SIAP, Overtures 2 and 9 were not received by the PCA GA recreation/Sabbath

Discussion in 'Church Order' started by raydixon9, Jun 11, 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. raydixon9

    raydixon9 Puritan Board Freshman

    I'm told it they were rejected with overwhelming support. Does anyone have any other insight to this?


    Edit: SIAP = "Sorry If Already Posted"
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 14, 2015
  2. Edward

    Edward Puritan Board Doctor

    What's SIAP?

    Aquilla Report's coverage has been less than poor this year. Byfaith certainly doesn't win any awards, either.
     
  3. NaphtaliPress

    NaphtaliPress Administrator Staff Member

    The overtures committee reccommended voting against it 53 to 38 and the vote on the floor of the GA on overture 2 was 662-248-9 to reject the overture to set up a study committee and 9 was also rejected. I would like to see the floor speeches once the archive for today is up and am hopeful there were some strong statements in favor of Westminster Sabbatarianism. I hope some there report here also. This does not mean the PCA has grown more Sabbatarian; it was a conservative pragmatic vote I suspect (ie. folks are free to take exception on this and there is no need to alter the standards).
     
  4. Alan D. Strange

    Alan D. Strange Puritan Board Junior

    Chris,

    I saw the debate and I believe that what you conjecture (conservative pragmatic vote) is likely right. Nonetheless, some good things were said and I rejoice that this was decisively rejected. Let us pray that the Lord would grant us to discover and recover the beauty and holiness of the day.

    Peace,
    Alan
     
  5. Covenant Joel

    Covenant Joel Puritan Board Sophomore

    There really wasn't much said on the floor about it. With the recommendation so strong from the committee and no minority report (if memory serves), it wasn't really a big issue on the floor.
     
  6. NaphtaliPress

    NaphtaliPress Administrator Staff Member

    I got to the video archive and no one brought out the long knives to say the least. The one argument was the motion to recommit which would have been nice to see some debate but there was not one and it was soundly defeated. That argument brought up the language of "recreations" being so antiquated that there is not an understanding of what was meant at the time of the assembly. How is this possible given all the puritan works on the subject and the large number even still available today? Do candidates for ordination not read books on the subject in their studies? I'm not sure those making this the issue even understanding basic Puritan Sabbatarianism. But it would have been nice to hear some discussion to know for sure what folks are thinking to know where the mistakes are. I'd be interested in hearing from anyone on PB who was in the OC meeting how the discussion went since they did discuss this quite at length according to the report before the GA.
     
  7. Covenant Joel

    Covenant Joel Puritan Board Sophomore

    I doubt that most candidates would read Puritan works on the Sabbath, though I did pick up a copy of The True Doctrine of the Sabbath at the RHB booth and saw some others doing the same. Some of that lack of study may be indifference or lack of emphasis placed on the Sabbath. Some of it is probably the sheer volume of what one is required to read in seminary and in studying for ordination.

    I observed Overtures just as they were wrapping up their discussion and taking the vote. I really didn't hear much from those wanting the study committee though. Lane Keister was on overtures and gave a good speech towards the end.
     
  8. NaphtaliPress

    NaphtaliPress Administrator Staff Member

    RHB thanks you I'm sure (and I do as well; but they have a boatload of copies to move).
    :up:Good for Lane.
     
  9. greenbaggins

    greenbaggins Administrator Staff Member

    The OC got a bit heated in some of its discussion. However, what carried the day was the simple fact that people can already declare a difference with the clause if they so desire. In other words, our system isn't broken. Of course, many do without realizing that they might not in fact be differing from the Standards at all. Dr. Neil Stewart gave some really excellent comments on this during the debate (he was on the OC), as did Jon Payne on Monday night, during the evening of confessional concern and prayer.
     
  10. NaphtaliPress

    NaphtaliPress Administrator Staff Member

    Are Jon Payne's comments preserved anywhere online?
     
  11. NaphtaliPress

    NaphtaliPress Administrator Staff Member

    Jon Payne's comments are online now in audio, beginning around minute 27; the interface is clunky but well worth the listen. My outline is below.
    http://www.cliffwoodpca.com/sermons/ECCP-Audio.mp3
    5 reasons against overtures 2 and 9. Jon D. Payne.
    The audio from the 2nd night of Confessional concern and prayer
    1. We need Reformation not Deformation.
    The Westminster Standards don't need changing, we need changing.
    It is not our confession that needs reforming it is we that need reforming.
    2. We learn from Scripture and good and necessary consequence that the Sabbath
    was not designed for recreation but for worship.
    3. The prohibition of recreation on the Sabbath will always be debated as to its nature and extent.
    4. Procedure. If presbyteries want the standards amended, let presbyteries make their case and vote on the proposals.
    5. Ovetures a wake up call to PCA to teaching soundly regarding the Lord's Day. theology and practice of faithful sabbath observance.
    The day is not only commanded but a gift from the Lord.

     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page