# Vanishing Westminster Sabbatarianism: Summary of the Puritan view of the Lord’s Day



## NaphtaliPress (May 14, 2015)

It is certainly true that the old nonconformist view of 'Sunday' as The Lord's Day or Christian Sabbath, a day to put away our weekly labors and pastimes and devote a day to the Worship of God has been a steadily vanishing view. But it is particularly sad that there is now a move in the Presbyterian Church in America, that supposed bastion of conservative evangelical Presbyterianism, to try and change their version of the Westminster Standards regarding the prohibition of pursuing our own pleasures on that one day of seven. This is completely out of keeping with the doctrine of the Sabbath as articulated and historical held by Puritanism since the late sixteenth century and all of Presbyterianism until the decline of the last century. Changing the proscription is not some small change but represents a rejection of the Puritan understanding of the fourth commandment. Below is a summary of the doctrine of the Sabbath derived from the fourth commandment as given by the English puritan Nicholas Bownd in 1606 in his preface to _True Doctrine of the Sabbath._ That work greatly influenced Puritanism to the extent one can say it has a Sabbatarian heart at its center, and it no doubt influenced the view articulated a generation later in the Westminster Standards. This book was recently published in a new critical edition by Naphtali Press and Reformation Heritage Books (see end of this post for details).

First of all, that the observations of the Sabbath is not a bare ordinance of man, or a mere civil or ecclesiastical constitution, appointed only for polity; but an immortal commandment of almighty God, and therefore binds men’s consciences.


2. The same was given to our first parents, Adam and Eve; and so after carefully observed, both [by] them and their posterity, the holy patriarchs and Church of God, before and under the law, until the coming of Christ.


3. And it was revived in Mount Sinai, by God’s own voice to the Israelites, after they came out of Egypt, with a special note of remembrance above all the rest; and fortified with more reasons than they, and particularly applied unto all sorts of men by name; all which shows how careful the Lord was that everyone should straightly keep it.


4. The ceremonies of the law, which made a difference between Jew and Gentile, though the gospel has taken away, since _the partition wall was broken down by Christ _(Eph. 2:14); yet this commandment of the Sabbath abides still in its full force, as being moral and perpetual, and so binds for ever all nations and sorts of men, as before.


5. The apostles by the direction of God’s Spirit (leading them into all truth) did change that day (which before was the seventh from creation, and in remembrance of it) into the eighth; even this which we now keep in honor of the _Redemption. _And therefore the same day ought never to be changed, but still to be kept of all nations unto the world’s end; because we can never have the like cause or direction to change it


6. So that we are in keeping holy of a day, for the public service of the Lord, precisely bound not only to the number of seven (and it is not in our power to make choice of the sixth or eighth day); but even on this very seventh day, which we now keep, and to none other.


7. On which day we are bound straightly to rest from all the ordinary works of our calling, every man in his several vocation; because six days in the week are appointed for them, and the seventh is sanctified and separated from the others, to another end; even for the public service of God, and that by God Himself.


8. Much more, then, in it ought we to give over [_relinquish_] all kinds of lawful recreations and pastimes, which are less necessary than the works of our calling, and whatsoever may take up our hearts to draw them from God’s service; because this law is spiritual, and binds the whole man, as well as any other. Most of all ought we to renounce all such things, as are not lawful at any time.


9. Yet in cases of necessity God has given great liberty unto us, to do many things for the preservation and comforts not only of the beasts and dumb creatures, but especially of man. Not only when he is weak and sick, but being healthful and strong, both in the works of our callings, and also of recreations, without which necessity we are persuaded that men ought ordinarily to cease from them.


10. And herein more specially the governors of the Church and Commonwealth have great liberty above all others, who in such cases may upon this day do many things for the good of both, not only for war, but for peace; and may prescribe unto others, and the people ought therein to obey them. And as in other things they ought not busily to inquire a reason of all their commandments; so in this they ought to presume with reverence so much of their good consciences, that they know more cause of the things which they command and do, than themselves do, or is meet for them curiously to inquire.


