# Overture2 and 9 and their conseqences



## BGF (May 30, 2015)

As an officer (deacon) in the PCA, it seems to me that the overtures coming up for consideration at General Assembly may have consequences for those of us whose vows relate to the standards as currently written. See if my reasoning is sound:

If GA eventually adopts the proposed changes to the WS to reflect common practice, and if I hold to the current reading of the standards, then I will be out of accord with the constitution of the PCA. Will it be necessary for me to report this and seek an exception from my presbytery?


----------



## Covenant Joel (May 30, 2015)

BGF said:


> As an officer (deacon) in the PCA, it seems to me that the overtures coming up for consideration at General Assembly may have consequences for those of us whose vows relate to the standards as currently written. See if my reasoning is sound:
> 
> If GA eventually adopts the proposed changes to the WS to reflect common practice, and if I hold to the current reading of the standards, then I will be out of accord with the constitution of the PCA. Will it be necessary for me to report this and seek an exception from my presbytery?



No, you wouldn't be out of accord. As far as I understand the wording proposed (though the overtures only suggest a study committee, not direct changes to the standards), it just wouldn't forbid recreation and wouldn't say that "the whole time" must be taken up with worship. For anyone who holds to the original wording, you would just hold to more about the Sabbath than is stated, not anything contradictory.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (May 30, 2015)

I would think you would have to? But don't be surprised if the tolerance given the antiSabbatarians which would have led to this change, is not granted to Sabbatarians.


----------



## earl40 (May 30, 2015)

NaphtaliPress said:


> I would think you would have to? But don't be surprised if the tolerance given the antiSabbatarians which would have led to this change, is not granted to Sabbatarians.



Which would mean if a Pastor held to the Sabbath and preached what we ought to do, or not to do, he could be told not to teach such, right?


----------



## NaphtaliPress (May 30, 2015)

I should think the first member to complain would clearly show the PCA at that point would not really allow anything beyond what the changed standards would hold out as official doctrine. 


earl40 said:


> NaphtaliPress said:
> 
> 
> > I would think you would have to? But don't be surprised if the tolerance given the antiSabbatarians which would have led to this change, is not granted to Sabbatarians.
> ...


----------



## Contra_Mundum (May 30, 2015)

Will the changes require you to affirm something you disagree with? e.g.: 
"It is no sin to play checkers on Sabbath." 
"It is sinful to forbid wheelie-popping on the Lord's Day." 
"There is no Sabbath duty superior to that of sleeping in."​
A simple deletion of a proposition typically results in a reduction of the "pressure" on the conscience by an external (third party) agent of enforcement/conformity.

A complaint that a newer version _waters down_ the previous affirmation is not the same as taking an "exception," which balks at some particular element of the imposition of words.

It can still be a real problem for a church to cease to confess a particular truth, especially if that cessation means the church finds it lacks the will to impose Christ's discipline--therefore (in effect) it adjusts the measure to the situation. "A foot is now eleven inches."


----------



## Romans922 (May 30, 2015)

If the Study Committee comes back and says, "This is not in the Bible". And the PCA removes the recreations clause from the Standards, would not such an action mean that anyone who preaches/teaches the recreation part of the current Standards be teaching that which is not in Scripture (so preaching legalism; adding to Scripture) according to the church (read: PCA). And to rightly submit to the church (PCA), one would have to refrain from preaching/teaching this doctrine that has been deemed unbiblical? To preach and teach the doctrine would be false teaching?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (May 30, 2015)

NaphtaliPress said:


> I should think the first member to complain would clearly show the PCA at that point would not really allow anything beyond what the changed standards would hold out as official doctrine.



The true test, I think, would be if a church member (or officer) were disciplined for Sabbath-breaking. If he argued the Standards were changed _*for to allow his behavior*_ and this defense stood up, that would be the undoing.

The accusation should still be that Scripture was violated by a member, who was addressed in the matter according to the biblical disciplinary process, and resisting Scriptural correction was found to be contumacious.

In that situation appealed to the Presbytery and GA, you would have a church seeking to enforce a biblical standard according to its power of interpretation. Will the Presbytery and GA find the church faithfully applying discipline, and the member in the wrong for failing to heed? Or is the member right, because his Christian liberty was unlawfully infringed upon by a church identifying as "sin" what is not sin?

Does removal of pertinent phrases declare merely: "we will not specify this action as a sin by public confession"?

Or does said removal declare: "we do not think this action is sinful at all."


