# Exceptions in the PCA?



## Steve Dixon

What exceptions to the WCF are significant enough to constitute disqualifying a man from service as an officer in the PCA? Would for example, a man that denied a limited atonement be disqualified? How about total depravity? What about a man that affirmed the entire Arminian system? Are those questions as to suitability left to each presbytery to decide?


----------



## TimV

No, the Bowen case is currently the standard in the PCA. A man who denies limited atonement cannot be an Elder or Deacon. Some Presbyteries like the Northern California Presbytery have ignored this rule, but if a member files a complaint the local Session has to enforce it.

I recently forced our church to stop ordaining Baptists and Arminians even though the Session disagreed with me.


----------



## Christusregnat

TimV said:


> No, the Bowen case is currently the standard in the PCA. A man who denies limited atonement cannot be an Elder or Deacon. Some Presbyteries like the Northern California Presbytery have ignored this rule, but if a member files a complaint the local Session has to enforce it.
> 
> I recently forced our church to stop ordaining Baptists and Arminians even though the Session disagreed with me.



Oh, how I love our NorCal Presbytery 


Adam


----------



## Timothy William

I'm surprised that someone who denied LA would even be considered as a candidate for elder.

What is the Bowen case referred to above?

What of exceptions to 6 day creationism or exclusive psalmody, for example, or heterodox views on the Sabbath? What does the PCA regard as automatically disqualifying?


----------



## TimV

> What is the Bowen case referred to above?



You can get it emailed you by the Stated Clerk's office in Atlanta.



> What of exceptions to 6 day creationism or exclusive psalmody, for example, or heterodox views on the Sabbath? What does the PCA regard as automatically disqualifying?


____

No.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Actually for some Presbyteries in the PCA 6-day creationism is required. I know of several churches that have put it on their Pastor Search form as a requirement.


----------



## turmeric

I think, though I don't know for sure, that exceptions on the Sabbath are tolerated. Exceptions on TULIP generally are not.

Why would an Arminian _want_ to serve? There _are_ Arminian churches, after all.


----------



## TimV

Good question, Meg. And also why a particular Session would want them as well.

Hi Benjamin

Individual Sessions can be more picky than the denominational minimum standards. For instance, a Session may not allow theonomists as officers, even though the denomination as a whole allows them. A good reference for things like that is the PCA historical section, which has an area for position papers. The position papers for Creationism are good reading:

PCA Historical Center: Index to the Position Papers of the Presbyterian Church in America


----------



## jwithnell

Quote: What of exceptions to 6 day creationism or exclusive psalmody, for example, or heterodox views on the Sabbath? What does the PCA regard as automatically disqualifying?

Exclusive singing psalms is not generally viewed as required by the WCF or the Bible in either the PCA or OPC.


----------



## Romans922

Steve Dixon said:


> What exceptions to the WCF are significant enough to constitute disqualifying a man from service as an officer in the PCA? Would for example, a man that denied a limited atonement be disqualified? How about total depravity? What about a man that affirmed the entire Arminian system? Are those questions as to suitability left to each presbytery to decide?



This is left up to each individual presbytery to decide what man is fit for the office by deciding what is and what is not the FUNDAMENTALS of the Westminster Standards. 

NOTE: Good faith subscription is the worst thing that has happened, oh how I abhor it!


----------



## TimV

> This is left up to each individual presbytery to decide what man is fit for the office by deciding what is and what is not the FUNDAMENTALS of the Westminster Standards.



That's actually not true. Case like the Bowen case serve as denominational standards. No Baptist or denier of limited atonement can hold office in the PCA. Those ordained for whatever reason otherwise are termed "officers out of conformity" and it's left to the individual Session and Presbytery to decide how to handle the case.

That's why you get the "unordained Deacon" position, so Baptists, women and Arminians can be officers but not officers.


----------



## Stephen

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Actually for some Presbyteries in the PCA 6-day creationism is required. I know of several churches that have put it on their Pastor Search form as a requirement.



Yes, they should require a minister to hold to this.


----------



## Stephen

turmeric said:


> I think, though I don't know for sure, that exceptions on the Sabbath are tolerated. Exceptions on TULIP generally are not.
> 
> Why would an Arminian _want_ to serve? There _are_ Arminian churches, after all.



Yes you are right. A candidate cannot take an exception to the system or vitals of the faith. As a PCA elder I subscribe to full subscription. I find the PCA system subscription problematic and it opens the door for these kinds of exceptions.


----------



## Stephen

Romans922 said:


> Steve Dixon said:
> 
> 
> 
> What exceptions to the WCF are significant enough to constitute disqualifying a man from service as an officer in the PCA? Would for example, a man that denied a limited atonement be disqualified? How about total depravity? What about a man that affirmed the entire Arminian system? Are those questions as to suitability left to each presbytery to decide?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is left up to each individual presbytery to decide what man is fit for the office by deciding what is and what is not the FUNDAMENTALS of the Westminster Standards.
> 
> NOTE: Good faith subscription is the worst thing that has happened, oh how I abhor it!
Click to expand...


Amen, brother. This _good faith _position that was passed by the GA a few years ago was one of the worst rulings I have seen. I am glad to see other PCA men like myself that oppose this.


----------



## KenPierce

Romans922 said:


> Steve Dixon said:
> 
> 
> 
> What exceptions to the WCF are significant enough to constitute disqualifying a man from service as an officer in the PCA? Would for example, a man that denied a limited atonement be disqualified? How about total depravity? What about a man that affirmed the entire Arminian system? Are those questions as to suitability left to each presbytery to decide?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is left up to each individual presbytery to decide what man is fit for the office by deciding what is and what is not the FUNDAMENTALS of the Westminster Standards.
> 
> NOTE: Good faith subscription is the worst thing that has happened, oh how I abhor it!
Click to expand...


Andrew,

YOu hate it because you have functioned in MS Valley PResbytery, and are thus on the "safe" side. I don't mean you are prejudiced against it because you're in a safe presbytery. I mean that you don't see how it actually has caused loose presbyteries to become more conscientious.

Now, thanks to Don Clements and others, presbyteries who grant exceptions have to explain why they granted it, and why it doesn't strike at the vitals. Previously, all that could simply be disregarded.

It also removes the liberty of the candidate from saying, "I don't consider this an exception," and (ideally), makes him state all his differences, and then allow the presbytery to declare what are exceptions, and whether or not they can be taught.

So, good faith actually tightens subscription in many settings.

As far as not ordaining non-six-dayers. Were Warfield, MAchen, Hodge, and Augustine faithful ministers in the invisible church? What gives us the right to deny them ordination if they were to appear before our courts today?


----------



## ADKing

KenPierce said:


> As far as not ordaining non-six-dayers. Were Warfield, MAchen, Hodge, and Augustine faithful ministers in the invisible church? What gives us the right to deny them ordination if they were to appear before our courts today?



The fact that godly men have held wrong opinions should not mean that the church should be required to continue tolerating these wrong opinions as greater light is obtained. This line of reasoning would make it difficult to exclude errors from the past simply because godly men have held them (like episcopacy, for one).


----------



## KenPierce

I guess it leaves open the question if greater light has, necessarily, been obtained.

I have a lurking suspicion that we are still victims of thinking of time as a constant, which it is not: it is a function of relative velocity. And, certainly the timelessness of God is a factor we cannot understand. So, it may be literally true that a day is like a thousand years with the Lord.

Could the universe have been moving at such rapid speed that days themselves slowed to Millennia? Is this outside the realm of possibility?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

This is why I do not like loose subscription. If something in the WCF is no longer considered essential for church officers to hold to, then the denomination should revise it. Otherwise strict subscription should be enforced.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

The RPCNA Testimony is the way to go In my humble opinion. Use the 1646 edition and go from there. The Americans should have never "deleted" and "revised" sections of Westminster.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> The RPCNA Testimony is the way to go In my humble opinion. Use the 1646 edition and go from there. The Americans should have never "deleted" and "revised" sections of Westminster.



Yes, that is probably the best thing to do. A church should clearly state in an additional document which sections of the WCF it no longer adheres to and why. Strictly speaking, we cannot revise the WCF, as we are not the original authors.


----------



## KenPierce

Daniel Ritchie said:


> This is why I do not like loose subscription. If something in the WCF is no longer considered essential for church officers to hold to, then the denomination should revise it. Otherwise strict subscription should be enforced.



If you're actually implying or stating that the PCA is a "loose" subscription denomination, then, according to the WLC, you are violating the 9th commandment.

Loose subscription would have accurately described the old Southern Presbyterian Church, where even among conservatives you had Arminians, charismatics, and dispensationalists.

The PCA achieved something astounding --to take the very diverse evangelicals in the Southern church, and meld them into a denomination that actually took the Confession seriously, particularly on matters of soteriology.

Thus, you will not find ARminians or dispensationalists in PCA pulpits today, some scant 35 years later.

The PCA is a subscriptionist denomination --every bit as subscriptionist as the OPC. But, it does allow men to hold differences with the WCF, as Professor Murray did.

LEt me ask a question: Do you believe the covenant of grace is made with believers (affirming a separate pactum salutis), or with Christ (seeing the pactum salutis as unnecessary)? To which of those positions do you subscribe? The confession says both. Which is the subscriptionist position?


----------



## fredtgreco

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> The RPCNA Testimony is the way to go In my humble opinion. Use the 1646 edition and go from there. The Americans should have never "deleted" and "revised" sections of Westminster.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, that is probably the best thing to do. A church should clearly state in an additional document which sections of the WCF it no longer adheres to and why. Strictly speaking, we cannot revise the WCF, as we are not the original authors.
Click to expand...


Actually, this is one of the worst things to do. It is perhaps the greatest weakness of the RPCNA.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Why do you say that Rev. Greco?


----------



## fredtgreco

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Why do you say that Rev. Greco?



It is a backwards amending of the Standards without amending the Standards, and it actually has _more_ authority to bind the conscience of _*all*_ RPCNA ministers than the Confession itself.

If a man takes an exception to the Confession, that does not affect me. The RPCNA Testimony binds all RPCNA ministers, and I do not find that a good, or Confessional, or Biblical thing.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

fredtgreco said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> The RPCNA Testimony is the way to go In my humble opinion. Use the 1646 edition and go from there. The Americans should have never "deleted" and "revised" sections of Westminster.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, that is probably the best thing to do. A church should clearly state in an additional document which sections of the WCF it no longer adheres to and why. Strictly speaking, we cannot revise the WCF, as we are not the original authors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, this is one of the worst things to do. It is perhaps the greatest weakness of the RPCNA.
Click to expand...

Also, I fail to see the difference between modifying the WCF or Catechisms and saying the constitutional documents "as modified by" and having a dual standard/commentary that effectively does the same thing, such as "rejecting everything after the colon" as the RPCNA does at CF 33.3.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

fredtgreco said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> The RPCNA Testimony is the way to go In my humble opinion. Use the 1646 edition and go from there. The Americans should have never "deleted" and "revised" sections of Westminster.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, that is probably the best thing to do. A church should clearly state in an additional document which sections of the WCF it no longer adheres to and why. Strictly speaking, we cannot revise the WCF, as we are not the original authors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, this is one of the worst things to do. It is perhaps the greatest weakness of the RPCNA.
Click to expand...




fredtgreco said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you say that Rev. Greco?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is a backwards amending of the Standards without amending the Standards, and it actually has _more_ authority to bind the conscience of _*all*_ RPCNA ministers than the Confession itself.
> 
> If a man takes an exception to the Confession, that does not affect me. The RPCNA Testimony binds all RPCNA ministers, and I do not find that a good, or Confessional, or Biblical thing.
Click to expand...


