The PuritanBoard  

Go Back   The PuritanBoard > The Church > Church Office

Church Office Discussions related to Church Office - Pastors, Elders, Deacons, Doctors, & Evangelists.

» Online Users: 58
5 members and 53 guests
christianyouth, CovenantalBaptist, dcomin, Leslie
Most users ever online was 856, 07-06-2007 at 12:19 AM.
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 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
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 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.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 05-14-2008, 02:04 AM
Christusregnat's Avatar
Puritanboard Sophomore
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Pleasanton, California
Posts: 683
Thanks: 288
Thanked 120 Times in 87 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimV View Post
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)
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 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.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 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.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 05-14-2008, 08:33 AM
Backwoods Presbyterian's Avatar
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.
__________________
Benjamin P. Glaser
Pittsburgh, PA
Fairmount ARP Church

Student of Theology

Pittsburgh Theological Seminary
Reformed Presbyterian Theological Seminary
My Blog
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 05-14-2008, 08:36 AM
turmeric's Avatar
Megster
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Portland,OR
Posts: 6,567
Blog Entries: 1
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.
__________________
The man who is disposed to think of his sin as a great calamity, rather than as a heinous crime, is not likely either to reverence God or to respect His law. - John Kennedy, 1873
Meg
Blog
Member, Intown Presbyterian Church,PCA, Portland, OR

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 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
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 05-14-2008, 08:57 AM
jwithnell's Avatar
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
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 05-14-2008, 09:53 AM
Romans922's Avatar
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 View Post
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
Husband to Dena
Candidate of the MVP in the PCA
MDiv graduate from Reformed Theological Seminary, Jackson, MS
Pastor (elect) of Tchula Presbyterian Church, Tchula, MS

"What do you think about when you are not thinking about anything else? This is what you worship!"
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Romans922 For This Useful Post:
Stephen (05-14-2008)
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 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.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 05-14-2008, 10:04 AM
Stephen's Avatar
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 View Post
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
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Stephen For This Useful Post:
Daniel Ritchie (05-14-2008), etexas (05-17-2008)
  #13 (permalink)  
Old 05-14-2008, 10:06 AM
Stephen's Avatar
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 View Post
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.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Stephen For This Useful Post:
Josiah (05-14-2008), Southern Presbyterian (05-14-2008)
  #14 (permalink)  
Old 05-14-2008, 10:09 AM
Stephen's Avatar
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 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Dixon View Post
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.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Stephen For This Useful Post:
Josiah (05-14-2008)
  #15 (permalink)  
Old 05-14-2008, 10:13 AM
KenPierce's Avatar
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 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Dixon View Post
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
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #16 (permalink)  
Old 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 View Post
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
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to ADKing For This Useful Post:
ChristianTrader (05-14-2008), Josiah (05-14-2008), PuritanCovenanter (05-14-2008), Southern Presbyterian (05-14-2008), Stephen (05-14-2008), VirginiaHuguenot (05-14-2008)
  #17 (permalink)  
Old 05-14-2008, 11:56 AM
KenPierce's Avatar
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?
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old 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)
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #19 (permalink)  
Old 05-14-2008, 12:21 PM
Backwoods Presbyterian's Avatar
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.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Backwoods Presbyterian For This Useful Post:
Davidius (05-14-2008), nleshelman (05-14-2008)
  #20 (permalink)  
Old 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 View Post
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.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #21 (permalink)  
Old 05-14-2008, 01:30 PM
KenPierce's Avatar
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 View Post
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?
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #22 (permalink)  
Old 05-14-2008, 01:42 PM
fredtgreco's Avatar
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 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Backwoods Presbyterian View Post
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)
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #23 (permalink)  
Old 05-14-2008, 01:59 PM
Backwoods Presbyterian's Avatar
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?
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #24 (permalink)  
Old 05-14-2008, 02:02 PM
fredtgreco's Avatar
PCA Pastor