not read through the paper completely but this seems to give a good history of the phrase "system of doctrine".
> 
> When did the your church begin requiring subscription to the "system of doctrine"?
Click to expand...


I cannot cite sources as I'm on the iPhone and not my laptop. The American Presbyterians cannot subscribe and modernised the WCF and interpret the WCF subscription to satisfy there state. They reject the WCF on civil magistrate, antichrist, psalmody and to say the WCF complied a confession so that the churches in the 17th century could disagree with it is ahistorical. 

The RP's/Covenanters have always been full subscribers if the WCF. The RPCNA have rejected that hence the testimony. The whole WCF is a system of doctrine, that's why it was produced, to pick and choose and then interpret vows to justify ones position before God is wrong. In the end it causes confusion. 

If one was to ask about the churches position on say the civil magistrate one would look to a confession, to do so in the RPCNA would say WCF 26, and every elders takes a vow, yet not all elders agree with the WCF and the testimony rejects it also. It is confusing and goes against Covenanting principles.


----------



## kodos

What are your thoughts on the RPI's statements below (as well as the Church of Scotland's 1647 reception of the Confession)?

In particular the Church has reservations regarding two sections of the Westminster Confession of Faith.
1. Chapter 23, paragraph 3, and chapter 31, paragraph 2, should be interpreted in accordance with the decision of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland receiving the Confession in 1647. "The Assembly understandeth some parts of the second article of the thirty-first chapter only of kirks not settled or constituted in point of Government and that, although in such kirks a Synod of Ministers, and other fit persons, may be called by the Magistrate's authority and nomination without any other call, to consult and advise with, about matters of religion; and although, likewise, the Ministers of Christ, without delegation from their Churches, may of themselves, and by virtue of their office, meet together synodically in such kirks not yet constituted, yet neither of these ought to be done in kirks constituted and settled." The Church's acceptance of this interpretation does not imply the granting of any authority to the magistrate other than the requesting of ministers and other fit persons to assemble together.
2. And also regarding chapter 24, paragraph 4, in the matter of marriage with a deceased wife's sister and deceased husband's brother - in view of the uncertainty amongst students of Scripture as to the true interpretation of the injunctions laid down, no disciplinary action is taken by the Church against those who contract such marriages or ministers who perform them.


----------



## Logan

Sure, if that were the case, but it is my understanding that there were no "subscriptions" to the WCF required (in any form), or vows made until much. The Americans may have been the first to require subscription to the "system of doctrine", I was wondering when your church began doing so. 

If this is the case, then it would be wrong to reinterpret the American vow of affirmation to "system of doctrine" to mean something else.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

WCF 24 .4 last sentence


> The man may not marry any of his wife's kindred nearer in blood than he may of his own, nor the woman of her husband's kindred nearer in blood than of her own.



Testimony


> 21. We reject the last sentence in paragraph 4 of the Confession. The prohibition of marriage with a deceased wife’s sister or a deceased husband’s brother is not warranted by Scripture.
> Lev. 18:18; Deut. 25:5-10.



Did anyone have a problem with the Testimony here?


----------



## Logan

Hi Randy,

Are you asking if anyone in this thread had a problem or anyone in their ordination?

As I said earlier, I don't see a problem holding with the original WCF here. I will admit to not having studied in-depth but my understanding of this passage in Leviticus is that it is talking about incestuous marriages, not adultery (one of the convincing things for me is the parallel in this passage to Leviticus 18), so this is one of the things from the Testimony that I took exception to.

Now whether this is part of the Levitical law or moral law is a different question I suppose.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

1647


> 3. The civil magistrate may not assume to himself the administration of the Word and sacraments, or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven*: *yet he 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. 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.
> 2 Chron. 26:18 with Matt. 18:17 and Matt. 16:19; 1 Cor. 12:28-29; Eph. 4: 11-12; 1 Cor. 4:1-2; Rom. 10:15; Heb. 5:4; Isa. 49:23; Ps. 122:9; Ezra 7:23, 25-28; Lev. 24:16; Deut. 13:5-6, 12; 1 Kings 18:4; 1 Chron. 13:1-9; 2 Kings 23:1-26; 2 Chron. 34:33; 2 Chron. 15: 12-13; 2 Chron. 19:8-11; 2 Chron. 29––30; Matt. 2:4-5.



Testimony



> 18. We reject the portion of paragraph 3 after the colon.
> 
> 19. Both the government of the nation and the government of the visible church are established by God. Though distinct and independent of each other, they both owe supreme allegiance to Jesus Christ. The governments of church and state differ in sphere of authority in that due submission to the government of the visible church is the obligation of members thereof, while due submission to civil government is the obligation of all men. The governments of church and state also have different functions and prerogatives in the advancement of the Kingdom of God. The means of enforcement of the civil government are physical, while those of church government are not. Neither government has the right to invade or assume the authority of the other. They should cooperate to the honor and glory of God, while maintaining their separate jurisdictions. Rom. 13:1; Matt. 22:21; Col. 1:18; Acts 15:10; Ezra 7:10, 25-26; 2 Chron. 26: 18-19; Matt. 5:25; 1 Cor. 5:12-13.
> 20. Though responsible for maintaining conditions favorable to the spread of the Gospel, civil government should never attempt to convert men to Christ by the use of force or by persecution. It should guarantee to all its subjects every human right given by God to men. It should, however, restrain and punish its subjects for those sinful actions which fall under its jurisdiction.
> 1 Tim. 2:1-4; 1 Pet. 2:13-14; Rom. 13: 4; Ezra 7:26; Neh. 13:17-21.