I am not sure about that, because as far as I am aware, the office bearers in the RPCNA are allowed to hold to the original, but not all office bearers have to.

Moreover, the RPCNA's testimony is a confessional-type document. This is perfectly legitimate, as the church has the authority to add to its confessional standards.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

NaphtaliPress said:


> fredtgreco said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, that is probably the best thing to do. A church should clearly state in an additional document which sections of the WCF it no longer adheres to and why. Strictly speaking, we cannot revise the WCF, as we are not the original authors.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, this is one of the worst things to do. It is perhaps the greatest weakness of the RPCNA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Also, I fail to see the difference between modifying the WCF or Catechisms and saying the constitutional documents "as modified by" and having a dual standard/commentary that effectively does the same thing, such as "rejecting everything after the colon" as the RPCNA does at CF 33.3.
Click to expand...


The difference is that we are not the authors of the Westminster Standards, so how dare we take it upon ourselves to edit them. After all, if I came along in 300 years time and edited Chris Coldwell's PB comments I am sure you would not be pleased.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

KenPierce said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is why I do not like loose subscription. If something in the WCF is no longer considered essential for church officers to hold to, then the denomination should revise it. Otherwise strict subscription should be enforced.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you're actually implying or stating that the PCA is a "loose" subscription denomination, then, according to the WLC, you are violating the 9th commandment.
> 
> Loose subscription would have accurately described the old Southern Presbyterian Church, where even among conservatives you had Arminians, charismatics, and dispensationalists.
> 
> The PCA achieved something astounding --to take the very diverse evangelicals in the Southern church, and meld them into a denomination that actually took the Confession seriously, particularly on matters of soteriology.
> 
> Thus, you will not find ARminians or dispensationalists in PCA pulpits today, some scant 35 years later.
> 
> The PCA is a subscriptionist denomination --every bit as subscriptionist as the OPC. But, it does allow men to hold differences with the WCF, as Professor Murray did.
> 
> LEt me ask a question: Do you believe the covenant of grace is made with believers (affirming a separate pactum salutis), or with Christ (seeing the pactum salutis as unnecessary)? To which of those positions do you subscribe? The confession says both. Which is the subscriptionist position?
Click to expand...


Brother, I am not violating the ninth commandment as the PCA cannot be described as a strict subscriptionist denomination in any sense of the term. Okay, I am glad that the office bearers agree with the standards on soteriology, but there is no way that they are strict subscription denomination when it comes to worship. If you don't believe me, then listen to a recent sermon I posted by PCA minister Dr. Carl W. Bogue. 

I have not looked into your last point enough to comment.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

fredtgreco said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you say that Rev. Greco?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is a backwards amending of the Standards without amending the Standards, and it actually has _more_ authority to bind the conscience of _*all*_ RPCNA ministers than the Confession itself.
> 
> If a man takes an exception to the Confession, that does not affect me. The RPCNA Testimony binds all RPCNA ministers, and I do not find that a good, or Confessional, or Biblical thing.
Click to expand...


It should also be noted that when you allow individual ministers to take exceptions - without amending the Standards themselves (either by revision or commentary in an additional document - you have fundamentally undermined the authority of the church, as every man now gets to determine what is right in his own eyes with respect to confessional subscription. This also becomes a form of false advertising, because the denominations which allow for it claim to subscribe to the Westminster Standards, yet they permit office bearers to disagree with the official testimony of their church - which it is their duty to uphold.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Daniel Ritchie said:


> NaphtaliPress said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fredtgreco said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, this is one of the worst things to do. It is perhaps the greatest weakness of the RPCNA.
> 
> 
> 
> Also, I fail to see the difference between modifying the WCF or Catechisms and saying the constitutional documents "as modified by" and having a dual standard/commentary that effectively does the same thing, such as "rejecting everything after the colon" as the RPCNA does at CF 33.3.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The difference is that we are not the authors of the Westminster Standards, so how dare we take it upon ourselves to edit them. After all, if I came along in 300 years time and edited Chris Coldwell's PB comments I am sure you would not be pleased.
Click to expand...

Well, the difference in your analogy is that my writings are not binding doctrinal standards or public documents to boot. Again, at the point they are edited to change them they are no longer the Westminster Standards. They are the "WS as adopted by" or "doctrinal standards of xyz church"; if one wants to quibble over whether a denomination has the right to modify the original instead of creating one from whole cloth, have at it. I think by WCF 31.4 the divines imply their permission. Any way, I have better things to do than argue this since it is by default the American approach. All I'm saying is a testimony doesn't necessary give different results than cutting out sections wholesale.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

Daniel Ritchie said:


> fredtgreco said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, that is probably the best thing to do. A church should clearly state in an additional document which sections of the WCF it no longer adheres to and why. Strictly speaking, we cannot revise the WCF, as we are not the original authors.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, this is one of the worst things to do. It is perhaps the greatest weakness of the RPCNA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fredtgreco said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you say that Rev. Greco?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is a backwards amending of the Standards without amending the Standards, and it actually has _more_ authority to bind the conscience of _*all*_ RPCNA ministers than the Confession itself.
> 
> If a man takes an exception to the Confession, that does not affect me. The RPCNA Testimony binds all RPCNA ministers, and I do not find that a good, or Confessional, or Biblical thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not sure about that, because as far as I am aware, the office bearers in the RPCNA are allowed to hold to the original, but not all office bearers have to.
> 
> Moreover, the RPCNA's testimony is a confessional-type document. This is perfectly legitimate, as the church has the authority to add to its confessional standards.
Click to expand...


Just my  as a former officer (deacon) in the RPCNA - I took numerous exceptions to the Testimony and none to the original WCF.

The Testimony's authority supersedes that of the Confession in the RPCNA, which I find generally regrettable.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

VirginiaHuguenot said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fredtgreco said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, this is one of the worst things to do. It is perhaps the greatest weakness of the RPCNA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fredtgreco said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is a backwards amending of the Standards without amending the Standards, and it actually has _more_ authority to bind the conscience of _*all*_ RPCNA ministers than the Confession itself.
> 
> If a man takes an exception to the Confession, that does not affect me. The RPCNA Testimony binds all RPCNA ministers, and I do not find that a good, or Confessional, or Biblical thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not sure about that, because as far as I am aware, the office bearers in the RPCNA are allowed to hold to the original, but not all office bearers have to.
> 
> Moreover, the RPCNA's testimony is a confessional-type document. This is perfectly legitimate, as the church has the authority to add to its confessional standards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just my  as a former officer (deacon) in the RPCNA - I took numerous exceptions to the Testimony and none to the original WCF.
> 
> The Testimony's authority supersedes that of the Confession in the RPCNA, which I find generally regrettable.
Click to expand...


Andrew, your second point seems contrary to your first (not saying it is, just appears that way to me), because if the RPCNA allows you to hold to the original WCF, but take exceptions to its testimony, then how is it setting the testimony above the confession?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

NaphtaliPress said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NaphtaliPress said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also, I fail to see the difference between modifying the WCF or Catechisms and saying the constitutional documents "as modified by" and having a dual standard/commentary that effectively does the same thing, such as "rejecting everything after the colon" as the RPCNA does at CF 33.3.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The difference is that we are not the authors of the Westminster Standards, so how dare we take it upon ourselves to edit them. After all, if I came along in 300 years time and edited Chris Coldwell's PB comments I am sure you would not be pleased.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, the difference in your analogy is that my writings are not binding doctrinal standards or public documents to boot. Again, at the point they are edited to change them they are no longer the Westminster Standards. They are the "WS as adopted by" or "doctrinal standards of xyz church"; if one wants to quibble over whether a denomination has the right to modify the original instead of creating one from whole cloth, have at it. I think by WCF 31.4 the divines imply their permission. Any way, I have better things to do than argue this since it is by default the American approach. All I'm saying is a testimony doesn't necessary give different results than cutting out sections wholesale.
Click to expand...


I would agree with your basic point, though I can see why a commentary in a testimony is a better approach.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

Daniel Ritchie said:


> VirginiaHuguenot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not sure about that, because as far as I am aware, the office bearers in the RPCNA are allowed to hold to the original, but not all office bearers have to.
> 
> Moreover, the RPCNA's testimony is a confessional-type document. This is perfectly legitimate, as the church has the authority to add to its confessional standards.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just my  as a former officer (deacon) in the RPCNA - I took numerous exceptions to the Testimony and none to the original WCF.
> 
> The Testimony's authority supersedes that of the Confession in the RPCNA, which I find generally regrettable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Andrew, your second point seems contrary to your first (not saying it is, just appears that way to me), because if the RPCNA allows you to hold to the original WCF, but take exceptions to its testimony, then how is it setting the testimony above the confession?
Click to expand...


The Testimony itself states that when the Testimony and Confession conflict, as they do in a number of places, the Testimony's authority has greater weight. 

That said, the exceptions I took to the Testimony included positions which conflicted with the Confession directly, and matters which were not specifically addressed by the Confession. 

The exceptions were made for me personally, but on a denomational level, it is the Testimony which outranks the Confession when the two conflict.


----------



## Stephen

Daniel Ritchie said:


> This is why I do not like loose subscription. If something in the WCF is no longer considered essential for church officers to hold to, then the denomination should revise it. Otherwise strict subscription should be enforced.





Spoken like a true Presbyterian  Yes, why claim we hold to the Westminster Standards if we start taking exceptions to it.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

VirginiaHuguenot said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> VirginiaHuguenot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just my  as a former officer (deacon) in the RPCNA - I took numerous exceptions to the Testimony and none to the original WCF.
> 
> The Testimony's authority supersedes that of the Confession in the RPCNA, which I find generally regrettable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andrew, your second point seems contrary to your first (not saying it is, just appears that way to me), because if the RPCNA allows you to hold to the original WCF, but take exceptions to its testimony, then how is it setting the testimony above the confession?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Testimony itself states that when the Testimony and Confession conflict, as they do in a number of places, the Testimony's authority has greater weight.
> 
> That said, the exceptions I took to the Testimony included positions which conflicted with the Confession directly, and matters which were not specifically addressed by the Confession.
> 
> The exceptions were made for me personally, but on a denomational level, it is the Testimony which outranks the Confession when the two conflict.
Click to expand...


That would mean that for the denomination, the teaching of the Testimony is to be preferred to the (original) Confession when the two conflict. However, this is no different from any denomination which revises the confession, as the decisions of a more recent church court take precedence over the confession as originally written.


----------



## KenPierce

Daniel Ritchie said:


> fredtgreco said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you say that Rev. Greco?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is a backwards amending of the Standards without amending the Standards, and it actually has _more_ authority to bind the conscience of _*all*_ RPCNA ministers than the Confession itself.
> 
> If a man takes an exception to the Confession, that does not affect me. The RPCNA Testimony binds all RPCNA ministers, and I do not find that a good, or Confessional, or Biblical thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It should also be noted that when you allow individual ministers to take exceptions - without amending the Standards themselves (either by revision or commentary in an additional document - you have fundamentally undermined the authority of the church, as every man now gets to determine what is right in his own eyes with respect to confessional subscription. This also becomes a form of false advertising, because the denominations which allow for it claim to subscribe to the Westminster Standards, yet they permit office bearers to disagree with the official testimony of their church - which it is their duty to uphold.
Click to expand...


I am starting to believe you misunderstand on purpose. Every man does NOT get to determine. Presbyters sitting in courts determine, as they have always done, throughout the whole history of the Christian church.


