Hold 100% to the Westminster Standards?

[charliejunfan]

I am wondering how many on the PB claim to hold 100% to the original Westminster Standards?

I think I will strive to understand and defend the Standards in whole, any others?

 

[Timothy William]

I don't think I hold fully. However, nor do I think there is any area where I am convinced contra the WCF; there are areas (not many) where I am not sure, but none where I am convinced or close to convinced that the WCF is mistaken, if that makes sense.

 

[Quickened]

I'll wait before voting. I am under the process of reevaluating my beliefs on the baptism stance. Then i will go over the standards again in prayer and see. I think i should be good though

 

[KMK]

I assume you only want Presbyterians/Anglicans to vote...

 

[Edward]

Which version?

 

[charliejunfan]

the original, and yes ken, only those who would hold to Westminster as their confession

 

[Michael]

Holding to Westminster Standards as an accurate representation of what is taught in Scripture and keeping all aspects of such are two different things. That said, I vote yes.

 

[shackleton]

100% would mean believing that the Pope is the Antichrist. That and some of the things concerning the law and worship I am not on board 100%.

-----Added 3/29/2009 at 03:52:32 EST-----

I assume you only want Presbyterians/Anglicans to vote...

Anglicans...? I did not think they were confessional.

 

[Marrow Man]

It is a more difficult question because of the different versions. The ARP version, for instance, does not have the "Pope is the Antichrist" statement (but retaining the "he is in no sense the head of the church" phraseology). There are other more minor amendments, etc. in our version (e.g., the allowing of hymns); they were done within the context of the courts of the ARP and are not private scruples and such, which makes a different too, In my humble opinion.

 

[etexas]

100% would mean believing that the Pope is the Antichrist. That and some of the things concerning the law and worship I am not on board 100%.

-----Added 3/29/2009 at 03:52:32 EST-----

I assume you only want Presbyterians/Anglicans to vote...

Anglicans...? I did not think they were confessional.

We are not! We Anglicans are Creedal. Ken....is being, well, Ken. Just ignore him!

 

[Edward]

the original

Based on that, I can vote 'no'. It's not what I subscribed to.

 

[ww]

I subscribe to the 1788 WCF which is the Confession of the OPC and PCA.

 

[jwithnell]

I read the poll question without realizing you meant in its original version. I hold to the WCF as they have been given in the US. I've puzzled over some of the baptism language, but am sure it is a matter of semantics rather than an actual diversion from the teachings of the confession.

 

[OPC'n]

Hmmm, I had to vote not completely as I still haven't got a good answer on the Sabbath day change....otherwise yes and yes I observe the Sabbath the way other Sabbatarians do...just couldn't debate anyone concerning the day change since I don't see how that happen either. sigh

 

[Contra Marcion]

I subscribe to the 1788 WCF which is the Confession of the OPC and PCA.

 

[etexas]

For some reason I thought there was a difference in the OPC and PCA WS??? Was there at some point, or am I totally confused?

 

[ww]

For some reason I thought there was a difference in the OPC and PCA WS??? Was there at some point, or am I totally confused?

If there was I'm not aware of it.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

There are some minor differences I'm thinking; the one that pops to mind is that the PCA did not formally adopt the scripture proofs (the PCUSA ones).

For some reason I thought there was a difference in the OPC and PCA WS??? Was there at some point, or am I totally confused?

If there was I'm not aware of it.

 

[etexas]

For some reason I thought there was a difference in the OPC and PCA WS??? Was there at some point, or am I totally confused?

If there was I'm not aware of it.

No worries! Just a dumb Anglican! Actually I am friends with both OPC and a PCA Pastors in town, I can check it with one of those guys.

 

[ww]

For some reason I thought there was a difference in the OPC and PCA WS??? Was there at some point, or am I totally confused?

If there was I'm not aware of it.

No worries! Just a dumb Anglican! Actually I am friends with both OPC and a PCA Pastors in town, I can check it with one of those guys.

I like orthodox Anglicans and I've never met one who was dumb now I've met some non orthodox ones who weren't too bright.

 

[etexas]

There are some minor differences I'm thinking; the one that pops to mind is that the PCA did not formally adopt the scripture proofs (the PCUSA ones).

For some reason I thought there was a difference in the OPC and PCA WS??? Was there at some point, or am I totally confused?

If there was I'm not aware of it.

Thank you Chris. I kept thinking there were (minor) differences.

 

[Edward]

I subscribe to the 1788 WCF which is the Confession of the OPC and PCA.

I'm not sure that is exactly correct.

See American Revisions to the Westminster Confession of Faith

 

[ww]

I subscribe to the 1788 WCF which is the Confession of the OPC and PCA.

I'm not sure that is exactly correct.

See American Revisions to the Westminster Confession of Faith

This only clarifies that the OPC did not accept the 1903 additions "Of the Holy Spirit" and "Of the Love of God and Missions" and a Declaratory Statement softening the Confession's position on Election. This was added by the PCUSA so in effect they returned to the 1788 Revision as it was originally.

 

[DonP]

So basically the OPC and PCA do not require adherence to the Confession anyway.

And what exactly is the system of doctrine that you do have to adhere to if you take an exception to the Confession.

I thought the Confession was THE System of Doctrine.