11. The same day of rest ought ordinarily to be spent altogether in God’s service, especially in frequenting the public assemblies, where the Word of God is plainly read and purely preached, the sacraments rightly administered, and prayer made in a known tongue to the edifying of the people; where also they ought to attend upon these things from the beginning to the ending.


12. The rest of the day ought to be spent by every man himself alone, or with others (as his family or neighbors) in all private exercises of religion, whereby he may be more prepared unto, or reap greater fruit from the public exercises: as in private prayer, reading of the scriptures, singing of psalms, meditating upon, or conferring about, the Word and works of God—and that either in their houses, or abroad in the fields.


13. And as every man particularly is bound to the observation of this commandment, so more specially masters in their families, magistrates in their precincts, and princes in their realms ought to provide for this, as much as in them lies; and hereby to look to all that are committed to their charge, and to compel them at the least to the outward observation of the _rest_, and the sanctifying of it, as well as of any other commandment, as of not committing murder, adultery, theft, and such like.


14. Lastly, though no man can perfectly keep this commandment, either in thought, word or deed, no more than he can any other; yet this is that perfection that we must aim at; and wherein, if we fail, we must repent us, and crave pardon for Christ’s sake. For as _the whole law is our schoolmaster to lead us to Christ _(Gal. 3:24); so is every particular commandment, and namely this of the Sabbath. And therefore we are not to measure the length and breadth of it by the over-scant rule of our own inability, but by the _perfect reed of the Temple _(Ezek. 40:3); that is, by the absolute righteousness of God himself, which only can give us the full measure of it.​


From the author’s preface, Nicholas Bownd, _Sabbathum Veteris et Novi Testamenti, or The True Doctrine of the Sabbath_ (Naphtali Press and Reformation Heritage Books, 2015) 7–9. Hardbound, dust jacket, ~600 pp. Retail $30; check for sale pricing. Available from RHB (The True Doctrine of the Sabbath: or, Sabbathum Veteris et Novi Testamenti - Reformation Heritage Books) and Solid Ground Books (Add to Cart (2125a)). and Naphtali Press (Naphtali Press Â» Blog Archive Â» #####Sabbathum Veteris Et Novi Testamenti: or, The True Doctrine of the Sabbath.


----------



## R Harris (May 14, 2015)

Wow, was not aware that was happening in the PCA, but that really doesn't surprise me.

Chris, you also ought to put a link to your book _Calvin in the Hands of the Philistines_, because undoubtably the urban myth that Calvin routinely bowled on the Sabbath will at some point be trotted out by someone as these debates and discussions progress.

This sounds like a great book, I will try and secure a copy.


----------



## Pilgrim (May 14, 2015)

I wasn't aware of any kind of official movement either. Perhaps it has been mentioned here in the past and I simply missed it. But I did find these:

http://www.pcaac.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Overture-2-NTX-Sabboth-Study-Committee.pdf

http://www.pcaac.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Overture-9-TN-Valley-study-committee.pdf


----------



## NaphtaliPress (May 14, 2015)

I would say 1 overture last year (NTX, kicked back) and it resubmitted and another pressing the same issue (TN), is a move if not a movement.


----------



## Romans922 (May 14, 2015)

Movement search google: National Partnership PCA


----------



## NaphtaliPress (May 14, 2015)

So, is this attack on Sabbath doctrine coordinated?


Romans922 said:


> Movement search google: National Partnership PCA


----------



## Romans922 (May 14, 2015)

Not confirmed but pretty definite, just like a few other things every year at GA.


----------



## Pilgrim (May 14, 2015)

Since the confessional teaching is widely ignored, the call to amend the standards has a certain logic to it. (That is not to say that I support it by any means.) In many presbyteries it seems that the Standards on this doctrine have practically been amended already. It would appear that the exception is simply noted without discussion unless a pesky "TR" is out to make trouble. 

Beyond "recreation," there seems to be little question about engaging in unnecessary commerce on the Sabbath either. I've had at least one PCA minister invite me to do so on the Lord's Day.


----------



## BGF (May 15, 2015)

From where does this need, or desire, to rewrite the standards arise? In other words, what's the motivation?


