Comments wanted regarding my declared exception

SolaScriptura · #1 (**permalink**) 08-23-2005, 07:00 PM

If I can get all my stuff taken care of I will be going before Presbytery seeking licensure in October. What follows is my declared exception to the Standards. Since I´ve never done this before I would appreciate the feedback of PCA elders as to what I have written. I´m not seeking to "œdisprove" the Standard so much as explain my reasons for taking exception. For the purposes of what I am to do in this space, which is to declare any exceptions I may take to the Standard, do I say too much? Not enough? Is there anything I should add, omit or rework? Your constructive advice is appreciated. Here goes:

Quote:

What, if any, exceptions do you take to the Westminster Standards and why? Please make sure to list all your disagreements with the Standards, even if you are unsure if they constitute an "œexception."

I take exception to the inclusion of the phrases "œall the day" and "œthe whole time" in the following locations: WCF 21.8, WLC 117, and WSC 60. The reasons are given below.

The primary grounds upon which I take exception to the Standards are twofold:

1. In general, I believe that the Reformed theologians of the Continent, but especially Francis Turretin, provide an excellent argument for seeing that civil and ceremonial aspects are built into the 4th Commandment and that these civil and ceremonial elements are no longer binding on Christians in the same manner they were so upon the Jews. (See Turretin, Institutes XI.XIII.XX-XLIV).

2. I believe that Rom 14:5-6 and Col 2:16-17 provide sufficient justification for those who believe that the strict requirements of the Sabbath laws are not binding on Believers. These passages, coupled with the total lack of any positive assertion of the continued obligation of Believers to keep the Old Covenant stipulations in regard to the Sabbath, give me the impression that the Sabbath laws are among those that done away with in the New Covenant.

Additionally, I have three supporting concerns which in my mind provide warrant for taking exception to the Standards at this point. It should be noted that these concerns do not provide the substantial basis for my exception, rather these matters are simply peripheral arguments which I think support my conviction that adherence to the strict Sabbatarian position is unnecessary:

(1) I am convinced that the strict Sabbatarian position of the Westminster Assembly is based upon exegetical conclusions which, at the time of the Assembly, were without significant interpretive or historical precedent in the history of the Christian church. As a result, the validity of the strict Sabbatarian position is not sustained, must less proven, by an appeal to the practice of the Christian church at any previous point in its history. The argument in this instance is essentially the same as our argument against the Baptists concerning baptism: if no one in the history of the church held to this position prior to the Reformation, then this calls into question the legitimacy of their reading of the relevant passage(s). While the early church did in fact meet for worship on the Lord´s Day, at no point in the history of the Christian church prior to the 1600´s do we find a strict Sabbatarian interpretation and application of the 4th Commandment. As is well known, even John Calvin "“ and the Continental Reformed tradition following him "“ were not, and are not, strict Sabbatarians in their view of the 4th Commandment and how it applies to people apart from members of the Old Covenant community.

(2) I believe that the strict Sabbatarian position requires too specific a cultural situation for their understanding of the 4th Commandment to be reasonably labeled a moral law binding upon all people at all times and places. In fact, a strict Sabbatarian position assumes a cultural dominance by Christianity in order to structure society so as to allow, if not force, Christians "“ indeed all people "“ to totally abstain from all work and "œworldly recreation" on the Lord´s Day. It was not until Constantine declared Sunday to be an Imperial Holiday were there the necessary societal conditions to allow Christians in the West to even have the option of dedicating their entire day to worship and devotional exercises.

(3) In the absence of New Testament teaching on what, specifically, we can and cannot do on the Lord´s Day, it is my observation that strict Sabbatarians often end up imposing the very civil and ceremonial laws which our Confession declares are not binding upon Christians (WCF 19.3 and 19.4). Unfortunately, I find that proponents of the strict Sabbatarian position often fall into one of three camps: they either justify virtually all manner of activities as "œan act of necessity or mercy" so that (in my opinion) their adherence to the position seems to lack any real value, or they tend toward such a rigid enforcement that their dogmatism quickly degenerates into a Pharisee-like obsession with behavioral minutia, or (as in the case of the majority with whom I have spoken) their position is rife with inconsistencies as to the application of the Sabbath rules.