----------



## KenPierce

Daniel Ritchie said:


> KenPierce said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is why I do not like loose subscription. If something in the WCF is no longer considered essential for church officers to hold to, then the denomination should revise it. Otherwise strict subscription should be enforced.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you're actually implying or stating that the PCA is a "loose" subscription denomination, then, according to the WLC, you are violating the 9th commandment.
> 
> Loose subscription would have accurately described the old Southern Presbyterian Church, where even among conservatives you had Arminians, charismatics, and dispensationalists.
> 
> The PCA achieved something astounding --to take the very diverse evangelicals in the Southern church, and meld them into a denomination that actually took the Confession seriously, particularly on matters of soteriology.
> 
> Thus, you will not find ARminians or dispensationalists in PCA pulpits today, some scant 35 years later.
> 
> The PCA is a subscriptionist denomination --every bit as subscriptionist as the OPC. But, it does allow men to hold differences with the WCF, as Professor Murray did.
> 
> LEt me ask a question: Do you believe the covenant of grace is made with believers (affirming a separate pactum salutis), or with Christ (seeing the pactum salutis as unnecessary)? To which of those positions do you subscribe? The confession says both. Which is the subscriptionist position?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Brother, I am not violating the ninth commandment as the PCA cannot be described as a strict subscriptionist denomination in any sense of the term. Okay, I am glad that the office bearers agree with the standards on soteriology, but there is no way that they are strict subscription denomination when it comes to worship. If you don't believe me, then listen to a recent sermon I posted by PCA minister Dr. Carl W. Bogue.
> 
> I have not looked into your last point enough to comment.
Click to expand...


Once again, Daniel, nobody said the PCA was strict subscriptionist. There are more than two possibilities here, obviously, from the discussion. The point was we are not loose subscriptionists, as you accuse us of being.

YOu are an unabashed theonomist. Sinclair Ferguson and others have shown that theonomy is, at most generous of estimations, an exception. To be quite fair, I believe it strikes at the vitals of the system --Ferguson said if the first words out of your mouth about the civil law are not "It is abolished," you have turned Westminster on its head.

If you were honest about your subscription, you have to admit that you believe 19.4 to be erroneous, do you not?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

KenPierce said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KenPierce said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you're actually implying or stating that the PCA is a "loose" subscription denomination, then, according to the WLC, you are violating the 9th commandment.
> 
> Loose subscription would have accurately described the old Southern Presbyterian Church, where even among conservatives you had Arminians, charismatics, and dispensationalists.
> 
> The PCA achieved something astounding --to take the very diverse evangelicals in the Southern church, and meld them into a denomination that actually took the Confession seriously, particularly on matters of soteriology.
> 
> Thus, you will not find ARminians or dispensationalists in PCA pulpits today, some scant 35 years later.
> 
> The PCA is a subscriptionist denomination --every bit as subscriptionist as the OPC. But, it does allow men to hold differences with the WCF, as Professor Murray did.
> 
> LEt me ask a question: Do you believe the covenant of grace is made with believers (affirming a separate pactum salutis), or with Christ (seeing the pactum salutis as unnecessary)? To which of those positions do you subscribe? The confession says both. Which is the subscriptionist position?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brother, I am not violating the ninth commandment as the PCA cannot be described as a strict subscriptionist denomination in any sense of the term. Okay, I am glad that the office bearers agree with the standards on soteriology, but there is no way that they are strict subscription denomination when it comes to worship. If you don't believe me, then listen to a recent sermon I posted by PCA minister Dr. Carl W. Bogue.
> 
> I have not looked into your last point enough to comment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, Daniel, nobody said the PCA was strict subscriptionist. There are more than two possibilities here, obviously, from the discussion. The point was we are not loose subscriptionists, as you accuse us of being.
> 
> YOu are an unabashed theonomist. Sinclair Ferguson and others have shown that theonomy is, at most generous of estimations, an exception. To be quite fair, I believe it strikes at the vitals of the system --Ferguson said if the first words out of your mouth about the civil law are not "It is abolished," you have turned Westminster on its head.
> 
> If you were honest about your subscription, you have to admit that you believe 19.4 to be erroneous, do you not?
Click to expand...


Actually Sinclair Ferguson has been refuted by Martin Foulner's _Theonomy and the Westminster Confession_ an annotated sourcebook of 60 pages of Theonomic quotes from early Reformed authors. Moroever, if you read the footnotes of the original Westminster Standards you will find that the penology of the Older Testament is quoted as part of the unchanging moral law of God.

Furthermore, WCF 19:4 does not say that all Biblical civil law has been abolished, instead it says that "sundry judicial laws" have "expired" as they cannot be literally applied outside of Israel (note the use of 1 Cor. 9 in the proof texts), nevertheless, even the general equity (justice or fairness) of these laws continues to bind all (and it appeals to Matt. 5:17 to establish this). Having said that, I would not have a problem agreeing with the statement (if you wish to express it this way) that the judicial laws of Moses (referring to ALL civil and social laws) has expired, except for what is applicable to all nations. It should be kept in mind that modern Theonomists do not teach that ALL of the judicial laws are to be applied today, as many of them were peculiar to Israel or expressed in circumstances which means they cannot be literally applied today.

I suggest looking into the matter further before accusing others of being unconfessional. If Theonomy is unconfessional, then the WCF is unconfessional. The idea that a particular view of the civil law strikes at the vitals of the system of the Westminster Standards is a clear over-statement.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

KenPierce said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fredtgreco said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is a backwards amending of the Standards without amending the Standards, and it actually has _more_ authority to bind the conscience of _*all*_ RPCNA ministers than the Confession itself.
> 
> If a man takes an exception to the Confession, that does not affect me. The RPCNA Testimony binds all RPCNA ministers, and I do not find that a good, or Confessional, or Biblical thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It should also be noted that when you allow individual ministers to take exceptions - without amending the Standards themselves (either by revision or commentary in an additional document - you have fundamentally undermined the authority of the church, as every man now gets to determine what is right in his own eyes with respect to confessional subscription. This also becomes a form of false advertising, because the denominations which allow for it claim to subscribe to the Westminster Standards, yet they permit office bearers to disagree with the official testimony of their church - which it is their duty to uphold.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am starting to believe you misunderstand on purpose. Every man does NOT get to determine. Presbyters sitting in courts determine, as they have always done, throughout the whole history of the Christian church.
Click to expand...


So how can you claim your church believes "X" even though its office bearers do not believe "X". If the Presbyteries do not believe certain things are essential to holding office, then they should amend their standards.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Actually Sinclair Ferguson has been refuted by Martin Foulner's _Theonomy and the Westminster Confession_ an annotated sourcebook of 60 pages of Theonomic quotes from early Reformed authors. Moroever, if you read the footnotes of the original Westminster Standards you will find that the penology of the Older Testament is quoted as part of the unchanging moral law of God.


I really don't think Martin has done any such thing. I believe the main point that Ferguson makes stands, that there is some practical agreement in outcome, but a difference in how Puritan and Theonomist arrive at those applications in practice. Ferguson's position is theoretical theonomy is not the teaching of the Confession. But such is the work for journal articles not chat forums. But I did want to put in my two cents.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

NaphtaliPress said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually Sinclair Ferguson has been refuted by Martin Foulner's _Theonomy and the Westminster Confession_ an annotated sourcebook of 60 pages of Theonomic quotes from early Reformed authors. Moroever, if you read the footnotes of the original Westminster Standards you will find that the penology of the Older Testament is quoted as part of the unchanging moral law of God.
> 
> 
> 
> I really don't think Martin has done any such thing. I believe the main point that Ferguson makes stands, that there is some practical agreement in outcome, but a difference in how Puritan and Theonomist arrive at those applications in practice. Ferguson's position is theoretical theonomy is not the teaching of the Confession. But such is the work for journal articles not chat forums. But I did want to put in my two cents.
Click to expand...


I would agree that modern Theonomic ethics is not explicitly taught in the Westminster Standards - as the Puritans did not believe in the distinction between crime and sin that modern Theonomists do. And so I would not argue that one needs to be a modern Theonomist to subscribe to the Westminster Standards.

The Puritans and modern Theonomists differ in semantics for one very important reason: they live in totally different historical circumstances.

The Reformers and Puritans lived in times when fanatical extremists wished to enforce the ENTIRE judicial law of Moses (which is a position Theonomy repudiates). Therefore, when I see a couple of quotes trotted out by Rutherford against Theonomy I shake my head at such blatant misrepresentation of Theonomic ethics. For instance, Rutherford does not believe that the death penalty for Sabbath violation is to be applied today, as one would have to become a debtor to the *whole* judicial law. However, Theonomy does not teach that one must uphold the entire judicial law. And it should be noted that both R.J. Rushdoony and Gary North employ similar arguments to Rutherford. Furthermore, it is common to see the quotes from some Reformers and Puritans who did not believe in restitution for theft; this was done because they did not believe that restitution could be applied outside Israel - which is Theonomic methodology, even though it is contrary to the conclusions reached by nearly all modern Theonomists. 

Hence, the purpose of the Reformers and Puritans in their writings was to distinguish between which parts of the judicial law were binding and which were not in order to refute the extremists. Modern Theonomists, on the other hand, are not in the same historical situation. Instead, we live in days when Biblical standards of justice are cast down in the streets - even by those who claim to be Reformed. Therefore, in such a context, we emphasise the continuity between the Older and New Testaments rather than the discontinuity. 

The failure to take on board differing historical contexts in which differing theological writers at different periods often causes much confusion. That is why certain scholars argue that John Calvin believed in universal atonement, because they take a statement which he makes prior to the Arminian controversy - that Calvinists living after the Arminian controversy would not use - and assume that Calvin is teaching something later Calvinists would disagree with. Thus a text, without a context, becomes a pretext.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

NaphtaliPress said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually Sinclair Ferguson has been refuted by Martin Foulner's _Theonomy and the Westminster Confession_ an annotated sourcebook of 60 pages of Theonomic quotes from early Reformed authors. Moroever, if you read the footnotes of the original Westminster Standards you will find that the penology of the Older Testament is quoted as part of the unchanging moral law of God.
> 
> 
> 
> I really don't think Martin has done any such thing. I believe the main point that Ferguson makes stands, that there is some practical agreement in outcome, but a difference in how Puritan and Theonomist arrive at those applications in practice. Ferguson's position is theoretical theonomy is not the teaching of the Confession. But such is the work for journal articles not chat forums. But I did want to put in my two cents.
Click to expand...


I would further add that if you wish to say the WCF allows one to be a Theonomist, but you do not have to be, then I would be happy enough to accept that for two reasons:

1) Because of differences among the Puritans.

2) Because of differences among modern Theonomists.


----------



## raekwon

So, how exactly are we defining "loose subscription" and "good faith subscription", anyway?

Does a sole exception make a man a "loose subscriptionist" in this discussion?


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Therefore, when I see a couple of quotes trotted out by Rutherford against Theonomy I shake my head at such blatant misrepresentation of Theonomic ethics.


Oh, there has been a lot of trotting out of quotations out of context alright. But, like I say, such things as pursuing this in-depth are for journal articles.