----------



## Nicholas Perella (May 15, 2015)

BGF said:


> From where does this need, or desire, to rewrite the standards arise? In other words, what's the motivation?



This might help.

Dear Bryan: Replying to “The State of the PCA”


----------



## Romans922 (May 15, 2015)

BGF said:


> From where does this need, or desire, to rewrite the standards arise? In other words, what's the motivation?



Many elders in the PCA do not agree with the recreations clause in the Standards.


----------



## earl40 (May 15, 2015)

BGF said:


> From where does this need, or desire, to rewrite the standards arise? In other words, what's the motivation?



Persoanally I would have like to known my pastor took this exception because I naively assumed that he did not when we started attending a reformed church (PCA). Also we say and advertise as a particular church as holding to the WCF standard which is simply dishonest, and I wish not to have others, like myself, find out later we do not hold to the WCF....as a local church in the PCA.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (May 15, 2015)

When 'shopping' for PCA churches the motto 'buyer beware' is prudent advice. Ask questions. 
I'm not even confident that there is not a muted exception amongst many who might otherwise call themselves confessionalists to the recreation clause. We'll see. 
Chris is right above; this has been building since the beginning of the PCA as it was a common allowed exception. I would not call it a logic; but simply the same results of any progressive undercutting of sound doctrine. We have reached that tipping point where the exception takers don't like the fact they are the ones out of accord and now the vast majority, want the legalist holders of the original to be those out of accord with the PCA standards.


----------



## Shawn Mathis (May 15, 2015)

"But it is particularly sad that there is now a move in the Presbyterian Church in America, that supposed bastion of conservative evangelical Presbyterianism, to try and change their version of the Westminster Standards regarding the prohibition of pursuing our own pleasures on that one day of seven"

In the number of local PCA Presbytery meetings I have visited as a delegate from the OPC, there have been two or more men being examined for the ministry. That would be a sample size of about 12-15 over a few years. Everyone one of them (save maybe one) took exception to the recreation clause. 

So, if enough of these exceptions are allowed, it would only make sense that the standards could change.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (May 15, 2015)

I am not sure that there isn't a fundamental ignorance over the Puritan position that goes along with these exceptions. And likely a tremendous about of seminary teaching prejudicing the confessional view as well. 


Shawn Mathis said:


> In the number of local PCA Presbytery meetings I have visited as a delegate from the OPC, there have been two or more men being examined for the ministry. That would be a sample size of about 12-15 over a few years. Everyone one of them (save maybe one) took exception to the recreation clause.


----------



## Rev. Todd Ruddell (May 15, 2015)

Chris, I believe it is hopeful, and a good construction on your part to relegate these exceptions to ignorance.


----------



## Unoriginalname (May 16, 2015)

I think amending the Standards would be a good course of action if it is already a position not held to by elders, taught or enforced by discipline. It is better to have standards that people actually confess than a confession that is on paper but not put into practice.


----------



## BGF (May 16, 2015)

Unoriginalname said:


> I think amending the Standards would be a good course of action if it is already a position not held to by elders, taught or enforced by discipline. It is better to have standards that people actually confess than a confession that is on paper but not put into practice.



No. The only justification for amending the standards is if Scripture warrants it. If the standards are correct in their interpretation it should stand. Hopefully the denomination would cease it's drift and return. If you change them just because men fail to practice what is taught then we have done away with Sola Scriptura and might as well pack it up.


----------



## Nicholas Perella (May 16, 2015)

BGF said:


> Unoriginalname said:
> 
> 
> > I think amending the Standards would be a good course of action if it is already a position not held to by elders, taught or enforced by discipline. It is better to have standards that people actually confess than a confession that is on paper but not put into practice.
> ...



That is a great point. The Confessional Standards ought to reflect the ultimate standard in God's Word. Our Confession is not to mirror our practice as fallen man, but to mirror God's redemptive history from Genesis to Revelation.


----------



## Romans922 (May 16, 2015)

And the issue in the PCA, at least the Overture sent and the common defense: This is our practice, therefore we need to change the Standards (Doctrine). Practice --> Doctrine. 

Instead of what it ought to be: Doctrine --> Practice.