What is different from the Testimony and the American Revision of the WCF here on this chapter? Any thoughts?

American Version



> III. Civil magistrates may not assume to themselves the administration of the Word and sacraments; or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven;5 6 7 or, in the least, interfere in matters of faith. Yet, as nursing fathers, it is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the Church of our common Lord, without giving the preference to any denomination of Christians above the rest, in such a manner that all ecclesiastical persons whatever shall enjoy the full, free, and unquestioned liberty of discharging every part of their sacred functions, without violence or danger. And, as Jesus Christ has appointed a regular government and discipline in his Church, no law of any commonwealth should interfere with, let, or hinder, the due exercise thereof, among the voluntary members of any denomination of Christians, according to their own profession and belief. It is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the person and good name of all their people, in such an effectual manner as that no person be suffered, either upon pretense of religion or of infidelity, to offer any indignity, violence, abuse, or injury to any other person whatsoever: and to take order, that all religious and ecclesiastical assemblies be held without molestation or disturbance.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Logan said:


> Hi Randy,
> 
> Are you asking if anyone in this thread had a problem or anyone in their ordination?
> 
> As I said earlier, I don't see a problem holding with the original WCF here. I will admit to not having studied in-depth but my understanding of this passage in Leviticus is that it is talking about incestuous marriages, not adultery (one of the convincing things for me is the parallel in this passage to Leviticus 18), so this is one of the things from the Testimony that I took exception to.
> 
> Now whether this is part of the Levitical law or moral law is a different question I suppose.



It seems that incestuous marriages might not be the main point here since it is speaking of the wife's kindred. That wouldn't be incestuous would it? I admit to being ignorant on this matter but the testimony seems rather pointed as to who and when.


----------



## ProtestantBankie

The marriage section is the interesting one.

I was not aware of the Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland's statement about this, nor with the position of the RPCNA. 

I'll be digging a bit deeper into my own constitutional background - Free Church (Continuing) - in order to see how far this line of argument goes. I'd never known that this position was ever rejected.


----------



## MW

ProtestantBankie said:


> I'll be digging a bit deeper into my own constitutional background - Free Church (Continuing) - in order to see how far this line of argument goes. I'd never known that this position was ever rejected.



James Gibson's Marriage Affinity Question is excellent. Besides vindicating the biblical morality of the Confession's position, he also shows that this was a reformed consensus.

Basically, marriage is created "in law." Marital relations are established "in law." The deceased wife's sister remains an "in-law" relation. Marriage is forbidden to the same degrees of consanguinity (blood relations) and affinity (in law relations). Hence marriage to a sister-in-law is as unlawful as marriage to a sister.


----------



## ProtestantBankie

armourbearer said:


> ProtestantBankie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll be digging a bit deeper into my own constitutional background - Free Church (Continuing) - in order to see how far this line of argument goes. I'd never known that this position was ever rejected.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Gibson's Marriage Affinity Question is excellent. Besides vindicating the biblical morality of the Confession's position, he also shows that this was a reformed consensus.
> 
> Basically, marriage is created "in law." Marital relations are established "in law." The deceased wife's sister remains an "in-law" relation. Marriage is forbidden to the same degrees of consanguinity (blood relations) and affinity (in law relations). Hence marriage to a sister-in-law is as unlawful as marriage to a sister.
Click to expand...


Thanks Mr Winzer, that would be my own understanding from a not-deeply-read perspective.

My friend has a puritan hard drive....


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Westminster Presbytery (PCA)

I thought this was very good in pointing out that unity and peace are greatly promoted when we stick to what we believe as a group. If someone doesn't like the boundaries there are other options. 




> Westminster Presbytery has endured a considerable amount of criticism because of our stance. Certainly, in regard to Creationism or Cessationism, we do not represent mainline Presbyterianism in the PCA or other Reformed denominations (such as the OPC). We have been labeled as Old School, Strict Subscriptionists, and even as Mountain TRs. We have been called narrow-minded and unreasonable. I believe that Westminster Presbytery has been unfairly criticized. Few people understand the history that led Westminster Presbytery to adopt this stance on Creationism and Cessationism...
> 
> 
> ...In judging the restrictive nature of Westminster Presbytery in receiving new members, it should be remembered that she did not adopt her position in order to “preach” to other presbyteries or denominations. It did not arise from a superior mind-set. Such attitudes were not even in our thoughts during this time of conflict. The goal was self-preservation. We had one concern – that we must seek unity (not just spiritual unity, but ecclesiastical unity) in order to honor Christ. We sought peace and God gave us peace. To God be the glory!


