Exceptions in the PCA?

[TimV]

Thank you all. Is it safe to say then that no presbytery in the PCA would allow a man considered for office to take an exception to the WCF where the extent of the atonement is concerned? I assume that would be a serious departure. Is that correct?

Steve, I've answered the question twice, and provided the source, and told you where you can request an email copy of the source. If you don't want to email the Stated Clerk's office the relevant section is

B. The Commission affirms the judgment of Eastern Carolina Presbytery in that Infant Baptism (WCF 28-4) and Limited Atonement (WCF 3-3, 8-5 and 11-4) are to be considered fundamentals of the system of doctrine and that there can be no exceptions given in the case of officers in the church.

Presbyteries don't have a choice in the matter. They have done this before, both in ignorance and wilfully, but a complaint to the Session will remedy the situation.

 

[ADKing]

giants [/I]in the reformed tradition. Hence, we need very good reasons to exclude their position so easily, especially when you haven't expressed what "greater light" has been revealed since their time that makes the issue so clear.

God bless you.

I agree with you that not all errors are of the same weight. Some are indeed more serious than others.

However, I still am not persuaded by appeals to personality. Anselm was a giant not only in the reformed, but Christian tradition. Nevertheless, I would not accept his positions on certain things (like church government, for one). We must judge by positions, not personalities.

I do not pretend to measure up to the stature of men like Warfield (far be it from me!). But, very humbly, I would suggest that the passage of time has allowed us to see that men like Warfield and Hodge were influenced, perhaps too much in areas like this, by the new and prevailing scientific notions drifting out of unbelieving presuppositions. It does not seem as if they were as critical at times as they should have been. Since their days, the anti-Christian nature of much of what is "science falsely so called" (I Timothy 6.20)
is clearly evident for many to see. Because of this I would say that men who cannot clearly perceive the great errors in modern "scientific" thought that are driving (In my humble opinion) attempts to revise the plain meaning of Genesis 1, demonstrate greater defficiencies than merely disagreement with a point in the confession.

 

[wsw201]

When I was ordained a PCA elder in 1978, I had no exceptions, and when I was installed again in a different PCA church in 2007, I had none; but with a keener understanding from reading the debates on PB, perhaps I should amend my views and let my session know, and let them decide whether any exceptions are essential.

Your last sentence pretty much sums up why I would not dare take church office. About 5 years ago I would have said I agreed with every jot and title of the Westminster Standards, now I prefer to say that I show a teachable spirit, as I do not have the learning to make such a bold assertion.

It seems to me that the issue here is that the WCF may well over-define the reformed faith (as I've said on another thread). That is, we must recognize a legitimate domain of beliefs that believers are free to disagree on and perhaps the WCF comes down on some issues where reformed believers are free to differ. The effect of this is to exclude people who shouldn't be excluded.

Strict subscription positively makes the boundaries of belief clear. Negatively it excludes many good people who (I suspect) should not be excluded.

The "system of doctrine" subscription negatively leads to a vague definition of the boundaries of belief. Positively, it allows for good people to be elders who couldn't be in according to strict subscription.

The WCF is perhaps the greatest confession ever written. However, I wonder if it isn't time to update the WCF. It's been done before. Update the WCF well would mean we could combine (i) strict subscription to make the boundaries crystal clear, as well as (ii) keeping all sorts of good people in the denomination who are godly and orthodox but in conscience can't agree with certain minor points of the WCF (like the Pope being the Antichrist).

Blessings.

We all need to remember that the Standards are for the Church and are defined by the Church based on the Churches view of Scripture. What one particular theologian may have believed is inconsequential. Hodge, Calvin, Augustine, etc. were great teachers and contributed much to the Church but they are not the Church. Exceptions have been taken since the Standards were first approved by the Church of Scotland. For instance the Church of Scotland was not too thrilled with Standards view of the magistrate (considered to be too Erastian). One could take an exception for this. In fact the American version of the Standards simply codified the exceptions that the Church had always allowed. I would highly recommend David Hall's book on Subscription.

As far as excluding good men from office, it should also be noted that no one puts a gun to anyones head telling them that they have to become an officer in a particular denomination. If a man can not in all good conscience subscribe under the parameters that the Church sets, he can go to another denomination that is less particular.

 

[JohnOwen007]

Actually the question is not the greater light since Warfield, Machen, Hodge, et. al; the question is what greater light did they have that overrode the overwhelming tradition before them.
CT

Dear CT, I don't think the tradition is as "overwhelming" as you say. For example, Anselm mentions that the Augustinian interpretation of Gen. 1-3 (not seeing the 6 days as literal) was the majority at his time. Moreover, as we move into the turn of the 19th century before Darwin the literal 6 24 hour day interpretation appears also to be in the vast minority.