----------



## KenPierce

Daniel Ritchie said:


> I would agree that modern Theonomic ethics is not explicitly taught in the Westminster Standards - as the Puritans did not believe in the distinction between crime and sin that modern Theonomists do. And so I would not argue that one needs to be a modern Theonomist to subscribe to the Westminster Standards.
> 
> The Puritans and modern Theonomists differ in semantics for one very important reason: they live in totally different historical circumstances.
> 
> The Reformers and Puritans lived in times when fanatical extremists wished to enforce the ENTIRE judicial law of Moses (which is a position Theonomy repudiates). Therefore, when I see a couple of quotes trotted out by Rutherford against Theonomy I shake my head at such blatant misrepresentation of Theonomic ethics. For instance, Rutherford does not believe that the death penalty for Sabbath violation is to be applied today, as one would have to become a debtor to the *whole* judicial law. However, Theonomy does not teach that one must uphold the entire judicial law. And it should be noted that both R.J. Rushdoony and Gary North employ similar arguments to Rutherford. Furthermore, it is common to see the quotes from some Reformers and Puritans who did not believe in restitution for theft; this was done because they did not believe that restitution could be applied outside Israel - which is Theonomic methodology, even though it is contrary to the conclusions reached by nearly all modern Theonomists.
> 
> Hence, the purpose of the Reformers and Puritans in their writings was to distinguish between which parts of the judicial law were binding and which were not in order to refute the extremists. Modern Theonomists, on the other hand, are not in the same historical situation. Instead, we live in days when Biblical standards of justice are cast down in the streets - even by those who claim to be Reformed. Therefore, in such a context, we emphasise the continuity between the Older and New Testaments rather than the discontinuity.
> 
> The failure to take on board differing historical contexts in which differing theological writers at different periods often causes much confusion. That is why certain scholars argue that John Calvin believed in universal atonement, because they take a statement which he makes prior to the Arminian controversy - that Calvinists living after the Arminian controversy would not use - and assume that Calvin is teaching something later Calvinists would disagree with. Thus a text, without a context, becomes a pretext.



This is the typical line of those who want to trumpet strict subscriptionism, but cut a wide swath for their own doctrinal eccentricities. It is precisely what Stephen Wilkins, in one of his former incarnations did. He thought the PCA had to be absolutely 6-24 on creation, but not punctiliar about Reconstructionism.

Let's face it: the divines could not have been Van Til-influenced theonomists because there was no Van Til. The divines uphold the Law in its right use, and with the proper three-fold division. To try to claim the WCF was a theonomic document is a chronological fallacy of the highest order.

So, you can disparage my learning all day long. It still will not change the fact that you are anything but a strict subscriptionist --you are only intolerant of other people's exceptions, while freely granting your own. Straining at gnats, and swallowing camels.


----------



## py3ak

[Moderator]*Theonomy is off-topic on this thread. That discussion can be had elsewhere. And I would suggest reviewing this thread in order to make sure that any such hypothetical new thread in which to wax vigorous over theonomy would be a productive advance in the discussion, instead of merely deja vu leftovers.

So, back to the discussion of what subscription really entails.*[/Moderator]


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

py3ak said:


> [Moderator]*Theonomy is off-topic on this thread. That discussion can be had elsewhere. And I would suggest reviewing this thread in order to make sure that any such hypothetical new thread in which to wax vigorous over theonomy would be a productive advance in the discussion, instead of merely deja vu leftovers.
> 
> So, back to the discussion of what subscription really entails.*[/Moderator]



I agree the subject is  Thank you for good moderation.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

KenPierce said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would agree that modern Theonomic ethics is not explicitly taught in the Westminster Standards - as the Puritans did not believe in the distinction between crime and sin that modern Theonomists do. And so I would not argue that one needs to be a modern Theonomist to subscribe to the Westminster Standards.
> 
> The Puritans and modern Theonomists differ in semantics for one very important reason: they live in totally different historical circumstances.
> 
> The Reformers and Puritans lived in times when fanatical extremists wished to enforce the ENTIRE judicial law of Moses (which is a position Theonomy repudiates). Therefore, when I see a couple of quotes trotted out by Rutherford against Theonomy I shake my head at such blatant misrepresentation of Theonomic ethics. For instance, Rutherford does not believe that the death penalty for Sabbath violation is to be applied today, as one would have to become a debtor to the *whole* judicial law. However, Theonomy does not teach that one must uphold the entire judicial law. And it should be noted that both R.J. Rushdoony and Gary North employ similar arguments to Rutherford. Furthermore, it is common to see the quotes from some Reformers and Puritans who did not believe in restitution for theft; this was done because they did not believe that restitution could be applied outside Israel - which is Theonomic methodology, even though it is contrary to the conclusions reached by nearly all modern Theonomists.
> 
> Hence, the purpose of the Reformers and Puritans in their writings was to distinguish between which parts of the judicial law were binding and which were not in order to refute the extremists. Modern Theonomists, on the other hand, are not in the same historical situation. Instead, we live in days when Biblical standards of justice are cast down in the streets - even by those who claim to be Reformed. Therefore, in such a context, we emphasise the continuity between the Older and New Testaments rather than the discontinuity.
> 
> The failure to take on board differing historical contexts in which differing theological writers at different periods often causes much confusion. That is why certain scholars argue that John Calvin believed in universal atonement, because they take a statement which he makes prior to the Arminian controversy - that Calvinists living after the Arminian controversy would not use - and assume that Calvin is teaching something later Calvinists would disagree with. Thus a text, without a context, becomes a pretext.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the typical line of those who want to trumpet strict subscriptionism, but cut a wide swath for their own doctrinal eccentricities. It is precisely what Stephen Wilkins, in one of his former incarnations did. He thought the PCA had to be absolutely 6-24 on creation, but not punctiliar about Reconstructionism.
> 
> Let's face it: the divines could not have been Van Til-influenced theonomists because there was no Van Til. The divines uphold the Law in its right use, and with the proper three-fold division. To try to claim the WCF was a theonomic document is a chronological fallacy of the highest order.
> 
> So, you can disparage my learning all day long. It still will not change the fact that you are anything but a strict subscriptionist --you are only intolerant of other people's exceptions, while freely granting your own. Straining at gnats, and swallowing camels.
Click to expand...


Brother, I did not claim to be a strict subscriptionist. I only protested about denominations which claim to hold to the WCF but in reality allow a multitude of exceptions.

You may not agree with my conclusions on Theonomy, but I have spent many months of my life researching this issue and have publicly documented my conclusions. You are free to disagree with my conclusions, however, your questioning of my sincerity is unbecoming of a minister of the gospel.


----------



## py3ak

I would tell you that you're welcome, Daniel, but I am constrained to recognize that discussions about moderatorial technique are also off-topic. If you don't let up I shall have to ban both of us from this thread for persistent derailment!


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

py3ak said:


> I would tell you that you're welcome, Daniel, but I am constrained to recognize that discussions about moderatorial technique are also off-topic. If you don't let up I shall have to ban both of us from this thread for persistent derailment!



I will refrain from commenting.


----------



## HaigLaw

There is no hard and fast rule on which points are essential to the system of doctrine and which ones are not.

But we do have precedents in different presbyteries and different sessions. 

We had a precedent in the LA presbytery of January 2007 saying FV views were not out of accord with the PCA constitution. Several brought charges against that, and the opposite view prevailed, as of the Feb. 9, 2008, LA Presbytery meeting. 

When I was ordained a PCA elder in 1978, I had no exceptions, and when I was installed again in a different PCA church in 2007, I had none; but with a keener understanding from reading the debates on PB, perhaps I should amend my views and let my session know, and let them decide whether any exceptions are essential.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

HaigLaw said:


> There is no hard and fast rule on which points are essential to the system of doctrine and which ones are not.
> 
> But we do have precedents in different presbyteries and different sessions.
> 
> We had a precedent in the LA presbytery of January 2007 saying FV views were not out of accord with the PCA constitution. Several brought charges against that, and the opposite view prevailed, as of the Feb. 9, 2008, LA Presbytery meeting.
> 
> When I was ordained a PCA elder in 1978, I had no exceptions, and when I was installed again in a different PCA church in 2007, I had none; but with a keener understanding from reading the debates on PB, perhaps I should amend my views and let my session know, and let them decide whether any exceptions are essential.



Your last sentence pretty much sums up why I would not dare take church office. About 5 years ago I would have said I agreed with every jot and title of the Westminster Standards, now I prefer to say that I show a teachable spirit, as I do not have the learning to make such a bold assertion.


----------



## raekwon

HaigLaw said:


> There is no hard and fast rule on which points are essential to the system of doctrine and which ones are not.
> 
> But we do have precedents in different presbyteries and different sessions.
> 
> We had a precedent in the LA presbytery of January 2007 saying FV views were not out of accord with the PCA constitution. Several brought charges against that, and the opposite view prevailed, as of the Feb. 9, 2008, LA Presbytery meeting.
> 
> When I was ordained a PCA elder in 1978, I had no exceptions, and when I was installed again in a different PCA church in 2007, I had none; but with a keener understanding from reading the debates on PB, perhaps I should amend my views and let my session know, and *let them decide whether any exceptions are essential.*



Better yet, state your views let _them_ decide whether or not they're "exceptions" in the first place (as opposed to mere "scruples" or nuanced views).


----------



## Christusregnat

KenPierce said:


> Romans922 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steve Dixon said:
> 
> 
> 
> What exceptions to the WCF are significant enough to constitute disqualifying a man from service as an officer in the PCA? Would for example, a man that denied a limited atonement be disqualified? How about total depravity? What about a man that affirmed the entire Arminian system? Are those questions as to suitability left to each presbytery to decide?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is left up to each individual presbytery to decide what man is fit for the office by deciding what is and what is not the FUNDAMENTALS of the Westminster Standards.
> 
> NOTE: Good faith subscription is the worst thing that has happened, oh how I abhor it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Andrew,
> 
> YOu hate it because you have functioned in MS Valley PResbytery, and are thus on the "safe" side. I don't mean you are prejudiced against it because you're in a safe presbytery. I mean that you don't see how it actually has caused loose presbyteries to become more conscientious.
> 
> Now, thanks to Don Clements and others, presbyteries who grant exceptions have to explain why they granted it, and why it doesn't strike at the vitals. Previously, all that could simply be disregarded.
> 
> It also removes the liberty of the candidate from saying, "I don't consider this an exception," and (ideally), makes him state all his differences, and then allow the presbytery to declare what are exceptions, and whether or not they can be taught.
> 
> So, good faith actually tightens subscription in many settings.
> 
> As far as not ordaining non-six-dayers. Were Warfield, MAchen, Hodge, and Augustine faithful ministers in the invisible church? What gives us the right to deny them ordination if they were to appear before our courts today?
Click to expand...


Right isn't the best word to choose; responsibility is. Warfield, Machen, Hodge and Augustine should have been forced to reconsider their aberrant positions, and defend them from Scripture. Not ordaining them until they searched them out would be one such way.

Warfield also believed in the possible tentative view of evolution; should we ordain such men?

Cheers,

Adam


----------



## Steve Dixon

Thank you all. Is it safe to say then that no presbytery in the PCA would allow a man considered for office to take an exception to the WCF where the extent of the atonement is concerned? I assume that would be a serious departure. Is that correct?


----------



## JohnOwen007

ADKing said:


> KenPierce said:
> 
> 
> 
> As far as not ordaining non-six-dayers. Were Warfield, MAchen, Hodge, and Augustine faithful ministers in the invisible church? What gives us the right to deny them ordination if they were to appear before our courts today?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that godly men have held wrong opinions should not mean that the church should be required to continue tolerating these wrong opinions as greater light is obtained. This line of reasoning would make it difficult to exclude errors from the past simply because godly men have held them (like episcopacy, for one).
Click to expand...


Dear Ken,

Your observation is indeed correct that we should not tolerate past errors when greater light has been obtained. However, not all errors are of equal weight; some errors are way more serious than others.

Warfield, Machen, and Hodge are not just any godly men, these guys are _giants _in the reformed tradition. Hence, we need very good reasons to exclude their position so easily, especially when you haven't expressed what "greater light" has been revealed since their time that makes the issue so clear.

God bless you.