----------



## Edm (May 16, 2015)

How does one go about taking exception? Is that an actual thing? Or they just choose not to follow it? What are the reasons? That someone does not believe the commandment is carried over into the new covenant? Or that they are personally unable to keep it, but think that besides that they should fit the pastor role? This is new to me not coming from a reformed background.


----------



## Romans922 (May 16, 2015)

Each candidate for ministry is to make known his differences with the Standards, the Presbytery then judges those differences to determine if they are allowable exceptions or not.


----------



## BGF (May 16, 2015)

> How does one go about taking exception? Is that an actual thing? Or they just choose not to follow it? What are the reasons? That someone does not believe the commandment is carried over into the new covenant? Or that they are personally unable to keep it, but think that besides that they should fit the pastor role? This is new to me not coming from a reformed background.


Technically, one cannot take an exception. An exception is granted by the Presbytery. I don't know if this is uniform practice (I believe it is), but many Presbyteries do not require regular church members to receive the WS as containing the doctrines taught in the bible. Officers, however, are required to vow to such and to report if their beliefs are out of accord with the Standards. A Presbytery will then decide if that candidate's or officer's beliefs strike at the fundamentals of the faith. If not, they will likely grant the exception. If so, well then that candidate or officer will likely not be/remain ordained.


----------



## Sensus Divinitas (May 16, 2015)

It's even worse in the EPC (not that that should come as a surprise).


----------



## Unoriginalname (May 17, 2015)

BGF said:


> Unoriginalname said:
> 
> 
> > I think amending the Standards would be a good course of action if it is already a position not held to by elders, taught or enforced by discipline. It is better to have standards that people actually confess than a confession that is on paper but not put into practice.
> ...



My point was confessions confess what we believe to be the true doctrine of Scripture. It would be meaningless and misleading to continue to have a clause in a confession if it is not taught, affirmed or used in discipline in the church. If we do not do those things we really cannot say we believe that to be the true doctrine of Scripture


----------



## MW (May 17, 2015)

Unoriginalname said:


> My point was confessions confess what we believe to be the true doctrine of Scripture. It would be meaningless and misleading to continue to have a clause in a confession if it is not taught, affirmed or used in discipline in the church. If we do not do those things we really cannot say we believe that to be the true doctrine of Scripture



Codifying apostacy is not the way to correct it. The Lord's way is in Rev. 2:15-16 -- "So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate. Repent; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth."


----------



## Captain Picard (May 20, 2015)

MW said:


> Unoriginalname said:
> 
> 
> > My point was confessions confess what we believe to be the true doctrine of Scripture. It would be meaningless and misleading to continue to have a clause in a confession if it is not taught, affirmed or used in discipline in the church. If we do not do those things we really cannot say we believe that to be the true doctrine of Scripture
> ...



...are you implying all persons who don't affirm the exact language and Puritan interpretation of WCF XXI.8 are not saved?


----------



## MW (May 20, 2015)

Captain Picard said:


> ...are you implying all persons who don't affirm the exact language and Puritan interpretation of WCF XXI.8 are not saved?



Have you been reading in context? There is a church with a standard and office-bearers who take exception at it, and then the general suggestion was given that exceptions should be made the rule. My statement related to that general suggestion.


----------



## Captain Picard (May 20, 2015)

If by "apostasy" you mean "leaving Westminster Presbyterianism", I'd prefer the more wordy term to the use of a term usually used to denote being lost from an eternal standpoint.


----------



## earl40 (May 20, 2015)

MW said:


> Have you been reading in context? There is a church with a standard and office-bearers who take exception at it, and then the general suggestion was given that exceptions should be made the rule. My statement related to that general suggestion.



I may be missing something. How is a revision by taking out the work and recreation clause making a rule? In other words, by changing this they are not saying one is not allowed to follow what scripture says we ought to do.


----------



## Logan (May 20, 2015)

earl40 said:


> How is a revision by taking out the work and recreation clause making a rule?



"Rule" as in "standard practice", not as in "law".


----------



## earl40 (May 20, 2015)

Logan said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> > How is a revision by taking out the work and recreation clause making a rule?
> ...