----------



## BGF (May 30, 2015)

Romans922 said:


> If the Study Committee comes back and says, "This is not in the Bible". And the PCA removes the recreations clause from the Standards, would not such an action mean that anyone who preaches/teaches the recreation part of the current Standards be teaching that which is not in Scripture (so preaching legalism; adding to Scripture) according to the church (read: PCA). And to rightly submit to the church (PCA), one would have to refrain from preaching/teaching this doctrine that has been deemed unbiblical? To preach and teach the doctrine would be false teaching?



Right, because this section of the confession does not stand in isolation. Elsewhere in the confession we read where men's consciences cannot be bound beyond what scripture requires and the worship of God is to be done according to His commands and not "according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representation, or any other way not prescribed in the holy Scripture."

The changes as stated in the overture will create a scenario where Sabbatarians may find themselves under possible discipline for teaching the doctrine.


----------



## Edward (May 30, 2015)

BGF said:


> and seek an exception from my presbytery?



The answer to that is 'no'. As a deacon, the exception would be granted (or not) by the session, not the Presbytery. 

See BCO 12-5(b) and 24-6, Question 2. 

But remember, we are a loose subscription denomination, not strict subscription. So the ultimate issue is not whether you agree with every jot and tittle, but whether you are 'out of accord with any fundamentals of this system of doctrine'.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (May 30, 2015)

Then what in the world is the point of making any change, and specifically the ones proposed?


Edward said:


> BGF said:
> 
> 
> > and seek an exception from my presbytery?
> ...


----------



## BGF (May 30, 2015)

Edward said:


> BGF said:
> 
> 
> > and seek an exception from my presbytery?
> ...



Thanks for that clarification.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (May 30, 2015)

I mean, really? If it doesn't matter what the standards say on this particular at the end of the day because of the PCA's 'loose subscription'; then a study committee seems a waste of time and spending $5,000 as has been offered, seems to be an actual sinful waste of money. I'm sure not almost, but absolutely anything would be better to spend that money on than this fools' errand. 


NaphtaliPress said:


> Then what in the world is the point of making any change, and specifically the ones proposed?
> 
> 
> Edward said:
> ...


----------



## Edward (May 30, 2015)

NaphtaliPress said:


> Then what in the world is the point of making any change, and specifically the ones proposed?



Honestly announce to the world what the practice has been for quite some time - perhaps since the denomination was founded. 

I'm willing to take them at face value on this point: "Whereas this reality, at least, causes the appearance of conflict between what we officially confess and what we actually believe and practice"


----------



## NaphtaliPress (May 30, 2015)

Not what all believe and practice; only those that have taken exception.


----------



## BGF (May 30, 2015)

I will admit my practice falls short of the confession and catechisms. However I don't look to them as something that ought to be conformed to my practice. Rather, I look to them as something to which my practice ought to conform.


----------



## Jack K (May 30, 2015)

Have any of you actually come across a case where a man stated a scruple regarding something he felt was missing from the Standards and should be there? I haven't heard of such a thing, though I admit I don't get around as much as I used to.

Nor have I understood that such convictions are required to be stated. My understanding has been that only contradictory beliefs must be stated. For example, must a man who believes women should cover their heads for worship state a scruple because the Standards fail to expressly affirm this? I thought such a man would be in the clear because the Standards don't speak to the issue one way or the other. But did I miss something when I was ordained? Was there a boatload of scruples I should have brought up because I believe things the Standards don't address?

Not that an amendment to the Standards is getting adopted anytime soon anyway...


----------



## SRoper (May 30, 2015)

The standards aren't and have never been exhaustive of biblical teaching. They don't seem to specify that only men can be officers, for example. Yet no one is disciplined for teaching such as biblical doctrine.


----------



## Jack K (May 30, 2015)

I also wonder if the practice in churches that use the Three Forms of Unity might be instructive here. Those documents don't include references to recreation on the Lord's Day. Yet I know many officers in those churches who do believe and teach that recreation is forbidden. I'd even say it's the traditional view in that wing of our Reformed heritage. Those officers don't feel a need to bring up scruples when they assume their office, and they certainly are not deemed out of accord with the church's position.


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Jun 5, 2015)

Jack K said:


> Those documents don't include references to recreation on the Lord's Day. Yet I know many officers in those churches who do believe and teach that recreation is forbidden.



As I was a member of a URC church in Escondido, the only thing I can tell you about the practice is that it differs on what you would consider recreation in the URC.

I would like to point out that the Three Forms are not as thorough as the Westminster Standards. The divines were dealing with different situations at the time and had put more time into the confession. There were more men at play with the Westminster Standards then the Three Forms. The Three Forms serve a different purpose then the Westminster Standards as well.


----------