Warfield, Machen. and Hodge were neither stupid nor ungodly. Warfield, in my mind, has produced the definitive arguments on inerrancy. Hence, he was not cavalier with Scripture. We need very good reasons to dismiss these giants with such ease. They had very good reasons to believe what they did.

 

[Stephen]

I would agree that modern Theonomic ethics is not explicitly taught in the Westminster Standards - as the Puritans did not believe in the distinction between crime and sin that modern Theonomists do. And so I would not argue that one needs to be a modern Theonomist to subscribe to the Westminster Standards.

The Puritans and modern Theonomists differ in semantics for one very important reason: they live in totally different historical circumstances.

The Reformers and Puritans lived in times when fanatical extremists wished to enforce the ENTIRE judicial law of Moses (which is a position Theonomy repudiates). Therefore, when I see a couple of quotes trotted out by Rutherford against Theonomy I shake my head at such blatant misrepresentation of Theonomic ethics. For instance, Rutherford does not believe that the death penalty for Sabbath violation is to be applied today, as one would have to become a debtor to the whole judicial law. However, Theonomy does not teach that one must uphold the entire judicial law. And it should be noted that both R.J. Rushdoony and Gary North employ similar arguments to Rutherford. Furthermore, it is common to see the quotes from some Reformers and Puritans who did not believe in restitution for theft; this was done because they did not believe that restitution could be applied outside Israel - which is Theonomic methodology, even though it is contrary to the conclusions reached by nearly all modern Theonomists.

Hence, the purpose of the Reformers and Puritans in their writings was to distinguish between which parts of the judicial law were binding and which were not in order to refute the extremists. Modern Theonomists, on the other hand, are not in the same historical situation. Instead, we live in days when Biblical standards of justice are cast down in the streets - even by those who claim to be Reformed. Therefore, in such a context, we emphasise the continuity between the Older and New Testaments rather than the discontinuity.

The failure to take on board differing historical contexts in which differing theological writers at different periods often causes much confusion. That is why certain scholars argue that John Calvin believed in universal atonement, because they take a statement which he makes prior to the Arminian controversy - that Calvinists living after the Arminian controversy would not use - and assume that Calvin is teaching something later Calvinists would disagree with. Thus a text, without a context, becomes a pretext.

This is the typical line of those who want to trumpet strict subscriptionism, but cut a wide swath for their own doctrinal eccentricities. It is precisely what Stephen Wilkins, in one of his former incarnations did. He thought the PCA had to be absolutely 6-24 on creation, but not punctiliar about Reconstructionism.

Let's face it: the divines could not have been Van Til-influenced theonomists because there was no Van Til. The divines uphold the Law in its right use, and with the proper three-fold division. To try to claim the WCF was a theonomic document is a chronological fallacy of the highest order.

So, you can disparage my learning all day long. It still will not change the fact that you are anything but a strict subscriptionist --you are only intolerant of other people's exceptions, while freely granting your own. Straining at gnats, and swallowing camels.

Brother, I did not claim to be a strict subscriptionist. I only protested about denominations which claim to hold to the WCF but in reality allow a multitude of exceptions.

You may not agree with my conclusions on Theonomy, but I have spent many months of my life researching this issue and have publicly documented my conclusions. You are free to disagree with my conclusions, however, your questioning of my sincerity is unbecoming of a minister of the gospel.

Yes, Ken. We can disagree on issues but it is not right to judge another brother's sincerity or motives. I wish you would stick with the issue at hand because it confuses the discussion.

 

[Stephen]

Thank you all. Is it safe to say then that no presbytery in the PCA would allow a man considered for office to take an exception to the WCF where the extent of the atonement is concerned? I assume that would be a serious departure. Is that correct?

Absolutely, you are correct.

 

[JohnOwen007]

We all need to remember that the Standards are for the Church and are defined by the Church based on the Churches view of Scripture.

Well that's that problem: what is the "church"? The Bible never uses the word "Church" for a "denomination". A church in the NT is either: All believers living and dead (Eph. 5:25); (ii) Believers on earth (1 Cor. 15:9; Gal. 1:13); (iii) A local church (1 Cor. 1:2) or (iv) A gathered church (1 Cor. 14:28).

Hence, only part of the church (worldwide) wrote the WCF. This then gives a whole new definition of tradition.

As far as excluding good men from office, it should also be noted that no one puts a gun to anyones head telling them that they have to become an officer in a particular denomination. If a man can not in all good conscience subscribe under the parameters that the Church sets, he can go to another denomination that is less particular.

Well I struggle with this because it's erecting barriers amongst reformed Christians, particularly over issues upon which we're free to disagree. It seems to me to reflect the individualism of a post-enlightenment culture. If we're reformed brothers and sisters in Christ why are we creating barriers to meeting together or being associated institutionally? It's not up to a part of the reformed community to create their own little ghetto. We have to learn to get on with each other when we don't agree minor issues (but agree on the substantial issues). [I'm certainly not advocating a lowest common denominator form of Christianity--that's a disaster.]

