To PCA and OPC elders and deacons in particular

[Brian Withnell]

The PCA and OPC both use the revisions to the original confession which changed the civil magistrate section of the confession. The ordination vows taken (in the OPC at the least) include

Do you sincerely receive and adopt the Confession of Faith and Catechisms of this Church [emphasis added], as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures?

I have always taken the meaning of the bolded section to be the OPC (or PCA) church, as without context of the denomination the word "confession" is meaningless.
Given that the Confession of Faith and Catechisms of both include the revisions of the 18th century, and some slightly later revisions (e.g., marriage restrictions) I would presume those that hold to the original WCF would have had to take exception to the Confession of those denominations in all those instances in which the two differ before the court of the church of first jurisdiction (the session for ruling elders and deacons; presbytery for teaching elders).
I suppose this is for me a curiosity -- are those differences glossed over by the courts as being insignificant? Where restrictions on teaching (or preaching) those subjects placed on you? Did you make such a difference known to the court, or think there really are no differences in substance?

 

[Glenn Ferrell]

When I came into the OPC, I took exception to the alternative language of XXIII:iii, affirming rather the original 1646 version of that paragraph. The other changes in the confession are deletions rather than substitutions. For example, the American form no longer calls the pope the antichrist. I believe the pope is the antichrist, the man of sin and son of perdition spoken of in 2 Thessalonians 2. However, the OPC version no longer including this language does not necessitate my taking an exception there. I’m not restricted by the ordination vow from believing something which the Confession no longer says, something not affirmed or denied. The same may be said for the deletion in XXIV:iv.

 

[larryjf]

I asked about this before i went before Presbytery. The bottom line was that if i accepted the original Westminster Standards that i would have to make it known at the examination...then discussions about the differences would be examined by them. Some Elders are particularly sensitive to the idea that Original Westminster = Theonomy...and if they have issues with Theonomy it may be a problem for them.

 

[chbrooking]

That would be an interesting poll. Come to think of it, I'll bet there is a link between Original WCF and Theonomy. I'd never thought of it before. Is there a link? To be honest, I always thought of it as reverse chronological snobbery , not Theonomy.

 

[Jack K]

My session (I was a deacon) made no mention of any difference between versions of the Confession and it did not come up in my training. I think I can safely assume the differences were considered inconsequential. I'm pretty sure we were given a newer version of the Confession to study and examine. We were encouraged to state any exceptions to that Confession and our examinations dealt seriously with such issues. But the fact that a few changes had been made since the early days was not really on the radar.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

In my short experience few sessions I have dealt with are aware there were actually any changes to the Confession. I cannot tell you how many sessions I have talked with that were completely ignorant of 1789/1908 (or any other changes). They assumed the WCF in the ARP/PCA/EPC manual was written in 1646.

 

[larryjf]

Jack,
Since you were trained using the revised version of the Confession they would not even consider an issue. But if you had informed them that you agreed with the original Confession they may have had more questions to ask you in regards to it...especially as it relates to the the civil magistrate.

Consider WCF XX:4 in the original says that to correct those things against Christianity either the censures of the Church or the "power of the civil magistrate" should be used.

The revised WCF XX:4 does not include "the civil magistrate" part.

The original WCF XXIII:3 states thus of the civil magistrate, which the revision deletes...

he hath authority, and it is his duty, to take order, that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire, that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed, all corruptions and abuses of worship and discipline prevented or reformed, and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administered, and observed. For the better effecting whereof, he hath power to call synods, to be present at them, and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God

 

[py3ak]

That would be an interesting poll. Come to think of it, I'll bet there is a link between Original WCF and Theonomy. I'd never thought of it before. Is there a link? To be honest, I always thought of it as reverse chronological snobbery , not Theonomy.

I'm not so sure: are a lot of theonomists exclusive psalmodists?

 

[chbrooking]

???
I'm missing the link to EP. Enlighten me.

That would be an interesting poll. Come to think of it, I'll bet there is a link between Original WCF and Theonomy. I'd never thought of it before. Is there a link? To be honest, I always thought of it as reverse chronological snobbery , not Theonomy.

I'm not so sure: are a lot of theonomists exclusive psalmodists?

 

[py3ak]

Subscribers to the unrevised WCF would tend to be EP; if theonomists don't share that tendency, then the link between theonomy and the unrevised WCF is distinctly attenuated.

 

[Jack K]

Jack,
Since you were trained using the revised version of the Confession they would not even consider an issue. But if you had informed them that you agreed with the original Confession they may have had more questions to ask you in regards to it...especially as it relates to the the civil magistrate.

Consider WCF XX:4 in the original says that to correct those things against Christianity either the censures of the Church or the "power of the civil magistrate" should be used.

The revised WCF XX:4 does not include "the civil magistrate" part.