I hear you. Though by taking out the rule how does this *establish* what one is allowed to do.


----------



## Nicholas Perella (May 20, 2015)

earl40 said:


> Logan said:
> 
> 
> > earl40 said:
> ...



By taking out the rule in a Confession, the rule is deemed by the church unbiblical (if the church is even thinking in such terms). The recent church practice is deemed biblical instead (recreation on the Lord's Day is good). But have they actually demonstrated this is a good practice from the scriptures? Though I have not read the book in the OP, the implication of that book is the demonstration from scripture is rather the opposite of the current trend.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (May 20, 2015)

Given the overtures to the 2015 PCA General Assembly, The Confessional Presbyterian article directly relating to the subject has been made available for free download.
The Confessional Presbyterian 5 (2009), The Sabbath Day and Recreations on the Sabbath: An Examination of the Sabbath and the Biblical Basis for the “No Recreation” Clause in Westminster Confession of Faith 21.8 and Westminster Larger Catechism 117, by Lane Keister. The Sabbath Day and Recreations on the Sabbath | The Confessional Presbyterian


----------



## Logan (May 20, 2015)

Thanks Chris!


----------



## KMK (May 20, 2015)

Thanks, Chris!


----------



## Contra_Mundum (May 20, 2015)

There may be something a church chooses _not_ (or possibly discontinue) to confess--*to say together*--by which they do not mean to say that the non-confessed item is "unbiblical." Frankly, if they so thought, it is probably something they _ought_ to counter with an opposite (or at least a new) confession, especially if they did previously confess what they now deem an unbiblical statement.

I'm not sorry the OPC, in adopting certain American revisions to the WCF, now confesses mostly free of a commitment to establishmentarianism. Mainline Presbyterians in 1789 in the American context thought they needed more than excision of the older statement on subordination (in certain limited terms) to the crown; but a reworded and more flexible statement--still based on the Bible, but not assuming certain unchanging political norms.

Also it's OK with me not to confess that it is a sin to marry "any of his wife's kindred nearer in blood than he may of his own, nor the woman of her husband's kindred nearer in blood than of her own," which is not a statement against polygamy of any kind, but was an officially standardized interpretation in England of a particular law of consanguinity which was key to the "justice" of Henry VIII's divorce from Catharine of Aragon. You could say this standardized confessed interpretation of a rather narrow question was political in its orientation in 1646; just as the choice in the USA not to confess establishmentarianism was a political accommodation to new socially contextual circumstances. In the latter case, one is free to interpret the biblical position in the old way; but the OPC Confession's language accommodates a wider range of ecclesiastical relations to the State; and especially the State's duties.

If we still confessed the Pope is THE Antichrist, I could live with it. Without it, I am free to affirm it, or more precisely I'm free to affirm the Bible teaches the office is AN Antichrist, maybe even one of the worst. But I don't care if my fellow pastor has the older view, or no articulated view at all. We in the OPC don't confess together this point as *vital* to the system of doctrine contained in Scripture.

With regard to the proposed change in the Confessional statement on Sabbath observance. Controversy has been stirred on this subject to a pitch in the PCA (not my denomination). Sadly, a sizable contingent are agitating to be free of a common confession on this point. Has the article been demonstrated to be unbiblical, or unjustified? Not Vital? As a thing directly germane to Worship and the Sabbath Day (a named chapter in our Confession), a mark of Presbyterian piety for hundreds of years and clearly central to "the faith of our fathers," and as a matter of a moral commandment, it seems like madness to me to cut away this piece of that Confession.

Many men just want to be free to teach and practice a very different moral perspective. Some might put this excision on the same level as removing the matter pertaining to the king's legal divorce, and be little concerned. Others at the same level as removing "the pope is that Antichrist," and just as greatly disturbed by the former as by the latter. For my part, I cannot but see this attempt to disturb the Presbyterian landmark as one that must and shall change the DNA of that church which adopts it.