Since no one has defined exactly what the System of Doctrine is, some general concept of the 5 point soteriology, it leaves it pretty loose.

In fact I heard of one minister being ordained in the PCA after taking an exception to limited atonement a few years back.

So if the BOCO overrides the Confession and says you don't have to believe in the entire Confession, just the system of doctrine, why don't they just get rid of the Confession and just write up what the minimum for unity really is, the system of doctrine and then everyone adhere to that?

In the OPC they don't even have to record their exceptions so they can change them regularly with no discipline or oversight. At least the PCA makes the effort to say lets get the man on record of what he doesn't agree with so he can't go anywhere else without letting us know.

Why not just for unity sake, submit to the entire Confession or amend it again until enough agree?
Effectively you do that with exceptions and in the OPC it has the precise theological term wiggle room. And again a allusion to the system of doctrine contained in the Confession.

Wow if I said I believe the Bible contains the word of God I am not sure my pastor would let me be a member. I know its not the same but ....

 

[ww]

So basically the OPC and PCA do not require adherence to the Confession anyway.

And what exactly is the system of doctrine that you do have to adhere to if you take an exception to the Confession.

I thought the Confession was THE System of Doctrine.

Since no one has defined exactly what the System of Doctrine is, some general concept of the 5 point soteriology, it leaves it pretty loose.

In fact I heard of one minister being ordained in the PCA after taking an exception to limited atonement a few years back.

So if the BOCO overrides the Confession and says you don't have to believe in the entire Confession, just the system of doctrine, why don't they just get rid of the Confession and just write up what the minimum for unity really is, the system of doctrine and then everyone adhere to that?

In the OPC they don't even have to record their exceptions so they can change them regularly with no discipline or oversight. At least the PCA makes the effort to say lets get the man on record of what he doesn't agree with so he can't go anywhere else without letting us know.

Why not just for unity sake, submit to the entire Confession or amend it again until enough agree?
Effectively you do that with exceptions and in the OPC it has the precise theological term wiggle room. And again a allusion to the system of doctrine contained in the Confession.

Wow if I said I believe the Bible contains the word of God I am not sure my pastor would let me be a member. I know its not the same but ....

We definitely have some issues to work on within our denominations Don! I don't want a situation in our denominations where the WCF is just a facade.

 

[charliejunfan]

So is the WPCUS the only Presbyterian Denom in the US to hold to the original Standards then?

 

[DonP]

Reply to Whitway
Well how can it not be until we go to full and strict subscription to something

There is no way to discipline anyone as long as they say well I except that. And I hold to the 5 points and predestination.

That becomes our Confession defacto right?

So amend it or submit to it I say. You amended it once, unenecessarily in MHO because they did not understand the purpose of the king calling a day to make sure the wars stopped and there was peace to have a GA, and I guess there is no real need to say the POPE is the antiChrist but hey its not a big deal to say he is either.

Anyway can you imagine what the amendment would look like if we tried to do one today ???
Look how much work it takes to amend the BOCO or figure out what is errant in Federal vision.

So I say to avoid the sin of disunity, which has to be as bad as saying the pope is the antiChrist, just submit to it!!

Love you brother in the battle !!
PS I was in the OPC for 10 years and went to Pres and GA most of the time

 

[charliejunfan]

I agree with you Don, since the Divines knew what they were doing, and since no man will agree 100% on everything or be right on everything this side of heaven, we need to unify in un-edited Confessional subscription!

 

[ww]

Reply to Whitway
Well how can it not be until we go to full and strict subscription to something

There is no way to discipline anyone as long as they say well I except that. And I hold to the 5 points and predestination.

That becomes our Confession defacto right?

So amend it or submit to it I say. You amended it once, unenecessarily in MHO because they did not understand the purpose of the king calling a day to make sure the wars stopped and there was peace to have a GA, and I guess there is no real need to say the POPE is the antiChrist but hey its not a big deal to say he is either.

Anyway can you imagine what the amendment would look like if we tried to do one today ???
Look how much work it takes to amend the BOCO or figure out what is errant in Federal vision.

So I say to avoid the sin of disunity, which has to be as bad as saying the pope is the antiChrist, just submit to it!!

Love you brother in the battle !!
PS I was in the OPC for 10 years and went to Pres and GA most of the time

Thanks Don! I've been in the PCA for about 10 years myself and in the OPC for just a few weeks although I've visited a few OPC churches over the years. I think both have their strong points as well as opportunities. I wouldn't claim that the OPC is the "Only Perfect Church" like some do.

 

[DonP]

Thanks Don! I've been in the PCA for about 10 years myself and in the OPC for just a few weeks although I've visited a few OPC churches over the years. I think both have their strong points as well as opportunities. I wouldn't claim that the OPC is the "Only Perfect Church" like some do.

Wow you don't even know what you are in for then. Have some off line chats with Pastor Glenn Farrel of Boise. He is like minded to me and has only been in OPC since 05 and he is shocked in the NW pres. So its not the same everywhere.

They are about to split in 3 pieces not just 2. The BT Kleininan crowd is building forces.

But on paper, they were maybe the best church. But not mine. too loose on discipline and against applicatory preaching. Over the top BT

I hope they go back to what Machen was.