Of course, I realize that in addition to the Westminster Standards, the Savoy Declaration (22.8) and the 1689 London Baptist Confession (22.8) also affirm the strict Sabbatarian position. In fact, every subsequent statement of faith arising from evangelical Christians up until the 20th Century of which I am aware recapitulates the position of the Westminster Confession, the Savoy Declaration, and the 1689 London Baptist Confession. As a result, I take my exception to the Standards with great humility and respectful deference, knowing that a great many brilliant and godly men from across numerous denominational lines have affirmed the strict Sabbatarian position. I will continue to study this matter and I will promptly withdraw my exception when and if I become convinced that my position is errant. For a statement concerning what I believe positively concerning the Christian´s relationship to the Lord´s Day, please see question 19 below.

Contra_Mundum · #2 (**permalink**) 08-23-2005, 09:13 PM

I would not ascribe a position to Calvin that I could not cite at least one reference to. Calling it "well known" is asking for someone to demand exactly such a reference to back up the statment.

In addition, you might u2u Chris Coldwell (NaphtaliPress here on the PB) and ask him to link you to FRPC's Blue Banner published research into Calvin's position. I wouldn't want you to claim too much, then have to backtrack or revise.

Otherwise, I thought it was well documented and explained, and while I disagree with it, I think you do as good a job as any in laying out the exception, and as you say, elsewhere you put your positive thoughts on the Lord's Day down, so I don't know ultimately how much we actually disagree.

Blessings

fredtgreco · #3 (**permalink**) 08-23-2005, 09:34 PM

Ben,

I would modify your exception to read sas I have below. I have basically deleted your "supporting concerns." They add little to the laying out of your exception, and they could only serve to inflame, given their language, especially:

"the validity of the strict Sabbatarian position is not sustained, must less proven, by an appeal to the practice of the Christian church at any previous point in its history."

"their adherence to the position seems to lack any real value, or they tend toward such a rigid enforcement that their dogmatism quickly degenerates into a Pharisee-like obsession with behavioral minutia, or (as in the case of the majority with whom I have spoken) their position is rife with inconsistencies as to the application of the Sabbath rules"

Quote:

I take exception to the inclusion of the phrases "œall the day" and "œthe whole time" in the following locations: WCF 21.8, WLC 117, and WSC 60. The reasons are given below.

The primary grounds upon which I take exception to the Standards are twofold:

1. In general, I believe that the Reformed theologians of the Continent, but especially Francis Turretin, provide an excellent argument for seeing that civil and ceremonial aspects are built into the 4th Commandment and that these civil and ceremonial elements are no longer binding on Christians in the same manner they were so upon the Jews. (See Turretin, Institutes XI.XIII.XX-XLIV).

2. I believe that Rom 14:5-6 and Col 2:16-17 provide sufficient justification for those who believe that the strict requirements of the Sabbath laws are not binding on Believers. These passages, coupled with the total lack of any positive assertion of the continued obligation of Believers to keep the Old Covenant stipulations in regard to the Sabbath, give me the impression that the Sabbath laws are among those that done away with in the New Covenant.

I believe that the strict Sabbatarian position requires too specific a cultural situation for their understanding of the 4th Commandment to be reasonably labeled a moral law binding upon all people at all times and places.

Of course, I realize that in addition to the Westminster Standards, the Savoy Declaration (22.8) and the 1689 London Baptist Confession (22.8) also affirm the strict Sabbatarian position. In fact, every subsequent statement of faith arising from evangelical Christians up until the 20th Century of which I am aware recapitulates the position of the Westminster Confession, the Savoy Declaration, and the 1689 London Baptist Confession. As a result, I take my exception to the Standards with great humility and respectful deference, knowing that a great many brilliant and godly men from across numerous denominational lines have affirmed the strict Sabbatarian position. I will continue to study this matter and I will promptly withdraw my exception when and if I become convinced that my position is errant. For a statement concerning what I believe positively concerning the Christian´s relationship to the Lord´s Day, please see question 19 below.

Good rule of thumb in an examination: never be cute, and never attempt to instruct the examiners. You may not be trying to do that, but it could appear so. An it really is unnecessary; your opening paragraphs do a good job of laying out your position.

I would also advise you to give some guidance to the committee as to what the practical ramifications of this are - namely, how it affects your practice. Given your previous comments on the board, I believe that would help to assuage any reluctance to grant the exception.

Puritanhead · #4 (**permalink**) 08-23-2005, 09:38 PM

Good job Ben!