It's often forgotten that the mainstream Puritans stayed in the national church as long as they could because they saw schism as such terrible thing. Dering, Cartwright, Chaderton, Perkins, Preston, Sibbes, didn't just run off and start a new denomination full of people who only agreed with them. They stayed in the institutional church because separating from other believers institutionally was serious. Christ's body is one, and we are not free to erect boundaries because we don't agree with another reformed Christian on absolutely everything.

 

[KenPierce]

The PCA should ordain Machen, etc!

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).

Dear Ken,

Your observation is indeed correct that we should not tolerate past errors when greater light has been obtained. However, not all errors are of equal weight; some errors are way more serious than others.

Warfield, Machen, and Hodge are not just any godly men, these guys are giants in the reformed tradition. Hence, we need very good reasons to exclude their position so easily, especially when you haven't expressed what "greater light" has been revealed since their time that makes the issue so clear.

God bless you.

Just to correct something here. My argument was that we ought to think long and hard before we exclude those great men, and, indeed, that we ought not exclude them.

 

[KenPierce]

I would agree that modern Theonomic ethics is not explicitly taught in the Westminster Standards - as the Puritans did not believe in the distinction between crime and sin that modern Theonomists do. And so I would not argue that one needs to be a modern Theonomist to subscribe to the Westminster Standards.

The Puritans and modern Theonomists differ in semantics for one very important reason: they live in totally different historical circumstances.

The Reformers and Puritans lived in times when fanatical extremists wished to enforce the ENTIRE judicial law of Moses (which is a position Theonomy repudiates). Therefore, when I see a couple of quotes trotted out by Rutherford against Theonomy I shake my head at such blatant misrepresentation of Theonomic ethics. For instance, Rutherford does not believe that the death penalty for Sabbath violation is to be applied today, as one would have to become a debtor to the whole judicial law. However, Theonomy does not teach that one must uphold the entire judicial law. And it should be noted that both R.J. Rushdoony and Gary North employ similar arguments to Rutherford. Furthermore, it is common to see the quotes from some Reformers and Puritans who did not believe in restitution for theft; this was done because they did not believe that restitution could be applied outside Israel - which is Theonomic methodology, even though it is contrary to the conclusions reached by nearly all modern Theonomists.

Hence, the purpose of the Reformers and Puritans in their writings was to distinguish between which parts of the judicial law were binding and which were not in order to refute the extremists. Modern Theonomists, on the other hand, are not in the same historical situation. Instead, we live in days when Biblical standards of justice are cast down in the streets - even by those who claim to be Reformed. Therefore, in such a context, we emphasise the continuity between the Older and New Testaments rather than the discontinuity.

The failure to take on board differing historical contexts in which differing theological writers at different periods often causes much confusion. That is why certain scholars argue that John Calvin believed in universal atonement, because they take a statement which he makes prior to the Arminian controversy - that Calvinists living after the Arminian controversy would not use - and assume that Calvin is teaching something later Calvinists would disagree with. Thus a text, without a context, becomes a pretext.

This is the typical line of those who want to trumpet strict subscriptionism, but cut a wide swath for their own doctrinal eccentricities. It is precisely what Stephen Wilkins, in one of his former incarnations did. He thought the PCA had to be absolutely 6-24 on creation, but not punctiliar about Reconstructionism.

Let's face it: the divines could not have been Van Til-influenced theonomists because there was no Van Til. The divines uphold the Law in its right use, and with the proper three-fold division. To try to claim the WCF was a theonomic document is a chronological fallacy of the highest order.

So, you can disparage my learning all day long. It still will not change the fact that you are anything but a strict subscriptionist --you are only intolerant of other people's exceptions, while freely granting your own. Straining at gnats, and swallowing camels.

Brother, I did not claim to be a strict subscriptionist. I only protested about denominations which claim to hold to the WCF but in reality allow a multitude of exceptions.

You may not agree with my conclusions on Theonomy, but I have spent many months of my life researching this issue and have publicly documented my conclusions. You are free to disagree with my conclusions, however, your questioning of my sincerity is unbecoming of a minister of the gospel.

Well, before we throw the unbecoming a gospel minister charge out there, we ought carefully to consider whether or not your sincerity was questioned.

I went and re-read my posts again. Nowhere did I attempt to question your motive or sincerity. I do, however, see a convenient blind spot. That says nothing of your sincerity.

To be humble, we all have blind spots, and we all ought to want them pointed out to us.

I would expect a bit of a thicker skin in this debate. If you are going to be a provocateur, don't be shocked when people are provoked.

My point is: since the beginning, most theonomists have demanded that their position NOT be regarded as an exception, whilst demanding that anything but a 6-24 view be regarded as one. That is a convenient position to hold: again, allowing a wide swath for ones own novelties and innovations, and excluding a view with a far more ancient history in the church.

