JohnV
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
I am sure that no candidates for the ministry would deliberately take the following exception, but I am truly disheartened that many ministers do take the exception later on, and teach it to others. That exception is to Chapter One of the Confession, namely the sufficiency and perspicuity of the Word. Its not so much that they overtly object to it, for they even think they are upholding it. But what they do is add to the Scriptures their theories on certain matters that the Church cannot settle on Scripture alone, such as apologetic methodologies, millennial views, alternative views of the creation days, etc., and even now entire switches on salvation by grace alone; and, without sanction from anyone, they begin to preach it to others, even at times claiming that those who hold to other views are in sin, or are at least second-class believers in the Word. The only sanction they receive is that the denomination has decided that their particular view does not contravene the WCF, as if that is all that is needed to justify teaching it as if God's very Word. But in fact it is requiring of the people submission to God's Word PLUS submission to the pastor's views on matters of conscience. So the pastor has taken an exception to the the first chapter of the Confessions, namely arts. I, IV and VI, by imposing that which the Word does not impose, and which the denomination has not imposed.
Such things ought to go through the church's system of evaluation first. And the proponents of these views ought to abide by the church's decision. If the denomination OK's it as a permissable view, then that is what it should be regarded as, nothing more. If the denomination decides that it is clearly taught by Scripture, then it may be preached. Not before. And if the denomination decides that proponents of other views are in sin, only then may ministers preach accordingly. Not before.
What we are seeing is that preachers are preaching first, and only when it becomes controversial does it come before Presbytery and General Assembly. This is the reverse of what ought to happen. Some preachers think they have licence to preach whatever they themselves are convicted of, and only afterward need to submit to the ruling of the church.
They are not overtly taking exception to some of the doctrines of the WCF, for they believe they are upholding them. But they are exceptions all the same, for they rely more upon their own authority than that of the Church which licences them, and even at times ignore the Church's authority. But more importantly they hold that the Bible is not enough by itself, but that their own teachings must also be added to it.
I have witnessed the questioning of a candidate bfore Presbytery. He appeared quite sound througout his examination, until he mentioned his exception to the six-day view of creation. From that point on the Presbytery began to break down into factions, seemingly debating the issue of the creation days through addressing their questions toward the candidate. But no one that I could discern asked for proof from Scripture, and grounds for preaching it. Very surprisingly, it did not come up at all. It is just a theory; it has no proofs whatsoever, not even from Scripture. So where in the world is the sanction from Christ to preach it as His Word? No! It was only his opinion, to the best of his understanding. So when did that become grounds for preaching it? Is it that a pastor's opinions have sanction, while an unordained person's opinions do not?
I see this as clearly taking an exception to the first chapter of the WCF, even though all of them would vehemently claim that they are upholding it. The question would have to be returned, "Where does Scriptrue make it clear?" (art. VII) For that which is clear is what is to be preached. When ministers think themselves to be licenced theological theoreticians with authority to enforce their intellectual supremecy, then that is an exception to Chapter One of the WCF.
Such things ought to go through the church's system of evaluation first. And the proponents of these views ought to abide by the church's decision. If the denomination OK's it as a permissable view, then that is what it should be regarded as, nothing more. If the denomination decides that it is clearly taught by Scripture, then it may be preached. Not before. And if the denomination decides that proponents of other views are in sin, only then may ministers preach accordingly. Not before.
What we are seeing is that preachers are preaching first, and only when it becomes controversial does it come before Presbytery and General Assembly. This is the reverse of what ought to happen. Some preachers think they have licence to preach whatever they themselves are convicted of, and only afterward need to submit to the ruling of the church.
They are not overtly taking exception to some of the doctrines of the WCF, for they believe they are upholding them. But they are exceptions all the same, for they rely more upon their own authority than that of the Church which licences them, and even at times ignore the Church's authority. But more importantly they hold that the Bible is not enough by itself, but that their own teachings must also be added to it.
I have witnessed the questioning of a candidate bfore Presbytery. He appeared quite sound througout his examination, until he mentioned his exception to the six-day view of creation. From that point on the Presbytery began to break down into factions, seemingly debating the issue of the creation days through addressing their questions toward the candidate. But no one that I could discern asked for proof from Scripture, and grounds for preaching it. Very surprisingly, it did not come up at all. It is just a theory; it has no proofs whatsoever, not even from Scripture. So where in the world is the sanction from Christ to preach it as His Word? No! It was only his opinion, to the best of his understanding. So when did that become grounds for preaching it? Is it that a pastor's opinions have sanction, while an unordained person's opinions do not?
I see this as clearly taking an exception to the first chapter of the WCF, even though all of them would vehemently claim that they are upholding it. The question would have to be returned, "Where does Scriptrue make it clear?" (art. VII) For that which is clear is what is to be preached. When ministers think themselves to be licenced theological theoreticians with authority to enforce their intellectual supremecy, then that is an exception to Chapter One of the WCF.
) while our senior pastor is in Myanmar on a missionary trip. Today's PM sermon was on Preparing for the Sabbath. See the audio links at 
