Exceptions in the PCA?

[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?

 

[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.

 

[Christusregnat]

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

 

[Timothy William]

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?

 

[TimV]

What is the Bowen case referred to above?

You can get it emailed you by the Stated Clerk's office in Atlanta.

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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[TimV]

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

 

[jwithnell]

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.

 

[Romans922]

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!

 

[TimV]

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.

 

[Stephen]

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]

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.

 

[Stephen]

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.

 

[KenPierce]

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?

 

[ADKing]

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).

 

[KenPierce]

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?

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

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.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

The RPCNA Testimony is the way to go In my humble opinion. Use the 1646 edition and go from there. The Americans should have never "deleted" and "revised" sections of Westminster.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

The RPCNA Testimony is the way to go In my humble opinion. 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.

 

[KenPierce]

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?

 

[fredtgreco]

The RPCNA Testimony is the way to go In my humble opinion. 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.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

Why do you say that Rev. Greco?

 

[fredtgreco]

Why do you say that Rev. Greco?

It is a backwards amending of the Standards without amending the Standards, and it actually has more authority to bind the conscience of all RPCNA ministers than the Confession itself.

If a man takes an exception to the Confession, that does not affect me. The RPCNA Testimony binds all RPCNA ministers, and I do not find that a good, or Confessional, or Biblical thing.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

The RPCNA Testimony is the way to go In my humble opinion. 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.

Also, I fail to see the difference between modifying the WCF or Catechisms and saying the constitutional documents "as modified by" and having a dual standard/commentary that effectively does the same thing, such as "rejecting everything after the colon" as the RPCNA does at CF 33.3.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

The RPCNA Testimony is the way to go In my humble opinion. 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.

Why do you say that Rev. Greco?

It is a backwards amending of the Standards without amending the Standards, and it actually has more authority to bind the conscience of all RPCNA ministers than the Confession itself.

If a man takes an exception to the Confession, that does not affect me. The RPCNA Testimony binds all RPCNA ministers, and I do not find that a good, or Confessional, or Biblical thing.

I am not sure about that, because as far as I am aware, the office bearers in the RPCNA are allowed to hold to the original, but not all office bearers have to.

Moreover, the RPCNA's testimony is a confessional-type document. This is perfectly legitimate, as the church has the authority to add to its confessional standards.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

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.

Also, I fail to see the difference between modifying the WCF or Catechisms and saying the constitutional documents "as modified by" and having a dual standard/commentary that effectively does the same thing, such as "rejecting everything after the colon" as the RPCNA does at CF 33.3.

The difference is that we are not the authors of the Westminster Standards, so how dare we take it upon ourselves to edit them. After all, if I came along in 300 years time and edited Chris Coldwell's PB comments I am sure you would not be pleased.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

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?

Brother, I am not violating the ninth commandment as the PCA cannot be described as a strict subscriptionist denomination in any sense of the term. Okay, I am glad that the office bearers agree with the standards on soteriology, but there is no way that they are strict subscription denomination when it comes to worship. If you don't believe me, then listen to a recent sermon I posted by PCA minister Dr. Carl W. Bogue.

I have not looked into your last point enough to comment.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Why do you say that Rev. Greco?

It is a backwards amending of the Standards without amending the Standards, and it actually has more authority to bind the conscience of all RPCNA ministers than the Confession itself.

If a man takes an exception to the Confession, that does not affect me. The RPCNA Testimony binds all RPCNA ministers, and I do not find that a good, or Confessional, or Biblical thing.

It should also be noted that when you allow individual ministers to take exceptions - without amending the Standards themselves (either by revision or commentary in an additional document - you have fundamentally undermined the authority of the church, as every man now gets to determine what is right in his own eyes with respect to confessional subscription. This also becomes a form of false advertising, because the denominations which allow for it claim to subscribe to the Westminster Standards, yet they permit office bearers to disagree with the official testimony of their church - which it is their duty to uphold.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Actually, this is one of the worst things to do. It is perhaps the greatest weakness of the RPCNA.

Also, I fail to see the difference between modifying the WCF or Catechisms and saying the constitutional documents "as modified by" and having a dual standard/commentary that effectively does the same thing, such as "rejecting everything after the colon" as the RPCNA does at CF 33.3.

The difference is that we are not the authors of the Westminster Standards, so how dare we take it upon ourselves to edit them. After all, if I came along in 300 years time and edited Chris Coldwell's PB comments I am sure you would not be pleased.

Well, the difference in your analogy is that my writings are not binding doctrinal standards or public documents to boot. Again, at the point they are edited to change them they are no longer the Westminster Standards. They are the "WS as adopted by" or "doctrinal standards of xyz church"; if one wants to quibble over whether a denomination has the right to modify the original instead of creating one from whole cloth, have at it. I think by WCF 31.4 the divines imply their permission. Any way, I have better things to do than argue this since it is by default the American approach. All I'm saying is a testimony doesn't necessary give different results than cutting out sections wholesale.