As far as theonomy not upholding the whole OT law --what about Bahnsen's definition of theonomy as upholding the law in exhaustive detail.?

 

[ADKing]

We all need to remember that the Standards are for the Church and are defined by the Church based on the Churches view of Scripture.

Well that's that problem: what is the "church"? The Bible never uses the word "Church" for a "denomination". A church in the NT is either: All believers living and dead (Eph. 5:25); (ii) Believers on earth (1 Cor. 15:9; Gal. 1:13); (iii) A local church (1 Cor. 1:2) or (iv) A gathered church (1 Cor. 14:28).

Hence, only part of the church (worldwide) wrote the WCF. This then gives a whole new definition of tradition.

As far as excluding good men from office, it should also be noted that no one puts a gun to anyones head telling them that they have to become an officer in a particular denomination. If a man can not in all good conscience subscribe under the parameters that the Church sets, he can go to another denomination that is less particular.

Well I struggle with this because it's erecting barriers amongst reformed Christians, particularly over issues upon which we're free to disagree. It seems to me to reflect the individualism of a post-enlightenment culture. If we're reformed brothers and sisters in Christ why are we creating barriers to meeting together or being associated institutionally? It's not up to a part of the reformed community to create their own little ghetto. We have to learn to get on with each other when we don't agree minor issues (but agree on the substantial issues). [I'm certainly not advocating a lowest common denominator form of Christianity--that's a disaster.]

It's often forgotten that the mainstream Puritans stayed in the national church as long as they could because they saw schism as such terrible thing. Dering, Cartwright, Chaderton, Perkins, Preston, Sibbes, didn't just run off and start a new denomination full of people who only agreed with them. They stayed in the institutional church because separating from other believers institutionally was serious. Christ's body is one, and we are not free to erect boundaries because we don't agree with another reformed Christian on absolutely everything.

I appreciate what you say. We desperately need more unity in the reformed world today. And I have indeed seen the problem you mention in real life, so I do not mean to say that it does not exist! But I am not sure I follow what seems to be the implication of what you are saying. Perhaps you could clarify? The divines at Westminster were not attempting to create "their own little ghetto" to exclude other reformed belivers. Instead, it was their stated purpose that their documents be the standards of a covenanted unity and uniformity in doctrine, discipline, worship and government. Surely this is a biblical and noble aim? Is your point that you believe that they included too much?

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Ken,
A moderator has already noted that Theonomy is off topic; and this has been almost debated on the board almost as much as exclusive psalmody (if that is possible). So, while I give you your right to clarify, let's not get the Theonomy topic going on this thread again; you may start a new one of course.

This is the typical line of those who want to trumpet strict subscriptionism, but cut a wide swath for their own doctrinal eccentricities. It is precisely what Stephen Wilkins, in one of his former incarnations did. He thought the PCA had to be absolutely 6-24 on creation, but not punctiliar about Reconstructionism.

Let's face it: the divines could not have been Van Til-influenced theonomists because there was no Van Til. The divines uphold the Law in its right use, and with the proper three-fold division. To try to claim the WCF was a theonomic document is a chronological fallacy of the highest order.

So, you can disparage my learning all day long. It still will not change the fact that you are anything but a strict subscriptionist --you are only intolerant of other people's exceptions, while freely granting your own. Straining at gnats, and swallowing camels.

Brother, I did not claim to be a strict subscriptionist. I only protested about denominations which claim to hold to the WCF but in reality allow a multitude of exceptions.

You may not agree with my conclusions on Theonomy, but I have spent many months of my life researching this issue and have publicly documented my conclusions. You are free to disagree with my conclusions, however, your questioning of my sincerity is unbecoming of a minister of the gospel.

Well, before we throw the unbecoming a gospel minister charge out there, we ought carefully to consider whether or not your sincerity was questioned.

I went and re-read my posts again. Nowhere did I attempt to question your motive or sincerity. I do, however, see a convenient blind spot. That says nothing of your sincerity.

To be humble, we all have blind spots, and we all ought to want them pointed out to us.

I would expect a bit of a thicker skin in this debate. If you are going to be a provocateur, don't be shocked when people are provoked.

My point is: since the beginning, most theonomists have demanded that their position NOT be regarded as an exception, whilst demanding that anything but a 6-24 view be regarded as one. That is a convenient position to hold: again, allowing a wide swath for ones own novelties and innovations, and excluding a view with a far more ancient history in the church.

As far as theonomy not upholding the whole OT law --what about Bahnsen's definition of theonomy as upholding the law in exhaustive detail.?

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

This is the typical line of those who want to trumpet strict subscriptionism, but cut a wide swath for their own doctrinal eccentricities. It is precisely what Stephen Wilkins, in one of his former incarnations did. He thought the PCA had to be absolutely 6-24 on creation, but not punctiliar about Reconstructionism.