----------



## JohnOwen007

Daniel Ritchie said:


> HaigLaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> When I was ordained a PCA elder in 1978, I had no exceptions, and when I was installed again in a different PCA church in 2007, I had none; but with a keener understanding from reading the debates on PB, perhaps I should amend my views and let my session know, and let them decide whether any exceptions are essential.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your last sentence pretty much sums up why I would not dare take church office. About 5 years ago I would have said I agreed with every jot and title of the Westminster Standards, now I prefer to say that I show a teachable spirit, as I do not have the learning to make such a bold assertion.
Click to expand...


It seems to me that the issue here is that the WCF may well _over-define_ the reformed faith (as I've said on another thread). That is, we must recognize a legitimate domain of beliefs that believers are free to disagree on and perhaps the WCF comes down on some issues where reformed believers are free to differ. The effect of this is to exclude people who shouldn't be excluded.

Strict subscription positively makes the boundaries of belief clear. Negatively it excludes many good people who (I suspect) should not be excluded.

The "system of doctrine" subscription negatively leads to a vague definition of the boundaries of belief. Positively, it allows for good people to be elders who couldn't be in according to strict subscription.

The WCF is perhaps the greatest confession ever written. However, I wonder if it isn't time to update the WCF. It's been done before. Update the WCF well would mean we could combine (i) strict subscription to make the boundaries crystal clear, _as well as_ (ii) keeping all sorts of good people in the denomination who are godly and orthodox but in conscience can't agree with certain minor points of the WCF (like the Pope being _the_ Antichrist).

Blessings.


----------



## ChristianTrader

JohnOwen007 said:


> ADKing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KenPierce said:
> 
> 
> 
> As far as not ordaining non-six-dayers. Were Warfield, MAchen, Hodge, and Augustine faithful ministers in the invisible church? What gives us the right to deny them ordination if they were to appear before our courts today?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that godly men have held wrong opinions should not mean that the church should be required to continue tolerating these wrong opinions as greater light is obtained. This line of reasoning would make it difficult to exclude errors from the past simply because godly men have held them (like episcopacy, for one).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Ken,
> 
> Your observation is indeed correct that we should not tolerate past errors when greater light has been obtained. However, not all errors are of equal weight; some errors are way more serious than others.
> 
> Warfield, Machen, and Hodge are not just any godly men, these guys are _giants _in the reformed tradition. Hence, we need very good reasons to exclude their position so easily, especially when you haven't expressed what "greater light" has been revealed since their time that makes the issue so clear.
> 
> God bless you.
Click to expand...


Actually the question is not the greater light since Warfield, Machen, Hodge, et. al; the question is what greater light did *they have* that overrode the overwhelming tradition before them.
CT


----------



## Romans922

Steve Dixon said:


> Thank you all. Is it safe to say then that no presbytery in the PCA would allow a man considered for office to take an exception to the WCF where the extent of the atonement is concerned? I assume that would be a serious departure. Is that correct?



That would be probably be a serious departure since it has to do with Christology and Soteriology, and covers pretty much a whole chapter (WCF Chapter 8 and even Chapter 11)


----------



## TimV

> Thank you all. Is it safe to say then that no presbytery in the PCA would allow a man considered for office to take an exception to the WCF where the extent of the atonement is concerned? I assume that would be a serious departure. Is that correct?



Steve, I've answered the question twice, and provided the source, and told you where you can request an email copy of the source. If you don't want to email the Stated Clerk's office the relevant section is



> B. The Commission affirms the judgment of Eastern Carolina Presbytery in that Infant Baptism (WCF 28-4) and Limited Atonement (WCF 3-3, 8-5 and 11-4) are to be considered fundamentals of the system of doctrine and that there can be no exceptions given in the case of officers in the church.



Presbyteries don't have a choice in the matter. They have done this before, both in ignorance and wilfully, but a complaint to the Session will remedy the situation.


----------



## ADKing

JohnOwen007;405249
Dear Ken said:


> giants [/I]in the reformed tradition. Hence, we need very good reasons to exclude their position so easily, especially when you haven't expressed what "greater light" has been revealed since their time that makes the issue so clear.
> 
> God bless you.



I agree with you that not all errors are of the same weight. Some are indeed more serious than others. 

However, I still am not persuaded by appeals to personality. Anselm was a giant not only in the reformed, but Christian tradition. Nevertheless, I would not accept his positions on certain things (like church government, for one). We must judge by positions, not personalities. 

I do not pretend to measure up to the stature of men like Warfield (far be it from me!). But, very humbly, I would suggest that the passage of time has allowed us to see that men like Warfield and Hodge were influenced, perhaps too much in areas like this, by the new and prevailing scientific notions drifting out of unbelieving presuppositions. It does not seem as if they were as critical at times as they should have been. Since their days, the anti-Christian nature of much of what is "science falsely so called" (I Timothy 6.20)
is clearly evident for many to see. Because of this I would say that men who cannot clearly perceive the great errors in modern "scientific" thought that are driving (In my humble opinion) attempts to revise the plain meaning of Genesis 1, demonstrate greater defficiencies than merely disagreement with a point in the confession.


----------



## wsw201

JohnOwen007 said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HaigLaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> When I was ordained a PCA elder in 1978, I had no exceptions, and when I was installed again in a different PCA church in 2007, I had none; but with a keener understanding from reading the debates on PB, perhaps I should amend my views and let my session know, and let them decide whether any exceptions are essential.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your last sentence pretty much sums up why I would not dare take church office. About 5 years ago I would have said I agreed with every jot and title of the Westminster Standards, now I prefer to say that I show a teachable spirit, as I do not have the learning to make such a bold assertion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It seems to me that the issue here is that the WCF may well _over-define_ the reformed faith (as I've said on another thread). That is, we must recognize a legitimate domain of beliefs that believers are free to disagree on and perhaps the WCF comes down on some issues where reformed believers are free to differ. The effect of this is to exclude people who shouldn't be excluded.
> 
> Strict subscription positively makes the boundaries of belief clear. Negatively it excludes many good people who (I suspect) should not be excluded.
> 
> The "system of doctrine" subscription negatively leads to a vague definition of the boundaries of belief. Positively, it allows for good people to be elders who couldn't be in according to strict subscription.
> 
> The WCF is perhaps the greatest confession ever written. However, I wonder if it isn't time to update the WCF. It's been done before. Update the WCF well would mean we could combine (i) strict subscription to make the boundaries crystal clear, _as well as_ (ii) keeping all sorts of good people in the denomination who are godly and orthodox but in conscience can't agree with certain minor points of the WCF (like the Pope being _the_ Antichrist).
> 
> Blessings.
Click to expand...


We all need to remember that the Standards are for the Church and are defined by the Church based on the Churches view of Scripture. What one particular theologian may have believed is inconsequential. Hodge, Calvin, Augustine, etc. were great teachers and contributed much to the Church but they are not the Church. Exceptions have been taken since the Standards were first approved by the Church of Scotland. For instance the Church of Scotland was not too thrilled with Standards view of the magistrate (considered to be too Erastian). One could take an exception for this. In fact the American version of the Standards simply codified the exceptions that the Church had always allowed. I would highly recommend David Hall's book on Subscription.

As far as excluding good men from office, it should also be noted that no one puts a gun to anyones head telling them that they have to become an officer in a particular denomination. If a man can not in all good conscience subscribe under the parameters that the Church sets, he can go to another denomination that is less particular.


----------



## JohnOwen007

ChristianTrader said:


> Actually the question is not the greater light since Warfield, Machen, Hodge, et. al; the question is what greater light did *they have* that overrode the overwhelming tradition before them.
> CT



Dear CT, I don't think the tradition is as "overwhelming" as you say. For example, Anselm mentions that the Augustinian interpretation of Gen. 1-3 (not seeing the 6 days as literal) was the majority at his time. Moreover, as we move into the turn of the 19th century _before_ Darwin the literal 6 24 hour day interpretation appears also to be in the vast minority.

Warfield, Machen. and Hodge were neither stupid nor ungodly. Warfield, in my mind, has produced _the_ definitive arguments on inerrancy. Hence, he was _not_ cavalier with Scripture. We need _very_ good reasons to dismiss these giants with such ease. They had very good reasons to believe what they did.


----------



## Stephen

Daniel Ritchie said:


> KenPierce said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would agree that modern Theonomic ethics is not explicitly taught in the Westminster Standards - as the Puritans did not believe in the distinction between crime and sin that modern Theonomists do. And so I would not argue that one needs to be a modern Theonomist to subscribe to the Westminster Standards.
> 
> The Puritans and modern Theonomists differ in semantics for one very important reason: they live in totally different historical circumstances.
> 
> The Reformers and Puritans lived in times when fanatical extremists wished to enforce the ENTIRE judicial law of Moses (which is a position Theonomy repudiates). Therefore, when I see a couple of quotes trotted out by Rutherford against Theonomy I shake my head at such blatant misrepresentation of Theonomic ethics. For instance, Rutherford does not believe that the death penalty for Sabbath violation is to be applied today, as one would have to become a debtor to the *whole* judicial law. However, Theonomy does not teach that one must uphold the entire judicial law. And it should be noted that both R.J. Rushdoony and Gary North employ similar arguments to Rutherford. Furthermore, it is common to see the quotes from some Reformers and Puritans who did not believe in restitution for theft; this was done because they did not believe that restitution could be applied outside Israel - which is Theonomic methodology, even though it is contrary to the conclusions reached by nearly all modern Theonomists.
> 
> Hence, the purpose of the Reformers and Puritans in their writings was to distinguish between which parts of the judicial law were binding and which were not in order to refute the extremists. Modern Theonomists, on the other hand, are not in the same historical situation. Instead, we live in days when Biblical standards of justice are cast down in the streets - even by those who claim to be Reformed. Therefore, in such a context, we emphasise the continuity between the Older and New Testaments rather than the discontinuity.
> 
> The failure to take on board differing historical contexts in which differing theological writers at different periods often causes much confusion. That is why certain scholars argue that John Calvin believed in universal atonement, because they take a statement which he makes prior to the Arminian controversy - that Calvinists living after the Arminian controversy would not use - and assume that Calvin is teaching something later Calvinists would disagree with. Thus a text, without a context, becomes a pretext.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the typical line of those who want to trumpet strict subscriptionism, but cut a wide swath for their own doctrinal eccentricities. It is precisely what Stephen Wilkins, in one of his former incarnations did. He thought the PCA had to be absolutely 6-24 on creation, but not punctiliar about Reconstructionism.
> 
> Let's face it: the divines could not have been Van Til-influenced theonomists because there was no Van Til. The divines uphold the Law in its right use, and with the proper three-fold division. To try to claim the WCF was a theonomic document is a chronological fallacy of the highest order.
> 
> So, you can disparage my learning all day long. It still will not change the fact that you are anything but a strict subscriptionist --you are only intolerant of other people's exceptions, while freely granting your own. Straining at gnats, and swallowing camels.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Brother, I did not claim to be a strict subscriptionist. I only protested about denominations which claim to hold to the WCF but in reality allow a multitude of exceptions.
> 
> You may not agree with my conclusions on Theonomy, but I have spent many months of my life researching this issue and have publicly documented my conclusions. You are free to disagree with my conclusions, however, your questioning of my sincerity is unbecoming of a minister of the gospel.
Click to expand...


Yes, Ken. We can disagree on issues but it is not right to judge another brother's sincerity or motives. I wish you would stick with the issue at hand because it confuses the discussion.


----------



## Stephen

Steve Dixon said:


> Thank you all. Is it safe to say then that no presbytery in the PCA would allow a man considered for office to take an exception to the WCF where the extent of the atonement is concerned? I assume that would be a serious departure. Is that correct?



Absolutely, you are correct.


----------



## JohnOwen007

wsw201 said:


> We all need to remember that the Standards are for the Church and are defined by the Church based on the Churches view of Scripture.