----------



## Nicholas Perella (May 20, 2015)

Contra_Mundum said:


> There may be something a church chooses _not_ (or possibly discontinue) to confess--*to say together*--by which they do not mean to say that the non-confessed item is "unbiblical." Frankly, if they so thought, it is probably something they _ought_ to counter with an opposite (or at least a new) confession, especially if they did previously confess what they now deem an unbiblical statement.



And that is how I understand the RPCNA Testimony. It (RPCNA Testimony) is side by side to the Westminster Confession of Faith in which any additions, subtractions, or changes have been made. There are biblical reasons provided (the testimony itself with scriptural proofs) as to 'why' any change to the WCF took place. If something in the WCF was deemed biblical, which it obviously was for the Confession has biblical proofs to account for the Confession, then I think to take out of the WCF what was biblically accounted without any biblical warrant is to dismiss what is biblical. A simple dismissal without biblical warrant is to deny what was deemed biblical. What the reasons are to dismiss what is biblically warranted in the WCF without providing those reasons is to deny the biblical account. That is an assumption I am working under, so, it is more a cautionary pronouncement that if no biblical confession is given as to the dismissal of previous biblical accounts in the WCF, then it is a dismissal of scripture. The reasons if not given do not matter if they are not given. The simple dismissal of scripture is what happened. If the reasons are given without scriptural warrant, then does the change take place in escalation.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (May 20, 2015)

I think there can be legitimate practical reasons to leave off confessing together certain things. Not everything is Vital. Commitment to "the Pope is THAT Antichrist," is one example.

In the 16th and 17th centuries, many Protestants genuinely believed (as still do some today) that Apostles Paul and John prophesied of the RomanCatholicChurch and the Pope _specifically,_ albeit without the names. It's been 500yrs, and if we go another 500yrs without the apocalypse, arguing that the RCC must be THE end-times Agency of Evil because it was the worst in 1515 (then in 1000yrs of development) will seem even more anachronistic.

A Confession is an imperfect document. And it can be more temporally conditioned than we'd like it to be. People can say "too much" and bind consciences too far. The Confession is a public commitment to unified opinion. Here's a military illustration. Decisions can be made to retrench, which makes a better defense of a whole territory than the attempt to enclose the whole thing within a perimeter.

Let's not oversimplify the issues. Just because the church decides not to specify a commitment on a point doesn't mean they believed they were wrong to do so previously. The criticality of the issue may look very different at another time. None of this is an argument FOR changing the Sabbath doctrine.


----------



## Nicholas Perella (May 20, 2015)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Let's not oversimplify the issues. Just because the church decides not to specify a commitment on a point doesn't mean they believed they were wrong to do so previously. The criticality of the issue may look very different at another time. None of this is an argument FOR changing the Sabbath doctrine.



Previously when I said "unbiblical" it was a case in point, not an exhaustive point. The case in point is if something in the WCF is not biblically warranted anymore (unbiblical) though previously it was scripturally proofed to be so, then I think it needs to be biblically warranted as to 'why the change'. I agree if this explanation is to be more exhaustive, then a more thorough need to qualify the change will be at hand. For instance, your example about the statement "the Pope is THAT Antichrist". In a strict sense some might deem that unbiblical, and so a broader incorporation that changes the meaning of the original intent is thereby made. It is unbiblical if taken as a point of fact in accord what historical characters thought specifically (what you said about the 16th and 17th century). Could the pope still be that Antichrist though in a broader understanding? Sure, why not. The original statement in the historical context is not biblically warranted (unbiblical in the strictest sense). It was unbiblical because it was too restrictive in its application of what scripture provides. Yet in a broader applied meaning, that spurs a change in the WCF, it is to be identified with other scriptural proofs to support the broader applied meaning. Could it turn out the "THAT Antichrist" is the Pope? Sure, but if it was in the WCF to mean that Pope in the 16th or 17th Century that is on the cusp of Christ return so that He should have been here in the 16th or 17th C., then obviously that is an unbiblical WCF statement. But if it has a broader meaning and certain changes are made in accord with the WCF to broaden the meaning or clarify a meaning, then the change was made with biblical warrant.

Hopefully you understand what I mean by "unbiblical" by a case in point, not as an exhaustive use in terms of all changes to the WCF.