----------



## TylerRay

lynnie said:


> Just sort of curious. I was have been in two different PCA churches and I don't think I ever met anybody who was 100% confessional. They all took exceptions.
> 
> I am not arguing or disagreeing with the exceptions or criticizing anybody....I guess I am just wondering if anybody here is actually 100% confessional in what you assent to, even if you fail to live up to it all the time.



Yes.


----------



## Clark-Tillian

I've always been close. I'm currently going through them with a fine-tooth comb and examining my views, applying real and hypothetical pastoral case studies to see if I need to inform my Presbytery. Most of my issues would fall under "semantics". For example, I much prefer WLC 3 over WSC 2 and use the former to interpret the latter. In our post-Barthian age I think the "which is contained" phrase can be either misunderstood or intentionally utilized to allow a Neo-Orthodox chap to fly under false colors. Such a man would likely not want to be around most of us and wouldn't bother, but it's a possibility.


----------



## MW

Clark-Tillian said:


> For example, I much prefer WLC 3 over WSC 2 and use the former to interpret the latter. In our post-Barthian age I think the "which is contained" phrase can be either misunderstood or intentionally utilized to allow a Neo-Orthodox chap to fly under false colors. Such a man would likely not want to be around most of us and wouldn't bother, but it's a possibility.



That is an odd comparison. They speak to two different things. The Larger asks, What is the Word of God? but the Shorter asks, What rule hath God given us? The Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the Word of God; the Word of God contained in the Scriptures is our rule. It is certain that the words of wicked men and devils which are recorded in Scripture are not our rule of faith and life.


----------



## Clark-Tillian

Then we'll simply have to disagree on this one, brother. I think, in essence, they are dealing with the same issue. Obviously, the words of Jezebel et al are not our rule of life. I don't see where anyone in their right mind would make that assertion; I certainly wasn't. However, WCF 2 seems to equate the two phrases 'Holy Scripture" and 'Word of God" as co-referential. Also, WCF 2 gives us the standard Protestant canon and asserts that "All which are given by inspiration of God to be the rule of faith and life.", echoing 2 Tim. 3.16. Even the "words of wicked men and devils" be they blasphemous, vile etc. were recorded by men under the Inspiration of the Holy Spirit. And even those horrific--even terrifying words--are profitable for doctrine (eg what not to believe etc.), reproof (eg pointing out to a brother that a particular conversation was eerily similar to the wicked), correction (eg what to avoid in our lives) and instruction in righteousness (eg showing your son how the evil one seeks to twist God's word in an attempt to fool us such as in Matt.4:6).


----------



## MW

Clark-Tillian said:


> Then we'll simply have to disagree on this one, brother. I think, in essence, they are dealing with the same issue. Obviously, the words of Jezebel et al are not our rule of life. I don't see where anyone in their right mind would make that assertion; I certainly wasn't. However, WCF 2 seems to equate the two phrases 'Holy Scripture" and 'Word of God" as co-referential. Also, WCF 2 gives us the standard Protestant canon and asserts that "All which are given by inspiration of God to be the rule of faith and life.", echoing 2 Tim. 3.16. Even the "words of wicked men and devils" be they blasphemous, vile etc. were recorded by men under the Inspiration of the Holy Spirit. And even those horrific--even terrifying words--are profitable for doctrine (eg what not to believe etc.), reproof (eg pointing out to a brother that a particular conversation was eerily similar to the wicked), correction (eg what to avoid in our lives) and instruction in righteousness (eg showing your son how the evil one seeks to twist God's word in an attempt to fool us such as in Matt.4:6).



I think you are confusing revelation and inscripturation, a distinction clearly made in WCF 1.1, and one which was essential to the divines' understanding of Scripture. You have to interpret Scripture in order to ascertain in what ways the words are to be taken as a rule. Hence it is not the letter of Scripture itself, but Scripture rightly interpreted, which is the rule of faith and life -- a fact which is to be found in the writings of the divines themselves. E.g., William Gouge (The Whole Armour of God): "This word is properly and truly the right sense and meaning of the Scripture; for except that be found out, in many words there may seem to be matter of falsehood (as that the Son knoweth not the day of judgment), of heresy (as that the Father is greater than the Son), and contradiction, as betwixt that which Christ said (my Father is greater than I), and that which the apostle said (that Christ Jesus thought it no robbery to be equal with God). The letter of Scripture may be alleged, and yet the word of God missed, as by all heretics. And a man may swerve from the letter, and yet allege the true word of God, as the Evangelists and Apostles did many times. Compare Mic. 5:2 with Mat. 2:6, Ps. 40:6 with Heb. 10:5."

But I leave you to dissent from a misunderstanding of the Catechism. Where the misunderstanding swerves left of the meaning, your dissent turns right again. It is just a shame the Catechism has to be exposed to prejudice in the process.


----------