Well that's that problem: what is the "church"? The Bible _never_ uses the word "Church" for a "denomination". A church in the NT is either: All believers living and dead (Eph. 5:25); (ii) Believers on earth (1 Cor. 15:9; Gal. 1:13); (iii) A local church (1 Cor. 1:2) or (iv) A gathered church (1 Cor. 14:28).

Hence, only _part_ of the church (worldwide) wrote the WCF. This then gives a whole new definition of tradition.



wsw201 said:


> As far as excluding good men from office, it should also be noted that no one puts a gun to anyones head telling them that they have to become an officer in a particular denomination. If a man can not in all good conscience subscribe under the parameters that the Church sets, he can go to another denomination that is less particular.



Well I struggle with this because it's erecting barriers amongst reformed Christians, particularly over issues upon which we're free to disagree. It seems to me to reflect the individualism of a post-enlightenment culture. If we're reformed brothers and sisters in Christ why are we creating barriers to meeting together or being associated institutionally? It's not up to a _part_ of the reformed community to create their own little ghetto. We have to learn to get on with each other when we don't agree minor issues (but agree on the substantial issues). [I'm certainly not advocating a lowest common denominator form of Christianity--that's a disaster.]

It's often forgotten that the mainstream Puritans stayed in the national church as long as they could because they saw schism as such terrible thing. Dering, Cartwright, Chaderton, Perkins, Preston, Sibbes, didn't just run off and start a new denomination full of people who only agreed with them. They stayed in the institutional church because separating from other believers institutionally was _serious._ Christ's body is one, and we are not free to erect boundaries because we don't agree with another reformed Christian on absolutely everything.


----------



## KenPierce

*The PCA should ordain Machen, etc!*



JohnOwen007 said:


> ADKing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KenPierce said:
> 
> 
> 
> As far as not ordaining non-six-dayers. Were Warfield, MAchen, Hodge, and Augustine faithful ministers in the invisible church? What gives us the right to deny them ordination if they were to appear before our courts today?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that godly men have held wrong opinions should not mean that the church should be required to continue tolerating these wrong opinions as greater light is obtained. This line of reasoning would make it difficult to exclude errors from the past simply because godly men have held them (like episcopacy, for one).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Ken,
> 
> Your observation is indeed correct that we should not tolerate past errors when greater light has been obtained. However, not all errors are of equal weight; some errors are way more serious than others.
> 
> Warfield, Machen, and Hodge are not just any godly men, these guys are _giants _in the reformed tradition. Hence, we need very good reasons to exclude their position so easily, especially when you haven't expressed what "greater light" has been revealed since their time that makes the issue so clear.
> 
> God bless you.
Click to expand...


Just to correct something here. My argument was that we ought to think long and hard before we exclude those great men, and, indeed, that we ought not exclude them.


----------



## KenPierce

Daniel Ritchie said:


> KenPierce said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would agree that modern Theonomic ethics is not explicitly taught in the Westminster Standards - as the Puritans did not believe in the distinction between crime and sin that modern Theonomists do. And so I would not argue that one needs to be a modern Theonomist to subscribe to the Westminster Standards.
> 
> The Puritans and modern Theonomists differ in semantics for one very important reason: they live in totally different historical circumstances.
> 
> The Reformers and Puritans lived in times when fanatical extremists wished to enforce the ENTIRE judicial law of Moses (which is a position Theonomy repudiates). Therefore, when I see a couple of quotes trotted out by Rutherford against Theonomy I shake my head at such blatant misrepresentation of Theonomic ethics. For instance, Rutherford does not believe that the death penalty for Sabbath violation is to be applied today, as one would have to become a debtor to the *whole* judicial law. However, Theonomy does not teach that one must uphold the entire judicial law. And it should be noted that both R.J. Rushdoony and Gary North employ similar arguments to Rutherford. Furthermore, it is common to see the quotes from some Reformers and Puritans who did not believe in restitution for theft; this was done because they did not believe that restitution could be applied outside Israel - which is Theonomic methodology, even though it is contrary to the conclusions reached by nearly all modern Theonomists.
> 
> Hence, the purpose of the Reformers and Puritans in their writings was to distinguish between which parts of the judicial law were binding and which were not in order to refute the extremists. Modern Theonomists, on the other hand, are not in the same historical situation. Instead, we live in days when Biblical standards of justice are cast down in the streets - even by those who claim to be Reformed. Therefore, in such a context, we emphasise the continuity between the Older and New Testaments rather than the discontinuity.
> 
> The failure to take on board differing historical contexts in which differing theological writers at different periods often causes much confusion. That is why certain scholars argue that John Calvin believed in universal atonement, because they take a statement which he makes prior to the Arminian controversy - that Calvinists living after the Arminian controversy would not use - and assume that Calvin is teaching something later Calvinists would disagree with. Thus a text, without a context, becomes a pretext.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the typical line of those who want to trumpet strict subscriptionism, but cut a wide swath for their own doctrinal eccentricities. It is precisely what Stephen Wilkins, in one of his former incarnations did. He thought the PCA had to be absolutely 6-24 on creation, but not punctiliar about Reconstructionism.
> 
> Let's face it: the divines could not have been Van Til-influenced theonomists because there was no Van Til. The divines uphold the Law in its right use, and with the proper three-fold division. To try to claim the WCF was a theonomic document is a chronological fallacy of the highest order.
> 
> So, you can disparage my learning all day long. It still will not change the fact that you are anything but a strict subscriptionist --you are only intolerant of other people's exceptions, while freely granting your own. Straining at gnats, and swallowing camels.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Brother, I did not claim to be a strict subscriptionist. I only protested about denominations which claim to hold to the WCF but in reality allow a multitude of exceptions.
> 
> You may not agree with my conclusions on Theonomy, but I have spent many months of my life researching this issue and have publicly documented my conclusions. You are free to disagree with my conclusions, however, your questioning of my sincerity is unbecoming of a minister of the gospel.
Click to expand...


Well, before we throw the unbecoming a gospel minister charge out there, we ought carefully to consider whether or not your sincerity was questioned. 

I went and re-read my posts again. Nowhere did I attempt to question your motive or sincerity. I do, however, see a convenient blind spot. That says nothing of your sincerity.

To be humble, we all have blind spots, and we all ought to want them pointed out to us.

I would expect a bit of a thicker skin in this debate. If you are going to be a provocateur, don't be shocked when people are provoked.

My point is: since the beginning, most theonomists have demanded that their position NOT be regarded as an exception, whilst demanding that anything but a 6-24 view be regarded as one. That is a convenient position to hold: again, allowing a wide swath for ones own novelties and innovations, and excluding a view with a far more ancient history in the church.

As far as theonomy not upholding the whole OT law --what about Bahnsen's definition of theonomy as upholding the law in *exhaustive detail.*?


----------



## ADKing

JohnOwen007 said:


> wsw201 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We all need to remember that the Standards are for the Church and are defined by the Church based on the Churches view of Scripture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well that's that problem: what is the "church"? The Bible _never_ uses the word "Church" for a "denomination". A church in the NT is either: All believers living and dead (Eph. 5:25); (ii) Believers on earth (1 Cor. 15:9; Gal. 1:13); (iii) A local church (1 Cor. 1:2) or (iv) A gathered church (1 Cor. 14:28).
> 
> Hence, only _part_ of the church (worldwide) wrote the WCF. This then gives a whole new definition of tradition.
> 
> 
> 
> wsw201 said:
> 
> 
> 
> As far as excluding good men from office, it should also be noted that no one puts a gun to anyones head telling them that they have to become an officer in a particular denomination. If a man can not in all good conscience subscribe under the parameters that the Church sets, he can go to another denomination that is less particular.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I struggle with this because it's erecting barriers amongst reformed Christians, particularly over issues upon which we're free to disagree. It seems to me to reflect the individualism of a post-enlightenment culture. If we're reformed brothers and sisters in Christ why are we creating barriers to meeting together or being associated institutionally? It's not up to a _part_ of the reformed community to create their own little ghetto. We have to learn to get on with each other when we don't agree minor issues (but agree on the substantial issues). [I'm certainly not advocating a lowest common denominator form of Christianity--that's a disaster.]
> 
> It's often forgotten that the mainstream Puritans stayed in the national church as long as they could because they saw schism as such terrible thing. Dering, Cartwright, Chaderton, Perkins, Preston, Sibbes, didn't just run off and start a new denomination full of people who only agreed with them. They stayed in the institutional church because separating from other believers institutionally was _serious._ Christ's body is one, and we are not free to erect boundaries because we don't agree with another reformed Christian on absolutely everything.
Click to expand...



I appreciate what you say. We desperately need more unity in the reformed world today. And I have indeed seen the problem you mention in real life, so I do not mean to say that it does not exist! But I am not sure I follow what seems to be the implication of what you are saying. Perhaps you could clarify? The divines at Westminster were not attempting to create "their own little ghetto" to exclude other reformed belivers. Instead, it was their stated purpose that their documents be the standards of a covenanted unity and uniformity in doctrine, discipline, worship and government. Surely this is a biblical and noble aim? Is your point that you believe that they included too much?


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Ken,
A moderator has already noted that Theonomy is off topic; and this has been almost debated on the board almost as much as exclusive psalmody (if that is possible). So, while I give you your right to clarify, let's not get the Theonomy topic going on this thread again; you may start a new one of course.



KenPierce said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KenPierce said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the typical line of those who want to trumpet strict subscriptionism, but cut a wide swath for their own doctrinal eccentricities. It is precisely what Stephen Wilkins, in one of his former incarnations did. He thought the PCA had to be absolutely 6-24 on creation, but not punctiliar about Reconstructionism.
> 
> Let's face it: the divines could not have been Van Til-influenced theonomists because there was no Van Til. The divines uphold the Law in its right use, and with the proper three-fold division. To try to claim the WCF was a theonomic document is a chronological fallacy of the highest order.
> 
> So, you can disparage my learning all day long. It still will not change the fact that you are anything but a strict subscriptionist --you are only intolerant of other people's exceptions, while freely granting your own. Straining at gnats, and swallowing camels.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brother, I did not claim to be a strict subscriptionist. I only protested about denominations which claim to hold to the WCF but in reality allow a multitude of exceptions.
> 
> You may not agree with my conclusions on Theonomy, but I have spent many months of my life researching this issue and have publicly documented my conclusions. You are free to disagree with my conclusions, however, your questioning of my sincerity is unbecoming of a minister of the gospel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, before we throw the unbecoming a gospel minister charge out there, we ought carefully to consider whether or not your sincerity was questioned.
> 
> I went and re-read my posts again. Nowhere did I attempt to question your motive or sincerity. I do, however, see a convenient blind spot. That says nothing of your sincerity.
> 
> To be humble, we all have blind spots, and we all ought to want them pointed out to us.
> 
> I would expect a bit of a thicker skin in this debate. If you are going to be a provocateur, don't be shocked when people are provoked.
> 
> My point is: since the beginning, most theonomists have demanded that their position NOT be regarded as an exception, whilst demanding that anything but a 6-24 view be regarded as one. That is a convenient position to hold: again, allowing a wide swath for ones own novelties and innovations, and excluding a view with a far more ancient history in the church.
> 
> As far as theonomy not upholding the whole OT law --what about Bahnsen's definition of theonomy as upholding the law in *exhaustive detail.*?
Click to expand...