So if the recreation phrasing in the WCF is changed. It would have to be changed, if done truly in accord with God's Word, under terms of "unbiblical" (the way I am using the term here, which I admit might not be the most illuminating use of a term to communicate my point). It is currently attached to biblical proofs in the WCF that make it biblical. If it is no longer thought to be biblical but historical or cultural, then I think biblical reasons have to be provided that demonstrate that the current application of recreation as written in the WCF is not biblically warranted (unbiblical). If this is not demonstrated, but a change is made anyways, then a biblically proofed confession has been overturned without any biblical warrant. It is not demonstrated to have had historical and cultural restrictions in light of the unchangeable Word of God as understood today, but instead it would be a case in which today's historical and cultural restrictions are wrongly shutting the door on God's Word, meaning, how we currently confess our understanding of God's Word regarding that specific case (recreation on the Lord's Day).


----------



## MW (May 20, 2015)

Captain Picard said:


> If by "apostasy" you mean "leaving Westminster Presbyterianism", I'd prefer the more wordy term to the use of a term usually used to denote being lost from an eternal standpoint.



I haven't said anything about a person being eternally lost. The context was a professing visible church with a biblical standard. If people's exceptions become the rule the professing visible church has fallen from its biblical attainment.


----------



## MW (May 20, 2015)

earl40 said:


> I may be missing something. How is a revision by taking out the work and recreation clause making a rule? In other words, by changing this they are not saying one is not allowed to follow what scripture says we ought to do.



Context! My statement referred to the general suggestion for revision, not the particular issue in which that general suggestion was made.


----------



## TheOldCourse (May 21, 2015)

My (perhaps faulty) understanding of exceptions was that exceptions are to remain "private" if they are to be valid. In other words, ministers who take them ought not to preach or practice them as it would undermine the standards of the church even if they are not against the "system of doctrine". This clearly isn't the case with this issue but I thought it had been with, for instance, the paedocommunion issue a few years back. Am I wrong here? It seems like some in the PCA openly flout the Standards' teaching on the Sabbath rather than using their Christian liberty to avoid scandal on the issue. I've ran into PCA pastors who have, for instance, said without shame that they were attending an NFL game after preaching in the morning. Even if you don't believe in a WCF approach to the Sabbath it would seem that this violates liberty of conscience.


----------



## Andrew P.C. (May 21, 2015)

TheOldCourse said:


> My (perhaps faulty) understanding of exceptions was that exceptions are to remain "private" if they are to be valid. In other words, ministers who take them ought not to preach or practice them as it would undermine the standards of the church even if they are not against the "system of doctrine". This clearly isn't the case with this issue but I thought it had been with, for instance, the paedocommunion issue a few years back. Am I wrong here? It seems like some in the PCA openly flout the Standards' teaching on the Sabbath rather than using their Christian liberty to avoid scandal on the issue. I've ran into PCA pastors who have, for instance, said without shame that they were attending an NFL game after preaching in the morning. Even if you don't believe in a WCF approach to the Sabbath it would seem that this violates liberty of conscience.



I can't answer some of the issues you raise, but I was thinking about paedocommunion. Unfortunately, even our denomination (OPC) does not have an official opinion on the matter. The years 1982-1987 give a wealth of knowledge into the study of the issue with the OPC. They did give a majority report and 2 minority reports, however, the denomination does not have a stance. What I find frustrating is this idea that denominations hold to "standards" but they do not hold to standards (if you get my drift). I think with the paedocommunion issue, question 177 in the LC explicitly forbids paedocommunion, yet the OPC does not have an official position.... makes total sense.

One thing is for certain: if denominations like the PCA, OPC, and others do not take official biblical positions now, I'll give them 50 years to start going the PCUSA route.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (May 21, 2015)

Andrew,
The OPC does have an official opinion: it's found in the Confession of Faith and Catechisms of the OPC. How many ministers in the OPC do you know who hold a paedo-communionist view? How many churches permit it?

