Are you 100% confessional ?

[Scott1]

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.

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

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

 

[jandrusk]

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

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

 

[sevenzedek]

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.

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

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

Thanks. I'll investigate my source.

 

[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.

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

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

 

[SinnerSavedByChrist]

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

likewise with the LBCF1689.

 

[BarryR]

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

 

[reaganmarsh]

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

 

[Rom]

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

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

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

 

[Craig.Scott]

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

How can the RPCNA men vow before God:

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

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

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

 

[Logan]

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

Yes.

 

[Craig.Scott]

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

Yes.

Surely you cannot say before God you subscribe too both:

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


And


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



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




Deut. 23:23

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

 

[Logan]

Surely you cannot say before God you subscribe too both:

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

 

[Craig.Scott]

Surely you cannot say before God you subscribe too both:

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

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

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

 

[Rom]

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

How can the RPCNA men vow before God:

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

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

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

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

 

[Logan]

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

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

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

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

 

[Craig.Scott]

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

How can the RPCNA men vow before God:

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Craig.Scott]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Rom]

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

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

 

[Logan]

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

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

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

WCF 24 .4 last sentence

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

Testimony

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

Did anyone have a problem with the Testimony here?

 

[Logan]

Hi Randy,

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

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

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

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

1647

3. The civil magistrate may not assume to himself the administration of the Word and sacraments, or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven: yet he hath authority, and it is his duty, to take order, that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire; that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed; all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed; and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administered and observed. For the better effecting whereof, he hath power to call synods, to be present at them, and to provide, that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God.
2 Chron. 26:18 with Matt. 18:17 and Matt. 16:19; 1 Cor. 12:28-29; Eph. 4: 11-12; 1 Cor. 4:1-2; Rom. 10:15; Heb. 5:4; Isa. 49:23; Ps. 122:9; Ezra 7:23, 25-28; Lev. 24:16; Deut. 13:5-6, 12; 1 Kings 18:4; 1 Chron. 13:1-9; 2 Kings 23:1-26; 2 Chron. 34:33; 2 Chron. 15: 12-13; 2 Chron. 19:8-11; 2 Chron. 29––30; Matt. 2:4-5.

Testimony

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

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

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

American Version

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

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Hi Randy,

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

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

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

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

 

[ProtestantBankie]

The marriage section is the interesting one.

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

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

 

[MW]

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

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

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

 

[ProtestantBankie]

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

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

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

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

My friend has a puritan hard drive....

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Westminster Presbytery (PCA)

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

Westminster Presbytery has endured a considerable amount of criticism because of our stance. Certainly, in regard to Creationism or Cessationism, we do not represent mainline Presbyterianism in the PCA or other Reformed denominations (such as the OPC). We have been labeled as Old School, Strict Subscriptionists, and even as Mountain TRs. We have been called narrow-minded and unreasonable. I believe that Westminster Presbytery has been unfairly criticized. Few people understand the history that led Westminster Presbytery to adopt this stance on Creationism and Cessationism...


...In judging the restrictive nature of Westminster Presbytery in receiving new members, it should be remembered that she did not adopt her position in order to “preach” to other presbyteries or denominations. It did not arise from a superior mind-set. Such attitudes were not even in our thoughts during this time of conflict. The goal was self-preservation. We had one concern – that we must seek unity (not just spiritual unity, but ecclesiastical unity) in order to honor Christ. We sought peace and God gave us peace. To God be the glory!

 

[TylerRay]

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

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

Yes.

 

[Clark-Tillian]

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

 

[MW]

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

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