Let's face it: the divines could not have been Van Til-influenced theonomists because there was no Van Til. The divines uphold the Law in its right use, and with the proper three-fold division. To try to claim the WCF was a theonomic document is a chronological fallacy of the highest order.

So, you can disparage my learning all day long. It still will not change the fact that you are anything but a strict subscriptionist --you are only intolerant of other people's exceptions, while freely granting your own. Straining at gnats, and swallowing camels.

Brother, I did not claim to be a strict subscriptionist. I only protested about denominations which claim to hold to the WCF but in reality allow a multitude of exceptions.

You may not agree with my conclusions on Theonomy, but I have spent many months of my life researching this issue and have publicly documented my conclusions. You are free to disagree with my conclusions, however, your questioning of my sincerity is unbecoming of a minister of the gospel.

Well, before we throw the unbecoming a gospel minister charge out there, we ought carefully to consider whether or not your sincerity was questioned.

I went and re-read my posts again. Nowhere did I attempt to question your motive or sincerity. I do, however, see a convenient blind spot. That says nothing of your sincerity.

To be humble, we all have blind spots, and we all ought to want them pointed out to us.

I would expect a bit of a thicker skin in this debate. If you are going to be a provocateur, don't be shocked when people are provoked.

My point is: since the beginning, most theonomists have demanded that their position NOT be regarded as an exception, whilst demanding that anything but a 6-24 view be regarded as one. That is a convenient position to hold: again, allowing a wide swath for ones own novelties and innovations, and excluding a view with a far more ancient history in the church.

As far as theonomy not upholding the whole OT law --what about Bahnsen's definition of theonomy as upholding the law in exhaustive detail.?

Brother, there has probably been some misunderstanding, so we will leave it at that. As for Bahnsen, well that is , but the Theonomic view is that the law continues except for what has been modified by later revelation or what cannot be applied outside Israel, which means that he does not believe that the entire OT law is binding today, though the law (general speaking) continues in exhaustative detail - as the footnotes of the WLC indicate. Although whether this is compatible with the WCF is a debate for another day.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Ken,
A moderator has already noted that Theonomy is off topic; and this has been almost debated on the board almost as much as exclusive psalmody (if that is possible). So, while I give you your right to clarify, let's not get the Theonomy topic going on this thread again; you may start a new one of course.

Brother, I did not claim to be a strict subscriptionist. I only protested about denominations which claim to hold to the WCF but in reality allow a multitude of exceptions.

You may not agree with my conclusions on Theonomy, but I have spent many months of my life researching this issue and have publicly documented my conclusions. You are free to disagree with my conclusions, however, your questioning of my sincerity is unbecoming of a minister of the gospel.

Well, before we throw the unbecoming a gospel minister charge out there, we ought carefully to consider whether or not your sincerity was questioned.

I went and re-read my posts again. Nowhere did I attempt to question your motive or sincerity. I do, however, see a convenient blind spot. That says nothing of your sincerity.

To be humble, we all have blind spots, and we all ought to want them pointed out to us.

I would expect a bit of a thicker skin in this debate. If you are going to be a provocateur, don't be shocked when people are provoked.

My point is: since the beginning, most theonomists have demanded that their position NOT be regarded as an exception, whilst demanding that anything but a 6-24 view be regarded as one. That is a convenient position to hold: again, allowing a wide swath for ones own novelties and innovations, and excluding a view with a far more ancient history in the church.

As far as theonomy not upholding the whole OT law --what about Bahnsen's definition of theonomy as upholding the law in exhaustive detail.?

Chris

Apologies; your comment was made before my last one was, so I did not see it before posting.

 

[wsw201]

Well that's that problem: what is the "church"? The Bible never uses the word "Church" for a "denomination". A church in the NT is either: All believers living and dead (Eph. 5:25); (ii) Believers on earth (1 Cor. 15:9; Gal. 1:13); (iii) A local church (1 Cor. 1:2) or (iv) A gathered church (1 Cor. 14:28).

Hence, only part of the church (worldwide) wrote the WCF. This then gives a whole new definition of tradition.

When I referred to the Church, I made the assumption that we were talking about the Reformed Churches since only the Reformed Churches would subscribe to the Standards or the 3FU (of which there isn't a dime worth of difference). My bad.

Well I struggle with this because it's erecting barriers amongst reformed Christians, particularly over issues upon which we're free to disagree. It seems to me to reflect the individualism of a post-enlightenment culture. If we're reformed brothers and sisters in Christ why are we creating barriers to meeting together or being associated institutionally? It's not up to a part of the reformed community to create their own little ghetto. We have to learn to get on with each other when we don't agree minor issues (but agree on the substantial issues). [I'm certainly not advocating a lowest common denominator form of Christianity--that's a disaster.]

