» Site Navigation | | | |  | | 
05-14-2008, 01:13 AM
| | Puritanboard Freshman | | Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Carrrollton, TX
Posts: 13
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
| | | Exceptions in the PCA? 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?
__________________
Steve
PCA
Dallas, TX
| 
05-14-2008, 01:58 AM
| | Puritanboard Sophomore | | Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Oceano, CA, USA
Posts: 907
Thanks: 76
Thanked 159 Times in 105 Posts
| | | No, the Bowen case is currently the standard in the PCA. A man who denies limited atonement cannot be an Elder or Deacon. Some Presbyteries like the Northern California Presbytery have ignored this rule, but if a member files a complaint the local Session has to enforce it.
I recently forced our church to stop ordaining Baptists and Arminians even though the Session disagreed with me.
__________________
Tim Vaughan, 48 years old, member PCA church but currently attending EV Free church. San Luis Obispo County, California.
| 
05-14-2008, 02:04 AM
|  | Puritanboard Sophomore | | Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Pleasanton, California
Posts: 683
Thanks: 288
Thanked 120 Times in 87 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by TimV No, the Bowen case is currently the standard in the PCA. A man who denies limited atonement cannot be an Elder or Deacon. Some Presbyteries like the Northern California Presbytery have ignored this rule, but if a member files a complaint the local Session has to enforce it.
I recently forced our church to stop ordaining Baptists and Arminians even though the Session disagreed with me. | Oh, how I love our NorCal Presbytery
Adam
__________________
Adam Brink, Grace Church of Pleasanton, PCA, Pleasanton, California
"Mark you this, Bassanio, The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose.
An evil soul producing holy witness Is like a villain with a smiling cheek,
A goodly apple rotten at the heart: O, what a goodly outside falsehood hath!" Antonio - The Merchant of Venice (Act 1, Scene 3) | 
05-14-2008, 02:43 AM
| | Puritanboard Freshman | | Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Canberra, Australia
Posts: 428
Thanks: 21
Thanked 37 Times in 25 Posts
| | | I'm surprised that someone who denied LA would even be considered as a candidate for elder.
What is the Bowen case referred to above?
What of exceptions to 6 day creationism or exclusive psalmody, for example, or heterodox views on the Sabbath? What does the PCA regard as automatically disqualifying?
__________________
T W Hopper
Member, Presbyterian Reformed Church
Currently between churches since PRC closed here - attending Crossroads Christian Church.
Canberra, Australia.
| 
05-14-2008, 08:27 AM
| | Puritanboard Sophomore | | Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Oceano, CA, USA
Posts: 907
Thanks: 76
Thanked 159 Times in 105 Posts
| | Quote: |
What is the Bowen case referred to above?
| You can get it emailed you by the Stated Clerk's office in Atlanta. Quote: |
What of exceptions to 6 day creationism or exclusive psalmody, for example, or heterodox views on the Sabbath? What does the PCA regard as automatically disqualifying?
| ____
No. | 
05-14-2008, 08:33 AM
|  | Puritanboard Senior | | Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 2,944
Thanks: 939
Thanked 442 Times in 305 Posts
| | | Actually for some Presbyteries in the PCA 6-day creationism is required. I know of several churches that have put it on their Pastor Search form as a requirement. | 
05-14-2008, 08:36 AM
|  | Megster | | Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Portland,OR
Posts: 6,567
Thanks: 381
Thanked 228 Times in 206 Posts
| | | I think, though I don't know for sure, that exceptions on the Sabbath are tolerated. Exceptions on TULIP generally are not.
Why would an Arminian want to serve? There are Arminian churches, after all. | 
05-14-2008, 08:44 AM
| | Puritanboard Sophomore | | Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Oceano, CA, USA
Posts: 907
Thanks: 76
Thanked 159 Times in 105 Posts
| | Good question, Meg. And also why a particular Session would want them as well.
Hi Benjamin
Individual Sessions can be more picky than the denominational minimum standards. For instance, a Session may not allow theonomists as officers, even though the denomination as a whole allows them. A good reference for things like that is the PCA historical section, which has an area for position papers. The position papers for Creationism are good reading: PCA Historical Center: Index to the Position Papers of the Presbyterian Church in America | 
05-14-2008, 08:57 AM
|  | Puritanboard Freshman | | Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Leesburg, VA
Posts: 141
Thanks: 23
Thanked 49 Times in 34 Posts
| | | Quote: What of exceptions to 6 day creationism or exclusive psalmody, for example, or heterodox views on the Sabbath? What does the PCA regard as automatically disqualifying?
Exclusive singing psalms is not generally viewed as required by the WCF or the Bible in either the PCA or OPC.
__________________
JWithnell
Member Bethel OPC
Virginia
| 
05-14-2008, 09:53 AM
|  | Puritanboard Junior | | Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Jackson, MS
Posts: 1,404
Thanks: 18
Thanked 51 Times in 31 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Dixon 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! | | The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Romans922 For This Useful Post: | | 
05-14-2008, 10:02 AM
| | Puritanboard Sophomore | | Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Oceano, CA, USA
Posts: 907
Thanks: 76
Thanked 159 Times in 105 Posts
| | Quote: |
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.
| That's actually not true. Case like the Bowen case serve as denominational standards. No Baptist or denier of limited atonement can hold office in the PCA. Those ordained for whatever reason otherwise are termed "officers out of conformity" and it's left to the individual Session and Presbytery to decide how to handle the case.