I don't know of _any_ OPC church in which paedo-communion is permitted, not one. Yes, a man with the stature of G.I. Williamson expressed his minority opinion on the matter many years ago, and I personally know one other minister who at one time in the past expressed sympathy for P-C. But _*both*_ of these men adopted the identical promise NOT to teach their opinion; since they _acknowledged_ it was expressly contradicted by our subordinate standards. I would like to think any church that attempted to permit the practice would face censure from its Presbytery.

I think it is true that both men were already ministers in this church when they adopted the P-C view. I know one presbyter who was thankful the second man told the Presbytery of his new view; it was right to make the brethren aware, and he did not hold any ill-will toward the man. And he also said that he would with some difficulty vote to admit a man (by ordination or transfer) who owned such a deviant view--including the esteemed GIW. I suspect his sentiment would be common.

The test for the OPC is not in having study committees, or what G.A. "does" officially with these reports (which is "receive" them). The Standards are what they are; and we only add to the law of the church with supreme reluctance. Only if absolutely necessary. The Standards have spoken. If they are TESTED by a judicial matter, the strength of the denomination will be revealed. No further or preemptive "positions" will materially help the church maintain its clear stand.

Be encouraged.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (May 21, 2015)

I wouldn't give the PCA fifty if they do this; we've seen how fast things are moving in the broader culture. 


Andrew P.C. said:


> One thing is for certain: if denominations like the PCA, OPC, and others do not take official biblical positions now, I'll give them 50 years to start going the PCUSA route.


----------



## Andrew P.C. (May 22, 2015)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Andrew,
> The OPC does have an official opinion: it's found in the Confession of Faith and Catechisms of the OPC. How many ministers in the OPC do you know who hold a paedo-communionist view? How many churches permit it?
> 
> I don't know of _any_ OPC church in which paedo-communion is permitted, not one. Yes, a man with the stature of G.I. Williamson expressed his minority opinion on the matter many years ago, and I personally know one other minister who at one time in the past expressed sympathy for P-C. But _*both*_ of these men adopted the identical promise NOT to teach their opinion; since they _acknowledged_ it was expressly contradicted by our subordinate standards. I would like to think any church that attempted to permit the practice would face censure from its Presbytery.
> ...



Rev. Bruce, thank you for the encouragement.

I have a hard time with some of these things. Even though I do not know of any elders holding to these specific convictions, doesn't mean there are none (not suggesting you do not understand this already). I feel that the reluctance to make official positions CAN give leeway to unofficial and unbiblical positions. The strength of the presbytery is only as strong as those who reside within the presbytery.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (May 22, 2015)

Would an OPC minister get in any sort of trouble for preaching in the morning Lord's Day service and then taking off to see the NFL game at the local stadium for the afternoon? This apparently is going on in the PCA if one story I read is accurate. Of course, this is rampant amongst the general membership (is it an overstatement to say the Lord's Day is largely disregarded in the PCA membership?); but this still surprised me for just how bleak a picture it paints.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (May 22, 2015)

I am happy to say at least that my copublisher of Bownd's _True Doctrine of the Sabbath,_ Reformation Heritage Books, will have copies available at their exhibition table at the upcoming General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America, June 8-12, 2015. If you are there, see about picking up a copy if you have not already.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (May 22, 2015)

NaphtaliPress said:


> Would an OPC minister get in any sort of trouble for preaching in the morning Lord's Day service and then taking off to see the NFL game at the local stadium for the afternoon?



Who could say? Unless it happened. In OPC history, I know one minister was disciplined for (overt, public) Sunday recreations. Probably seems like ancient history, but it's there, a precedent.

I realize that out here in the countryside we generally take (maybe) a more straitlaced attitude toward the law. I have farmers in the congregation who are "sticklers" for the 4C, I think, in part because they feel like they've had to work out in detail what are the (numerous) works-of-necessity that cannot be safely ignored for 24hrs. They are trying to keep the commandment, to make the most of it despite their unavoidable maintenance tasks.

Meanwhile, in the cities the idle ones waiting for Monday AM cannot be content with their advantages for advancing the express purposes of the day? I doubt the OPC is free from this societal trend. But I still have hopes it is not a strongly represented impulse--hopefully less than that among the clergy.


----------

