Are you 100% confessional ?

[lynnie]

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

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

 

[MW]

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

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

 

[Hamalas]

As far as I know, I am.

 

[Herald]

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

 

[Leslie]

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

 

[Afterthought]

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

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

 

[Jack K]

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

 

[Scott1]

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

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

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

 

[Dearly Bought]

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

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

 

[sevenzedek]

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

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

 

[David Pope]

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

 

[Scott1]

A few comments may be helpful, below:

I'm accused of not being confessional since I take exception to some items.

There are a few reformed denominations that require an affirmative subscription to every statement and/or proposition of doctrine in their Confession, but not many. Most, such as the PCA, while requiring a peaceable study of the church's doctrine, do not require a comprehensive understanding of the Confession, far less an affirmation of every statement in it.

It would be rare and infrequent, as best I'm aware, for a denomination to say someone was not "confessional" because they thought they had a difference at one or two minor points of doctrine. That's anecdotal, but only trying to place this in an understandable context. It depends what difference one thinks they hold as against the time tested standard they confess.

It depends on how one looks at it. The confessions do not claim infallibility for themselves, only for the scriptures. So it is unconfessional to claim that the confessions are infallible.

The Confessions are taken to be a faithful summary of the doctrine of Scripture to which they speak. And, that summary is not inerrant or infallible as is Scripture.

But let's not marginalize the impact or authority of the Confessions when we say they're not infallible...

Does being 100% confessional mean that every proof text is indeed, taken in context, a proof text for the item for which it is listed? I think not. I believe that the confessions are by and large an accurate reflection of the teachings of scripture at this point in history. When and if the miraculous events of Revelation surrounding the second coming occur, there will again be revelation which might (or might not) prove the confessions inaccurate at some points.

God's special revelation (His Word) has not revealed many details about what happens after His second coming, but in the meantime, He has completed revelation, sufficient for us, in His Word.

The Confessions help us understand the Word, the truths in it, unify us in truth confessed to each other and an unbelieving world, and hold us accountable as we stray, until that time.


Is this not consistent with the position of the confessions themselves?

 

[housta]

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

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

 

[Logan]

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

 

[ZackF]

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

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

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

 

[Logan]

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

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

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

And speaking of the magistrate, the last part of 23:3
"yet he hath authority, and it is his duty, to take order, that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire; that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed; all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed; and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administered and observed. For the better effecting whereof, he hath power to call synods, to be present at them, and to provide, that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God."

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

 

[THE W]

I'm working on it..

 

[Andres]

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

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

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

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

And speaking of the magistrate, the last part of 23:3
"yet he hath authority, and it is his duty, to take order, that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire; that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed; all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed; and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administered and observed. For the better effecting whereof, he hath power to call synods, to be present at them, and to provide, that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God."

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

 

[ProtestantBankie]

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

There are contradictions between them?

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

Sorry this should probably be a new thread!

 

[Logan]

Personally I take exception to the exceptions.

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

 

[NaphtaliPress]

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

 

[Andres]

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

Exactly.

 

[lynnie]

I really appreciate all the interesting replies.

 

[Scott1]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[JM]

by God's grace...closer everyday.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

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

Then in a later post you state this....
Personally I take exception to the exceptions.

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

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

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

 

[Rev. Todd Ruddell]

Personally I take exception to the exceptions.

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

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

 

[Philip]

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

 

[sevenzedek]

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

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

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

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

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