Puritanhead · #5 (**permalink**) 08-23-2005, 09:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by fredtgreco
Good rule of thumb in an examination: never be cute, and never attempt to instruct the examiners.

I was very diligent in study for a Christian Foundations of Law exam, but got "a little cute" as Fred says in criticizing various legal philosophies. It's not like my prof would disagree with me. But I think it has a way of dampening your ardor, and the teacher doing the grading might become very overanalytical of your overall work because they might not think that you're approaching the exam with the requisite degree of seriousness or the right degree of solemnity for the occasion... It can be detrimental for one seeking to ace an exam. It all depends on the professor... In undergrad I knew who would tolerate "being cute..." but sometimes it is better to be safe than sorry. Hindsight is 20/20 for me.

pastorway · #6 (**permalink**) 08-23-2005, 09:49 PM

NaphtaliPress · #7 (**permalink**) 08-23-2005, 10:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Contra_Mundum
I would not ascribe a position to Calvin that I could not cite at least one reference to. Calling it "well known" is asking for someone to demand exactly such a reference to back up the statment.

In addition, you might u2u Chris Coldwell (NaphtaliPress here on the PB) and ask him to link you to FRPC's Blue Banner published research into Calvin's position. I wouldn't want you to claim too much, then have to backtrack or revise.

No U2U needed. See Calvin's Deuteronomy Sermons as referenced in Calvin in the Hands of the Philistines: Or, Did Calvin Bowl on the Sabbath? I'm not a PCA elder so it doesn't count what I think, but I certainly believe if we'd had had more faithful ministers in the past that would have stood up against the ungodliness of this exception, we might not have so many additional, and more serious errors to deal with today.
[quote]ISAIAH 58:13 If thou turn away thy foot from the sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day; and call the sabbath a delight, the holy of the LORD, honourable; and shalt honour him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words: 14 Then shalt thou delight thyself in the LORD; and I will cause thee to ride upon the high places of the earth, and feed thee with the heritage of Jacob thy father: for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken it.

SolaScriptura · #8 (**permalink**) 08-23-2005, 10:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Contra_Mundum
[A]s you say, elsewhere you put your positive thoughts on the Lord's Day down, so I don't know ultimately how much we actually disagree.

Quote:

Originally posted by fredtgreco
I would also advise you to give some guidance to the committee as to what the practical ramifications of this are - namely, how it affects your practice. Given your previous comments on the board, I believe that would help to assuage any reluctance to grant the exception.

Thanks guys. Just so you know, here is my response to question 19, my view of and practice on the Lord's Day:

Quote:

