Exceptions in the PCA?

[VirginiaHuguenot]

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

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

Why do you say that Rev. Greco?

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

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

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

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

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

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Stephen]

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

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

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[KenPierce]

Why do you say that Rev. Greco?

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

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

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

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

 

[KenPierce]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[NaphtaliPress]

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

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

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

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

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

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

1) Because of differences among the Puritans.

2) Because of differences among modern Theonomists.

 

[raekwon]

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

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

 

[NaphtaliPress]

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

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

 

[KenPierce]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[py3ak]

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

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

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

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

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

I agree the subject is Thank you for good moderation.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[py3ak]

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

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

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

I will refrain from commenting.

 

[HaigLaw]

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

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

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

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

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[raekwon]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Christusregnat]

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

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

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

Andrew,

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

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

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

So, good faith actually tightens subscription in many settings.

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

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

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

Cheers,

Adam

 

[Steve Dixon]

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

 

[JohnOwen007]

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

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

Dear Ken,

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

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

God bless you.

 

[JohnOwen007]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blessings.

 

[ChristianTrader]

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

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

Dear Ken,

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

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

God bless you.

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

 

[Romans922]

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

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