I don't see that we are erecting barriers. We also have institutional associations. That's what NAPARC is all about. Regarding setting up a ghetto, I think you are stretching things a bit too far. Regarding minor issues, what are they? Is there an official list? Is it the Sacraments that separate Presbyterians from Baptist? Is it the ordination of women? The Standards are a summary of what Scripture teaches. Assuming that is true then what part of Scripture is a minor issue? Unfortunately this scenario has been played out through out the history of the church. Consider the situation of the PCUSA during the first part of the 20th century. They couldn't even agree on the fundementals, of which they came up with just 5!

It's often forgotten that the mainstream Puritans stayed in the national church as long as they could because they saw schism as such terrible thing. Dering, Cartwright, Chaderton, Perkins, Preston, Sibbes, didn't just run off and start a new denomination full of people who only agreed with them. They stayed in the institutional church because separating from other believers institutionally was serious. Christ's body is one, and we are not free to erect boundaries because we don't agree with another reformed Christian on absolutely everything.

True they didn't and many paid with their lives. Besides we are not talking about starting a new denomination but what do we expect from officers within existing denominations.

 

[ChristianTrader]

Actually the question is not the greater light since Warfield, Machen, Hodge, et. al; the question is what greater light did they have that overrode the overwhelming tradition before them.
CT

Dear CT, I don't think the tradition is as "overwhelming" as you say. For example, Anselm mentions that the Augustinian interpretation of Gen. 1-3 (not seeing the 6 days as literal) was the majority at his time. Moreover, as we move into the turn of the 19th century before Darwin the literal 6 24 hour day interpretation appears also to be in the vast minority.

How many OEC were there among the orthodox church tradition up till the 19th century?

If you have a hard time finding any, then how can you characterize the tradition as anything other than "overwhelming"?

It also seems that your phrasing of the issue is a bit misleading. The core of the YEC is that the world is young (It is not called 6-24 hour day creationism) If one wants to hold to the world being from 6-10k years old but also want to say that the day of Gen 1-3 could have been a little longer (For example Joshua's long day) or shorter than normal, you probably will not find that big of a deal with most YECers.

Warfield, Machen. and Hodge were neither stupid nor ungodly. Warfield, in my mind, has produced the definitive arguments on inerrancy. Hence, he was not cavalier with Scripture. We need very good reasons to dismiss these giants with such ease. They had very good reasons to believe what they did.

Great Church fathers that had problems with any number orthodox views were neither stupid nor ungodly. They were just wrong.

CT

 

[Steve Dixon]

Thank you all. Is it safe to say then that no presbytery in the PCA would allow a man considered for office to take an exception to the WCF where the extent of the atonement is concerned? I assume that would be a serious departure. Is that correct?

Steve, I've answered the question twice, and provided the source, and told you where you can request an email copy of the source. If you don't want to email the Stated Clerk's office the relevant section is

B. The Commission affirms the judgment of Eastern Carolina Presbytery in that Infant Baptism (WCF 28-4) and Limited Atonement (WCF 3-3, 8-5 and 11-4) are to be considered fundamentals of the system of doctrine and that there can be no exceptions given in the case of officers in the church.

Presbyteries don't have a choice in the matter. They have done this before, both in ignorance and wilfully, but a complaint to the Session will remedy the situation.

Thanks Tim. That citation is about as clear as it gets.

 

[JohnOwen007]

Dear CT, thanks for your response.

How many OEC were there among the orthodox church tradition up till the 19th century?

That's asking (in my mind) the wrong question. I care not for the age of the universe but what Genesis 1-2 actually says. The question is how many people read the opening chapters of Genesis as literal 24 hour days? In that case the tradition is far from overwhelming.

Great Church fathers that had problems with any number orthodox views were neither stupid nor ungodly. They were just wrong.

Well that doesn't really advance the discussion anywhere. The issue is whether we allow these people in a reformed Church.

Every blessing CT.

 

[JohnOwen007]

Dear Adam, thanks for your thoughtful response.

Perhaps you could clarify? The divines at Westminster were not attempting to create "their own little ghetto" to exclude other reformed belivers. Instead, it was their stated purpose that their documents be the standards of a covenanted unity and uniformity in doctrine, discipline, worship and government. Surely this is a biblical and noble aim? Is your point that you believe that they included too much?

Yes this is a biblical and noble aim and I agree. Yes, I believe they included too much and it's been the cause of all sorts of problems ever since. For example, the WCF ended up excluding a whole raft of giants like John Owen, John Goodwin, Philip Nye et. al.. They ended up writing another confession (the Savoy) to suit their beliefs. Shouldn't they've thought harder about how to get all these people together institutionally? Again, I'm not advocating lowest common denominator Christianity. Not at all. The unity of the church is incredibly important--something we find difficult to comprehend because of our post-enlightenment individualism.

Blessings brother.

 

[JohnOwen007]

When I referred to the Church, I made the assumption that we were talking about the Reformed Churches since only the Reformed Churches would subscribe to the Standards or the 3FU (of which there isn't a dime worth of difference).