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

KenPierce said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KenPierce said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the typical line of those who want to trumpet strict subscriptionism, but cut a wide swath for their own doctrinal eccentricities. It is precisely what Stephen Wilkins, in one of his former incarnations did. He thought the PCA had to be absolutely 6-24 on creation, but not punctiliar about Reconstructionism.
> 
> Let's face it: the divines could not have been Van Til-influenced theonomists because there was no Van Til. The divines uphold the Law in its right use, and with the proper three-fold division. To try to claim the WCF was a theonomic document is a chronological fallacy of the highest order.
> 
> So, you can disparage my learning all day long. It still will not change the fact that you are anything but a strict subscriptionist --you are only intolerant of other people's exceptions, while freely granting your own. Straining at gnats, and swallowing camels.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brother, I did not claim to be a strict subscriptionist. I only protested about denominations which claim to hold to the WCF but in reality allow a multitude of exceptions.
> 
> You may not agree with my conclusions on Theonomy, but I have spent many months of my life researching this issue and have publicly documented my conclusions. You are free to disagree with my conclusions, however, your questioning of my sincerity is unbecoming of a minister of the gospel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, before we throw the unbecoming a gospel minister charge out there, we ought carefully to consider whether or not your sincerity was questioned.
> 
> I went and re-read my posts again. Nowhere did I attempt to question your motive or sincerity. I do, however, see a convenient blind spot. That says nothing of your sincerity.
> 
> To be humble, we all have blind spots, and we all ought to want them pointed out to us.
> 
> I would expect a bit of a thicker skin in this debate. If you are going to be a provocateur, don't be shocked when people are provoked.
> 
> My point is: since the beginning, most theonomists have demanded that their position NOT be regarded as an exception, whilst demanding that anything but a 6-24 view be regarded as one. That is a convenient position to hold: again, allowing a wide swath for ones own novelties and innovations, and excluding a view with a far more ancient history in the church.
> 
> As far as theonomy not upholding the whole OT law --what about Bahnsen's definition of theonomy as upholding the law in *exhaustive detail.*?
Click to expand...



Brother, there has probably been some misunderstanding, so we will leave it at that. As for Bahnsen, well that is , but the Theonomic view is that the law continues except for what has been modified by later revelation or what cannot be applied outside Israel, which means that he does not believe that the entire OT law is binding today, though the law (general speaking) continues in exhaustative detail - as the footnotes of the WLC indicate. Although whether this is compatible with the WCF is a debate for another day.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

NaphtaliPress said:


> Ken,
> A moderator has already noted that Theonomy is off topic; and this has been almost debated on the board almost as much as exclusive psalmody (if that is possible). So, while I give you your right to clarify, let's not get the Theonomy topic going on this thread again; you may start a new one of course.
> 
> 
> 
> KenPierce said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Brother, I did not claim to be a strict subscriptionist. I only protested about denominations which claim to hold to the WCF but in reality allow a multitude of exceptions.
> 
> You may not agree with my conclusions on Theonomy, but I have spent many months of my life researching this issue and have publicly documented my conclusions. You are free to disagree with my conclusions, however, your questioning of my sincerity is unbecoming of a minister of the gospel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, before we throw the unbecoming a gospel minister charge out there, we ought carefully to consider whether or not your sincerity was questioned.
> 
> I went and re-read my posts again. Nowhere did I attempt to question your motive or sincerity. I do, however, see a convenient blind spot. That says nothing of your sincerity.
> 
> To be humble, we all have blind spots, and we all ought to want them pointed out to us.
> 
> I would expect a bit of a thicker skin in this debate. If you are going to be a provocateur, don't be shocked when people are provoked.
> 
> My point is: since the beginning, most theonomists have demanded that their position NOT be regarded as an exception, whilst demanding that anything but a 6-24 view be regarded as one. That is a convenient position to hold: again, allowing a wide swath for ones own novelties and innovations, and excluding a view with a far more ancient history in the church.
> 
> As far as theonomy not upholding the whole OT law --what about Bahnsen's definition of theonomy as upholding the law in *exhaustive detail.*?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...



Chris

Apologies; your comment was made before my last one was, so I did not see it before posting.


----------



## wsw201

> Well that's that problem: what is the "church"? The Bible never uses the word "Church" for a "denomination". A church in the NT is either: All believers living and dead (Eph. 5:25); (ii) Believers on earth (1 Cor. 15:9; Gal. 1:13); (iii) A local church (1 Cor. 1:2) or (iv) A gathered church (1 Cor. 14:28).
> 
> Hence, only part of the church (worldwide) wrote the WCF. This then gives a whole new definition of tradition.



When I referred to the Church, I made the assumption that we were talking about the Reformed Churches since only the Reformed Churches would subscribe to the Standards or the 3FU (of which there isn't a dime worth of difference). My bad.



> Well I struggle with this because it's erecting barriers amongst reformed Christians, particularly over issues upon which we're free to disagree. It seems to me to reflect the individualism of a post-enlightenment culture. If we're reformed brothers and sisters in Christ why are we creating barriers to meeting together or being associated institutionally? It's not up to a part of the reformed community to create their own little ghetto. We have to learn to get on with each other when we don't agree minor issues (but agree on the substantial issues). [I'm certainly not advocating a lowest common denominator form of Christianity--that's a disaster.]



I don't see that we are erecting barriers. We also have institutional associations. That's what NAPARC is all about. Regarding setting up a ghetto, I think you are stretching things a bit too far. Regarding minor issues, what are they? Is there an official list? Is it the Sacraments that separate Presbyterians from Baptist? Is it the ordination of women? The Standards are a summary of what Scripture teaches. Assuming that is true then what part of Scripture is a minor issue? Unfortunately this scenario has been played out through out the history of the church. Consider the situation of the PCUSA during the first part of the 20th century. They couldn't even agree on the fundementals, of which they came up with just 5!




> It's often forgotten that the mainstream Puritans stayed in the national church as long as they could because they saw schism as such terrible thing. Dering, Cartwright, Chaderton, Perkins, Preston, Sibbes, didn't just run off and start a new denomination full of people who only agreed with them. They stayed in the institutional church because separating from other believers institutionally was serious. Christ's body is one, and we are not free to erect boundaries because we don't agree with another reformed Christian on absolutely everything.



True they didn't and many paid with their lives. Besides we are not talking about starting a new denomination but what do we expect from officers within existing denominations.


----------



## ChristianTrader

JohnOwen007 said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually the question is not the greater light since Warfield, Machen, Hodge, et. al; the question is what greater light did *they have* that overrode the overwhelming tradition before them.
> CT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear CT, I don't think the tradition is as "overwhelming" as you say. For example, Anselm mentions that the Augustinian interpretation of Gen. 1-3 (not seeing the 6 days as literal) was the majority at his time. Moreover, as we move into the turn of the 19th century _before_ Darwin the literal 6 24 hour day interpretation appears also to be in the vast minority.
Click to expand...


How many OEC were there among the orthodox church tradition up till the 19th century?

If you have a hard time finding any, then how can you characterize the tradition as anything other than "overwhelming"?

It also seems that your phrasing of the issue is a bit misleading. The core of the YEC is that the world is young (It is not called 6-24 hour day creationism) If one wants to hold to the world being from 6-10k years old but also want to say that the day of Gen 1-3 could have been a little longer (For example Joshua's long day) or shorter than normal, you probably will not find that big of a deal with most YECers. 



> Warfield, Machen. and Hodge were neither stupid nor ungodly. Warfield, in my mind, has produced _the_ definitive arguments on inerrancy. Hence, he was _not_ cavalier with Scripture. We need _very_ good reasons to dismiss these giants with such ease. They had very good reasons to believe what they did.



Great Church fathers that had problems with any number orthodox views were neither stupid nor ungodly. They were just wrong.

CT


----------



## Steve Dixon

TimV said:


> Thank you all. Is it safe to say then that no presbytery in the PCA would allow a man considered for office to take an exception to the WCF where the extent of the atonement is concerned? I assume that would be a serious departure. Is that correct?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steve, I've answered the question twice, and provided the source, and told you where you can request an email copy of the source. If you don't want to email the Stated Clerk's office the relevant section is
> 
> 
> 
> 
> B. The Commission affirms the judgment of Eastern Carolina Presbytery in that Infant Baptism (WCF 28-4) and Limited Atonement (WCF 3-3, 8-5 and 11-4) are to be considered fundamentals of the system of doctrine and that there can be no exceptions given in the case of officers in the church.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Presbyteries don't have a choice in the matter. They have done this before, both in ignorance and wilfully, but a complaint to the Session will remedy the situation.
Click to expand...


Thanks Tim. That citation is about as clear as it gets.


----------



## JohnOwen007

Dear CT, thanks for your response.



ChristianTrader said:


> How many OEC were there among the orthodox church tradition up till the 19th century?



That's asking (in my mind) the wrong question. I care not for the age of the universe but what Genesis 1-2 actually says. *The *question is how many people read the opening chapters of Genesis as literal 24 hour days? In that case the tradition is far from overwhelming.



ChristianTrader said:


> Great Church fathers that had problems with any number orthodox views were neither stupid nor ungodly. They were just wrong.



Well that doesn't really advance the discussion anywhere. The issue is whether we allow these people in a reformed Church.

Every blessing CT.


----------



## JohnOwen007

Dear Adam, thanks for your thoughtful response.



ADKing said:


> Perhaps you could clarify? The divines at Westminster were not attempting to create "their own little ghetto" to exclude other reformed belivers. Instead, it was their stated purpose that their documents be the standards of a covenanted unity and uniformity in doctrine, discipline, worship and government. Surely this is a biblical and noble aim? Is your point that you believe that they included too much?



Yes this is a biblical and noble aim and I agree. Yes, I believe they included too much and it's been the cause of all sorts of problems ever since. For example, the WCF ended up excluding a whole raft of giants like John Owen, John Goodwin, Philip Nye _et. al._. They ended up writing another confession (the Savoy) to suit their beliefs. Shouldn't they've thought harder about how to get all these people together institutionally? Again, I'm not advocating lowest common denominator Christianity. Not at all. The unity of the church is incredibly important--something we find difficult to comprehend because of our post-enlightenment individualism.

Blessings brother.


----------



## JohnOwen007

wsw201 said:


> When I referred to the Church, I made the assumption that we were talking about the Reformed Churches since only the Reformed Churches would subscribe to the Standards or the 3FU (of which there isn't a dime worth of difference).



Well I doubt we can say there isn't a dime worth of difference. The WCF codifies a part of the reformed tradition that had developed somewhat. A good example of this is federal theology. The 3FU are mono-covenantal the WCF is explicitly bi-covenantal.



wsw201 said:


> Regarding minor issues, what are they?



I gave one quick example: the pope is _the_ Antichrist.

A quick example for the Belgic confession: Paul wrote Hebrews.

Reformed believers should not be excluded from the reformed community if they deny any of the above.

Why can't we just take them out, and make strict subscription much easier?


----------



## wsw201

> I gave one quick example: the pope is the Antichrist.
> 
> A quick example for the Belgic confession: Paul wrote Hebrews.



I don't know if you are aware of this but in the American Version of the Standards used by the PCA and OPC, the pope _is_ the Antichrist is no longer there. (this goes to a previous post saying that if you don't like what the Standards say then change it.)

As far as the Belgic is concerned, I'm not in the URC or a denomination that holds to the 3FU, but I can't see anyone giving someone the boot for questioning Paul's authorship of Hebrews. I would classifiy this type of exception right there with the an exception to Chapter 1 of the WCF regarding the fact that the Scriptures were not only written in Hebrew and Greek but also Aramaic based on a couple of verses in Daniel.

Do you have any other ones?


----------



## JohnOwen007

wsw201 said:


> I don't know if you are aware of this but in the American Version of the Standards used by the PCA and OPC, the pope _is_ the Antichrist is no longer there. (this goes to a previous post saying that if you don't like what the Standards say then change it.)