19. What is your view of and practice on the Lord´s Day?

I am grateful for this section as it gives me an opportunity to balance what I wrote under question 1 concerning my exception to the Standards. I believe that the Sabbath principle which is clearly presented in Genesis "“ and which predates the giving of the Law "“ is a part of the fiber of this created order. Furthermore, I believe that Heb 4: 1-11 speaks of a Sabbath rest that remains for the people of God. While I believe that in its context Heb 4:1-11 is a reference to the rest we will ultimately have in heaven, it seems reasonable that in our taking a Sabbath rest in this life we express an anticipation of the future rest to come.
I am convinced that few things are quite as visible and profound a testimony to the world of our trust in God to provide for our real needs than by taking a Sabbath rest and abstaining from unnecessary gain, whether it be economic, relational, academic, physical etc... Furthermore, I believe that the Old Covenant reveals that in the taking of a Sabbath we should focus our attention on God. It is beyond doubt that in the New Covenant it is Sunday, the Lord´s Day, that has become the day dedicated to the worship of the triune God. It is therefore incumbent upon Christians to worship on the Lord´s Day. Worship Monday thru Saturday if you like (that would be great!) but we are commanded to worship on Sunday. It seems evident to me that if we are commanded to worship on the Lord´s Day then the Sabbath rest principle still applies if for no other reason than as a way of ensuring that we do in fact have our "œtables cleared" so that we can engage in worship.
Indeed, the apostolic command to gather together on the "œfirst day of the week" (1 Cor 16:1-2) is most significant because it gives Christians a permanent mandate as to what must occur each and every "œfirst day of the week." Additionally, the fact that Sunday is specifically declared to be "œthe Lord´s Day" (Rev 1:10) implies that this day belongs to the Lord in a way in which the other six days of the week do not. The time is His. Since it is the Lord´s Day, it seems natural to infer from this that we focus on the Lord during this time and acknowledge His agenda as our own. By analogy, in my household we celebrate birthdays as such: the day is "œmine." Because the day is "œmy special day," in my household we focus on "œme" and on what "I want to do." Similarly, I believe that as Christians it is our joy and obligation to spend the Lord´s Day chiefly and primarily engaged in corporate and individual acts of worship in which we glorify and enjoy the triune God.
As a result, my household practices what I would term a "œmoderate Sabbatarian" lifestyle. That is, we make it our practice to get all of our household chores, errands, and schoolwork taken care of by Saturday night so that on Sunday we are free to worship and rest without the distraction of our normal daily routine. I engage in personal devotions prior to waking my children up for church. After attending morning worship services and Sunday school, we return home and discuss what we learned in church while we eat. Then we engage our children in family worship followed by nap-time. At this point I usually read from a devotional work (currently I am rereading Pilgrim´s Progress). After nap-time we usually spend a couple hours glorifying God by engaging in precious family time. Afterwards, we attend evening worship services. Upon returning home, we eat dinner and then conduct our evening devotion period. After this we begin getting ready for bed. However, since I believe that I have freedom in Christ, if (for example) we realize that despite our efforts we forgot to pick something up at the grocery store that we need for our Sunday meal, then I go and get it with a clean conscience.
What must not be missed is that in my family we take intentional steps to take a Sabbath rest on the Lord´s Day so that we can focus on worship "“ both in church and in our home as a family because we are convinced that it is our privilege and responsibility to appreciate God´s gift to us of a Sabbath rest on HIS "“ the Lord´s "“ Day.

fredtgreco · #9 (**permalink**) 08-23-2005, 11:30 PM

Yes. The only thing that you might want to do - since guys sometimes read these exams quickly or in parts, is to either repeat this part in #1 (it is OK to repeat, and in word processing age, that is easy), or else give this information in #1 and reference #1 in #19.

Just to make it easier to read. I know this exam, and it is a bit hodge podge in terms of structure - hard to get a grasp on. That's why I revised it after Ohio Valley formed!

Peter · #10 (**permalink**) 08-23-2005, 11:32 PM

Ben, your answer to question 19 is almost entirely confessional/biblical and Sabbatarian, in practice as well as in theory. In your 1st post I had difficulty determining specifically what you object to in the confession. Basically you don't like how "strict" Sabbitarians are? But you agree that the 4th commandment is moral and perpetual and that the Lord's Day is the Christian Sabbath?

[Edited on 8-24-2005 by Peter]

SolaScriptura · #11 (**permalink**) 08-24-2005, 09:11 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Peter
Ben, your answer to question 19 is almost entirely confessional/biblical and Sabbatarian, in practice as well as in theory. In your 1st post I had difficulty determining specifically what you object to in the confession. Basically you don't like how "strict" Sabbitarians are?
[Edited on 8-24-2005 by Peter]

Well, as you see in my respone to Q19, I say that if I "need" to go to the store, then I do so... I don't believe that a strict Sabbatarian position would allow that. Furthermore, we have family time which is sometimes playing a game of Candy Land or going on a walk or a bike ride or playing chase in the yard... Again, I don't think that these things would be allowable under a strict Sabbatarian position.

Furthermore, my position allows for flexibility so that I don't have to play semantic games and call something an "act of necessity" to allow me to do something that happens to pop up at the last minute.

wsw201 · #12 (**permalink**) 08-24-2005, 10:14 AM

Ben,

Are you going to request that you be able to teach and preach your position?

SolaScriptura · #13 (**permalink**) 08-24-2005, 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by wsw201
Ben,

Are you going to request that you be able to teach and preach your position?

I'm not sure. I would never preach or teach contrary to what I believe, but at the same time... I've already had experience in teaching consistently with beliefs with which I am not in agreement and I don't have a problem with that.
However... I do believe that the Standards are incorrect at this point (thus why I take exception) and judging by the number of folks who take exception to this same issue, I'd say that I'm definitely not alone. How else would grassroots support ever be raised for a possible rewording (gasp!) of the Confession if an alternative is never taught?

So I don't know. What would you suggest?

[Edited on 8-24-2005 by SolaScriptura]