That's why you get the "unordained Deacon" position, so Baptists, women and Arminians can be officers but not officers. | 
05-14-2008, 10:04 AM
|  | Puritanboard Senior | | Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 2,012
Thanks: 930
Thanked 270 Times in 179 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by Backwoods Presbyterian Actually for some Presbyteries in the PCA 6-day creationism is required. I know of several churches that have put it on their Pastor Search form as a requirement. | Yes, they should require a minister to hold to this.
__________________
Stephen Welch
PCA Teaching Elder
Nova Scotia | | The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Stephen For This Useful Post: | | 
05-14-2008, 10:06 AM
|  | Puritanboard Senior | | Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 2,012
Thanks: 930
Thanked 270 Times in 179 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by turmeric I think, though I don't know for sure, that exceptions on the Sabbath are tolerated. Exceptions on TULIP generally are not.
Why would an Arminian want to serve? There are Arminian churches, after all. | Yes you are right. A candidate cannot take an exception to the system or vitals of the faith. As a PCA elder I subscribe to full subscription. I find the PCA system subscription problematic and it opens the door for these kinds of exceptions. | | The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Stephen For This Useful Post: | | 
05-14-2008, 10:09 AM
|  | Puritanboard Senior | | Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 2,012
Thanks: 930
Thanked 270 Times in 179 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by Romans922 Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Dixon 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! | Amen, brother. This good faith position that was passed by the GA a few years ago was one of the worst rulings I have seen. I am glad to see other PCA men like myself that oppose this. | | The Following User Says Thank You to Stephen For This Useful Post: | | 
05-14-2008, 10:13 AM
|  | Puritanboard Freshman | | Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Hot and Steamy Jackson MS
Posts: 242
Thanks: 14
Thanked 60 Times in 32 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by Romans922 Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Dixon 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?
__________________
Kenneth A. Pierce
Senior Minister
Trinity Presbyterian Church (PCA)
5301 Old Canton Rd.
Jackson, MS 39211
(601)977-0774 www.trinitychurchpca.com | 
05-14-2008, 11:27 AM
| | Puritanboard Sophomore | | Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Sterling, KS
Posts: 563
Thanks: 56
Thanked 207 Times in 93 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by KenPierce 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).
__________________
Rev. Adam King
Minister without a call (WPCUS)
Stated Supply: Reformed Presbyterian Church
Sterling, KS
| | The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to ADKing For This Useful Post: | | 
05-14-2008, 11:56 AM
|  | Puritanboard Freshman | | Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Hot and Steamy Jackson MS
Posts: 242
Thanks: 14
Thanked 60 Times in 32 Posts
| | | I guess it leaves open the question if greater light has, necessarily, been obtained.
I have a lurking suspicion that we are still victims of thinking of time as a constant, which it is not: it is a function of relative velocity. And, certainly the timelessness of God is a factor we cannot understand. So, it may be literally true that a day is like a thousand years with the Lord.
Could the universe have been moving at such rapid speed that days themselves slowed to Millennia? Is this outside the realm of possibility? | 
05-14-2008, 12:17 PM
| | Puritanboard Doctor | | Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Saintfield, Co. Down, Northern Ireland
Posts: 6,568
Thanks: 2,062
Thanked 1,124 Times in 740 Posts
| | | 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.
__________________
Daniel Ritchie
Saintfield, Northern Ireland - Queen's University, Belfast:History/Politics
Member of Dromara Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland (Covenanter)
| 
05-14-2008, 12:21 PM
|  | Puritanboard Senior | | Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 2,944
Thanks: 939
Thanked 442 Times in 305 Posts
| | | The RPCNA Testimony is the way to go IMHO. Use the 1646 edition and go from there. The Americans should have never "deleted" and "revised" sections of Westminster. | | The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Backwoods Presbyterian For This Useful Post: | | 
05-14-2008, 12:24 PM
| | Puritanboard Doctor | | Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Saintfield, Co. Down, Northern Ireland
Posts: 6,568
Thanks: 2,062
Thanked 1,124 Times in 740 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by Backwoods Presbyterian The RPCNA Testimony is the way to go IMHO. Use the 1646 edition and go from there. The Americans should have never "deleted" and "revised" sections of Westminster. | 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. | 
05-14-2008, 01:30 PM
|  | Puritanboard Freshman | | Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Hot and Steamy Jackson MS
Posts: 242
Thanks: 14
Thanked 60 Times in 32 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie 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? | 
05-14-2008, 01:42 PM
|  | PCA Pastor | | Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 7,509
Thanks: 73
Thanked 781 Times in 373 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie Quote:
Originally Posted by Backwoods Presbyterian The RPCNA Testimony is the way to go IMHO. Use the 1646 edition and go from there. The Americans should have never "deleted" and "revised" sections of Westminster. | 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.
__________________ Fredrick T. Greco
Senior Pastor, Christ Church PCA (Katy, TX) Christ Church Blog "The heart is the main thing in true religion...It is the hinge and turning-point in the condition of man's soul. If the heart is alive to God and quickened by the Spirit, the man is a living Christian. If the heart is dead and has not the Spirit, the man is dead before God." (J.C. Ryle) | 
05-14-2008, 01:59 PM
|  | Puritanboard Senior | | Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 2,944
Thanks: 939
Thanked 442 Times in 305 Posts
| | | Why do you say that Rev. Greco? | 
05-14-2008, 02:02 PM
|  | PCA Pastor | | |