Well I doubt we can say there isn't a dime worth of difference. The WCF codifies a part of the reformed tradition that had developed somewhat. A good example of this is federal theology. The 3FU are mono-covenantal the WCF is explicitly bi-covenantal.

Regarding minor issues, what are they?

I gave one quick example: the pope is the Antichrist.

A quick example for the Belgic confession: Paul wrote Hebrews.

Reformed believers should not be excluded from the reformed community if they deny any of the above.

Why can't we just take them out, and make strict subscription much easier?

 

[wsw201]

I gave one quick example: the pope is the Antichrist.

A quick example for the Belgic confession: Paul wrote Hebrews.

I don't know if you are aware of this but in the American Version of the Standards used by the PCA and OPC, the pope is the Antichrist is no longer there. (this goes to a previous post saying that if you don't like what the Standards say then change it.)

As far as the Belgic is concerned, I'm not in the URC or a denomination that holds to the 3FU, but I can't see anyone giving someone the boot for questioning Paul's authorship of Hebrews. I would classifiy this type of exception right there with the an exception to Chapter 1 of the WCF regarding the fact that the Scriptures were not only written in Hebrew and Greek but also Aramaic based on a couple of verses in Daniel.

Do you have any other ones?

 

[JohnOwen007]

I don't know if you are aware of this but in the American Version of the Standards used by the PCA and OPC, the pope is the Antichrist is no longer there. (this goes to a previous post saying that if you don't like what the Standards say then change it.)

I'm so glad to hear this, because it causes all sorts of problems over here in Australia.

Do you have any other ones?

That was not the direction of my original post and I'm not really interested in going through the WCF. The point at hand was over definition. For example, there are many reformed folks who can adhere to the 3FU but not the WCF (for example). I find this sad because these are reformed believers who have so much in common, who belong together, and who should be unified in keeping with who we are in Christ. The many reformed denominations we have is not in keeping with the original Puritan vision. Why is it that we're not working more at unity?

 

[MOSES]

I gave one quick example: the pope is the Antichrist..

I don't know if you are aware of this but in the American Version of the Standards used by the PCA and OPC, the pope is the Antichrist is no longer there. (this goes to a previous post saying that if you don't like what the Standards say then change it.)

The pope as the antichrist is a popular one that people recognize as being removed...but...a less common one is this:


Original:

Chapter 20 - IV. And because the powers which God hath ordained, and the liberty which Christ hath purchased, are not intended by God to destroy, but mutually to uphold and preserve one another; they who, upon pretence of Christian liberty, shall oppose any lawful power, or the lawful exercise of it, whether it be civil or ecclesiastical, resist the ordinance of God. And, for their publishing of such opinions, or maintaining of such practices, as are contrary to the light of nature, or to the known principles of Christianity, whether concerning faith, worship, or conversation; or, to the power of godliness; or, such erroneous opinions or practices, as either in their own nature, or in the manner of publishing or maintaining them, are destructive to the external peace and order which Christ hath established in the Church, they may lawfully be called to account, and proceeded against by the censures of the Church, and by the power of the civil magistrate.

American (OPC):

chap. 20 - 4. And because the powers which God hath ordained, and the liberty which Christ hath purchased, are not intended by God to destroy, but mutually to uphold and preserve one another, they who, upon pretense of Christian liberty, shall oppose any lawful power, or the lawful exercise of it, whether it be civil or ecclesiastical, resist the ordinance of God. And, for their publishing of such opinions, or maintaining of such practices, as are contrary to the light of nature, or to the known principles of Christianity (whether concerning faith, worship, or conversation), or to the power of godliness; or, such erroneous opinions or practices, as either in their own nature, or in the manner of publishing or maintaining them, are destructive to the external peace and order which Christ hath established in the church, they may lawfully be called to account, and proceeded against, by the censures of the church.

To some people this is not a minor change.

Sorry if this is off topic, I just wanted to point it out.

Note: Daniel Ritchie...What do you think of this "minor" change? Do you deal with this section of the confession in your new book at all?

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

I gave one quick example: the pope is the Antichrist..

I don't know if you are aware of this but in the American Version of the Standards used by the PCA and OPC, the pope is the Antichrist is no longer there. (this goes to a previous post saying that if you don't like what the Standards say then change it.)

The pope as the antichrist is a popular one that people recognize as being removed...but...a less common one is this:


Original:

Chapter 20 - IV. And because the powers which God hath ordained, and the liberty which Christ hath purchased, are not intended by God to destroy, but mutually to uphold and preserve one another; they who, upon pretence of Christian liberty, shall oppose any lawful power, or the lawful exercise of it, whether it be civil or ecclesiastical, resist the ordinance of God. And, for their publishing of such opinions, or maintaining of such practices, as are contrary to the light of nature, or to the known principles of Christianity, whether concerning faith, worship, or conversation; or, to the power of godliness; or, such erroneous opinions or practices, as either in their own nature, or in the manner of publishing or maintaining them, are destructive to the external peace and order which Christ hath established in the Church, they may lawfully be called to account, and proceeded against by the censures of the Church, and by the power of the civil magistrate.