I'm so glad to hear this, because it causes all sorts of problems over here in Australia.



wsw201 said:


> Do you have any other ones?



That was not the direction of my original post and I'm not really interested in going through the WCF. The point at hand was _over definition_. For example, there are many reformed folks who can adhere to the 3FU but not the WCF (for example). I find this sad because these are reformed believers who have so much in common, who belong together, and who should be unified in keeping with who we are in Christ. The many reformed denominations we have is not in keeping with the original Puritan vision. Why is it that we're not working more at unity?


----------



## MOSES

wsw201 said:


> I gave one quick example: the pope is the Antichrist..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know if you are aware of this but in the American Version of the Standards used by the PCA and OPC, the pope _is_ the Antichrist is no longer there. (this goes to a previous post saying that if you don't like what the Standards say then change it.)
Click to expand...


The pope as the antichrist is a popular one that people recognize as being removed...but...a less common one is this:


Original:


> Chapter 20 - IV. And because the powers which God hath ordained, and the liberty which Christ hath purchased, are not intended by God to destroy, but mutually to uphold and preserve one another; they who, upon pretence of Christian liberty, shall oppose any lawful power, or the lawful exercise of it, whether it be civil or ecclesiastical, resist the ordinance of God. And, for their publishing of such opinions, or maintaining of such practices, as are contrary to the light of nature, or to the known principles of Christianity, whether concerning faith, worship, or conversation; or, to the power of godliness; or, such erroneous opinions or practices, as either in their own nature, or in the manner of publishing or maintaining them, are destructive to the external peace and order which Christ hath established in the Church, they may lawfully be called to account, and proceeded against by the censures of the Church,* and by the power of the civil magistrate*.



American (OPC):


> chap. 20 - 4. And because the powers which God hath ordained, and the liberty which Christ hath purchased, are not intended by God to destroy, but mutually to uphold and preserve one another, they who, upon pretense of Christian liberty, shall oppose any lawful power, or the lawful exercise of it, whether it be civil or ecclesiastical, resist the ordinance of God. And, for their publishing of such opinions, or maintaining of such practices, as are contrary to the light of nature, or to the known principles of Christianity (whether concerning faith, worship, or conversation), or to the power of godliness; or, such erroneous opinions or practices, as either in their own nature, or in the manner of publishing or maintaining them, are destructive to the external peace and order which Christ hath established in the church, they may lawfully be called to account, and proceeded against, by the censures of the church.



To some people this is not a minor change.

Sorry if this is off topic, I just wanted to point it out.

Note: Daniel Ritchie...What do you think of this "minor" change? Do you deal with this section of the confession in your new book at all?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

MOSES said:


> wsw201 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I gave one quick example: the pope is the Antichrist..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know if you are aware of this but in the American Version of the Standards used by the PCA and OPC, the pope _is_ the Antichrist is no longer there. (this goes to a previous post saying that if you don't like what the Standards say then change it.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The pope as the antichrist is a popular one that people recognize as being removed...but...a less common one is this:
> 
> 
> Original:
> 
> 
> 
> Chapter 20 - IV. And because the powers which God hath ordained, and the liberty which Christ hath purchased, are not intended by God to destroy, but mutually to uphold and preserve one another; they who, upon pretence of Christian liberty, shall oppose any lawful power, or the lawful exercise of it, whether it be civil or ecclesiastical, resist the ordinance of God. And, for their publishing of such opinions, or maintaining of such practices, as are contrary to the light of nature, or to the known principles of Christianity, whether concerning faith, worship, or conversation; or, to the power of godliness; or, such erroneous opinions or practices, as either in their own nature, or in the manner of publishing or maintaining them, are destructive to the external peace and order which Christ hath established in the Church, they may lawfully be called to account, and proceeded against by the censures of the Church,* and by the power of the civil magistrate*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> American (OPC):
> 
> 
> 
> chap. 20 - 4. And because the powers which God hath ordained, and the liberty which Christ hath purchased, are not intended by God to destroy, but mutually to uphold and preserve one another, they who, upon pretense of Christian liberty, shall oppose any lawful power, or the lawful exercise of it, whether it be civil or ecclesiastical, resist the ordinance of God. And, for their publishing of such opinions, or maintaining of such practices, as are contrary to the light of nature, or to the known principles of Christianity (whether concerning faith, worship, or conversation), or to the power of godliness; or, such erroneous opinions or practices, as either in their own nature, or in the manner of publishing or maintaining them, are destructive to the external peace and order which Christ hath established in the church, they may lawfully be called to account, and proceeded against, by the censures of the church.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To some people this is not a minor change.
> 
> Sorry if this is off topic, I just wanted to point it out.
> 
> Note: Daniel Ritchie...What do you think of this "minor" change? Do you deal with this section of the confession in your new book at all?
Click to expand...


I do deal with the American's omission of the Establishment Principle from the WCF in Chapter 3 of _A Conquered Kingdom_ "National Confessionalism and the Establishment Principle". That particular clause is not considered, but my overall argument would have some bearing on it.


----------



## MOSES

Daniel Ritchie said:


> I do deal with the American's omission of the Establishment Principle from the WCF in Chapter 3 of _A Conquered Kingdom_ "National Confessionalism and the Establishment Principle". That particular clause is not considered, but my overall argument would have some bearing on it.



Thanks...

Is this book in stock and ready to ship? Can I order it directly from the Lulu web site and have it in a week or two do you know?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

MOSES said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do deal with the American's omission of the Establishment Principle from the WCF in Chapter 3 of _A Conquered Kingdom_ "National Confessionalism and the Establishment Principle". That particular clause is not considered, but my overall argument would have some bearing on it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks...
> 
> Is this book in stock and ready to ship? Can I order it directly from the Lulu web site and have it in a week or two do you know?
Click to expand...


Yes, you will get one a couple of weeks after you place the order.


----------



## MOSES

I just ordered it and I'm looking forward to the read.


----------



## dannyhyde

JohnOwen007 said:


> The 3FU are mono-covenantal the WCF is explicitly bi-covenantal.



Hello Marty,

This perked my ears. I think of know what you are talking about, but could you elaborate on what you mean by "mono-covenantal" and why you say such is the position of the 3FU?

I don't want to chime in until I am clear on what you are saying.


----------



## wsw201

> The pope as the antichrist is a popular one that people recognize as being removed...but...a less common one is this:
> 
> 
> Original:
> 
> Quote:
> Chapter 20 - IV. And because the powers which God hath ordained, and the liberty which Christ hath purchased, are not intended by God to destroy, but mutually to uphold and preserve one another; they who, upon pretence of Christian liberty, shall oppose any lawful power, or the lawful exercise of it, whether it be civil or ecclesiastical, resist the ordinance of God. And, for their publishing of such opinions, or maintaining of such practices, as are contrary to the light of nature, or to the known principles of Christianity, whether concerning faith, worship, or conversation; or, to the power of godliness; or, such erroneous opinions or practices, as either in their own nature, or in the manner of publishing or maintaining them, are destructive to the external peace and order which Christ hath established in the Church, they may lawfully be called to account, and proceeded against by the censures of the Church, and by the power of the civil magistrate.



Good point. If I remember correctly, the issue of the civil magistrate was something that the Church of Scotland was not too thrilled with when the Standards were first ratified and allowed an exception for. Therefore it was changed in the American version to reflect this standard exception.


----------



## Pilgrim

Here is a concrete example. I recently attended a PCA presbytery meeting where two candidates were examined. One was a transfer from another presbytery and the other was for ordination. I'll note at the outset that the 2nd candidate that I discuss below probably wouldn't have gotten out of committee, much less been ordained by some PCA presbyteries. The PCA has much greater degree of diversity from presbytery to presbytery than many other confessionally Reformed churches. 

The one who transferred said he was taking an exception on the Sabbath. I'm not sure what was determined in the end, but some of the elders expressed the opinion that this candidate's scruples were so minor that it may not be necessary for him to take an exception. 

The candidate for ordination took 4 exceptions. These exceptions were the prohibition of depictions of Christ, the Sabbath, paedocommunion and the prohibition of marrying papists (WCF 24.3). Under further questioning he also stated that he didn't think the term evangelical in the BCO precluded Roman Catholics from partaking in communion in PCA churches since they "hold to the essentials of the faith." This man ministers in a city with probably one of the heaviest RC concentrations in the USA. Not being an elder nor a member of the presbytery, I wasn't privy to the discussions and votes in executive session, so I don't know what was decided regarding whether or not he could teach any or all of these exceptions. His ordination was approved by the overwhelming majority of elders present.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

It is unfortunate that they did ordain that gentlemen.


----------



## wsw201




----------



## wsw201

> The candidate for ordination took 4 exceptions. These exceptions were the prohibition of depictions of Christ, the Sabbath, paedocommunion and the prohibition of marrying papists (WCF 24.3). Under further questioning he also stated that he didn't think the term evangelical in the BCO precluded Roman Catholics from partaking in communion in PCA churches since they "hold to the essentials of the faith." This man ministers in a city with probably one of the heaviest RC concentrations in the USA. Not being an elder nor a member of the presbytery, I wasn't privy to the discussions and votes in executive session, so I don't know what was decided regarding whether or not he could teach any or all of these exceptions. His ordination was approved by the overwhelming majority of elders present.



A little off topic, but how could a man who is to preach the whole counsel of God not teach or preach on what he believes Scripture teaches? Does he just skip those portions of Scripture?


----------



## Pilgrim

wsw201 said:


> The candidate for ordination took 4 exceptions. These exceptions were the prohibition of depictions of Christ, the Sabbath, paedocommunion and the prohibition of marrying papists (WCF 24.3). Under further questioning he also stated that he didn't think the term evangelical in the BCO precluded Roman Catholics from partaking in communion in PCA churches since they "hold to the essentials of the faith." This man ministers in a city with probably one of the heaviest RC concentrations in the USA. Not being an elder nor a member of the presbytery, I wasn't privy to the discussions and votes in executive session, so I don't know what was decided regarding whether or not he could teach any or all of these exceptions. His ordination was approved by the overwhelming majority of elders present.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A little off topic, but how could a man who is to preach the whole counsel of God not teach or preach on what he believes Scripture teaches? Does he just skip those portions of Scripture?
Click to expand...


I don't know what the official PCA position on exceptions is or if there even is a clear rule, but some will argue that a Teaching Elder cannot teach his exceptions while others will strongly argue that they can teach them provided they explain that their view on the subject at hand is contrary to the standards. Or do presbyterys have to decide on a case by case basis whether the exception can be taught? Perhaps someone more familiar with the PCA Book of Church Order and any rulings on this issue could weigh in.


----------



## wsw201

Timothy William said:


> I'm surprised that someone who denied LA would even be considered as a candidate for elder.
> 
> What is the Bowen case referred to above?
> 
> What of exceptions to 6 day creationism or exclusive psalmody, for example, or heterodox views on the Sabbath? What does the PCA regard as automatically disqualifying?



Here is a LINK to the Bowen case.


----------



## JohnOwen007

dannyhyde said:


> JohnOwen007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 3FU are mono-covenantal the WCF is explicitly bi-covenantal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This perked my ears. I think of know what you are talking about, but could you elaborate on what you mean by "mono-covenantal" and why you say such is the position of the 3FU?
Click to expand...


Yes, sorry Danny, I guess it was a bit of an ambiguous statement with the terminology chosen.

My point was simply that the WCF explicitly teaches the covenant of works (hence 2 covenants taught), whereas the 3FU doesn't (only one covenant taught). I wasn't trying to say that the 3FU isn't compatible with a covenant of works.

However, I do know people who can't affirm the WCF because of it's teaching about the covenant of works, but can affirm the 3FU.

Blessings brother.


----------