American (OPC):

chap. 20 - 4. And because the powers which God hath ordained, and the liberty which Christ hath purchased, are not intended by God to destroy, but mutually to uphold and preserve one another, they who, upon pretense of Christian liberty, shall oppose any lawful power, or the lawful exercise of it, whether it be civil or ecclesiastical, resist the ordinance of God. And, for their publishing of such opinions, or maintaining of such practices, as are contrary to the light of nature, or to the known principles of Christianity (whether concerning faith, worship, or conversation), or to the power of godliness; or, such erroneous opinions or practices, as either in their own nature, or in the manner of publishing or maintaining them, are destructive to the external peace and order which Christ hath established in the church, they may lawfully be called to account, and proceeded against, by the censures of the church.

To some people this is not a minor change.

Sorry if this is off topic, I just wanted to point it out.

Note: Daniel Ritchie...What do you think of this "minor" change? Do you deal with this section of the confession in your new book at all?

I do deal with the American's omission of the Establishment Principle from the WCF in Chapter 3 of A Conquered Kingdom "National Confessionalism and the Establishment Principle". That particular clause is not considered, but my overall argument would have some bearing on it.

 

[MOSES]

I do deal with the American's omission of the Establishment Principle from the WCF in Chapter 3 of A Conquered Kingdom "National Confessionalism and the Establishment Principle". That particular clause is not considered, but my overall argument would have some bearing on it.

Thanks...

Is this book in stock and ready to ship? Can I order it directly from the Lulu web site and have it in a week or two do you know?

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

I do deal with the American's omission of the Establishment Principle from the WCF in Chapter 3 of A Conquered Kingdom "National Confessionalism and the Establishment Principle". That particular clause is not considered, but my overall argument would have some bearing on it.

Thanks...

Is this book in stock and ready to ship? Can I order it directly from the Lulu web site and have it in a week or two do you know?

Yes, you will get one a couple of weeks after you place the order.

 

[MOSES]

I just ordered it and I'm looking forward to the read.

 

[dannyhyde]

The 3FU are mono-covenantal the WCF is explicitly bi-covenantal.

Hello Marty,

This perked my ears. I think of know what you are talking about, but could you elaborate on what you mean by "mono-covenantal" and why you say such is the position of the 3FU?

I don't want to chime in until I am clear on what you are saying.

 

[wsw201]

The pope as the antichrist is a popular one that people recognize as being removed...but...a less common one is this:


Original:

Quote:
Chapter 20 - IV. And because the powers which God hath ordained, and the liberty which Christ hath purchased, are not intended by God to destroy, but mutually to uphold and preserve one another; they who, upon pretence of Christian liberty, shall oppose any lawful power, or the lawful exercise of it, whether it be civil or ecclesiastical, resist the ordinance of God. And, for their publishing of such opinions, or maintaining of such practices, as are contrary to the light of nature, or to the known principles of Christianity, whether concerning faith, worship, or conversation; or, to the power of godliness; or, such erroneous opinions or practices, as either in their own nature, or in the manner of publishing or maintaining them, are destructive to the external peace and order which Christ hath established in the Church, they may lawfully be called to account, and proceeded against by the censures of the Church, and by the power of the civil magistrate.

Good point. If I remember correctly, the issue of the civil magistrate was something that the Church of Scotland was not too thrilled with when the Standards were first ratified and allowed an exception for. Therefore it was changed in the American version to reflect this standard exception.

 

[Pilgrim]

Here is a concrete example. I recently attended a PCA presbytery meeting where two candidates were examined. One was a transfer from another presbytery and the other was for ordination. I'll note at the outset that the 2nd candidate that I discuss below probably wouldn't have gotten out of committee, much less been ordained by some PCA presbyteries. The PCA has much greater degree of diversity from presbytery to presbytery than many other confessionally Reformed churches.

The one who transferred said he was taking an exception on the Sabbath. I'm not sure what was determined in the end, but some of the elders expressed the opinion that this candidate's scruples were so minor that it may not be necessary for him to take an exception.

The candidate for ordination took 4 exceptions. These exceptions were the prohibition of depictions of Christ, the Sabbath, paedocommunion and the prohibition of marrying papists (WCF 24.3). Under further questioning he also stated that he didn't think the term evangelical in the BCO precluded Roman Catholics from partaking in communion in PCA churches since they "hold to the essentials of the faith." This man ministers in a city with probably one of the heaviest RC concentrations in the USA. Not being an elder nor a member of the presbytery, I wasn't privy to the discussions and votes in executive session, so I don't know what was decided regarding whether or not he could teach any or all of these exceptions. His ordination was approved by the overwhelming majority of elders present.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

It is unfortunate that they did ordain that gentlemen.