The original WCF XXIII:3 states thus of the civil magistrate, which the revision deletes...

he hath authority, and it is his duty, to take order, that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire, that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed, all corruptions and abuses of worship and discipline prevented or reformed, and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administered, and observed. For the better effecting whereof, he hath power to call synods, to be present at them, and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God

Yeah, I guess if I'd stood up and said I supported the original WFC on this matter someone on the session would've wondered if I was a tad nutty on the theocratic side. So maybe you're right. I might have been challenged. But I'm still guessing the main response would've been more like, "Look, that was changed and they surely had good reasons and our political situation now is totally different, so why are we splitting hairs over this? Let's talk about soteriology." Not that this is necessarily the best response. But having thought it over, I still think it's how most elders on that particular session would likely have responded.

 

[chbrooking]

Why is this the case, though? What in original helps the EP case, or what in the revisions works against EP?

Thanks

Subscribers to the unrevised WCF would tend to be EP; if theonomists don't share that tendency, then the link between theonomy and the unrevised WCF is distinctly attenuated.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

I was told by a couple men in presbytery when I first came under care, that you were allowed to subscribe to either the revised or the original WCF. But I could never find that in writing anywhere.

 

[Kevin]

Since no esition of the WCF requires EP, then no they wouldn't be.

 

[py3ak]

Why is this the case, though? What in original helps the EP case, or what in the revisions works against EP?

Thanks

Nothing either way, directly: it's just my observation of how the patterns tend to fall out. If you've come to embrace the original which, in some aspects, is hard for people in our times to do, it's probable that you have also embraced EP - though of course the revision does not overthrow EP in any way. This is just my observation, not any sort of statistical analysis.

 

[Glenn Ferrell]

Both original WCF and current OPC/PCA versions are identical in XXI:v concerning the content of sung praise in public worship:

"singing of psalms with grace in the heart..."

The Westminster Directory for the Public Worship of God demonstrates the original intent was Psalm or at least exclusive canonical content.

The difference now, at least in the OPC, is that that denominations's Directory of Worship seems to give a blanket exception to that clause permitting the singing of uninspired hymnody. Thus, I don't think taking an exception is required. But, I'm impressed when a candidate recognizes what the confession is actually saying there.

I believe the ordination vows of both OPC and PCA require one to state their position on the form of the Standards held by that denomination now. However, as I said above, one is not required to state a position in regard to what may have been deleted from the original. Exceptions would only be required if one has a problem with what the these Standards now say, including substituted phrases or paragraphs.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

Both original WCF and current OPC/PCA versions are identical in XXI:v concerning the content of sung praise in public worship:

"singing of psalms with grace in the heart..."

The Westminster Directory for the Public Worship of God demonstrates the original intent was Psalm or at least exclusive canonical content.

The difference now, at least in the OPC, is that that denominations's Directory of Worship seems to give a blanket exception to that clause permitting the singing of uninspired hymnody. Thus, I don't think taking an exception is required. But, I'm impressed when a candidate recognizes what the confession is actually saying there.

I believe the ordination vows of both OPC and PCA require one to state their position on the form of the Standards held by that denomination now. However, as I said above, one is not required to state a position in regard to what may have been deleted from the original. Exceptions would only be required if one has a problem with what the these Standards now say, including substituted phrases or paragraphs.

So if I was to say come before an OPC Presbytery I would need to say something like, "I take exception to the changed language of the Confession at these points...".

Correct?

 

[Glenn Ferrell]

Ben: You'd only need state an exception where you differ from the OPC form of the Confession.

Where something has been deleted from the original, which you still believe, there is no necessity for you to state your current belief unless asked.

One could be EP or non EP. EP is what both original and present confessions say. However, given the DoW of the OPC explicitly mentions the singing of hymns, but doesn't require such, I think this amounts to a blanket exception which one doesn't need state. However, this may be an issue you will be asked about.

Seems the primary issue where one might need to state an exception, assuming they hold the original, is on XXIII:iii.

This is the one exception I took. There were some questions, more to do with application of my views as a pastor, and a suggestion of something I might read regarding the American view. If he respondent shows humility and a willingness to consider and learn, I don't believe this is a problem. The presbytery can't very well call one a heretict who agrees with the Westminster Assembly and a number of churches with which we have fraternal relations (FCS, RPCI & RPCNA). I've met a couple other OP ministers who told me they took a similar exception, both of them were Scots.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

That makes sense. Thanks Rev. Ferrell!

Is an exception to XXIII:iii a stumbling block in some Presbyteries?

 

[Theoretical]

That makes sense. Thanks Rev. Ferrell!

Is an exception to XXIII:iii a stumbling block in some Presbyteries?

From what I've gathered from my pastor, such a candidate would likely get questions to see if he was theonomic or simply theocratic.

 

[Brian Withnell]

Glenn

Thanks for the responses. I can see how it worked with what you believe ... XXIII.iii seems to be the only place where there is a real sticking point, though I could see at least some might consider that not making known those items which you think should not have been deleted would be something less than transparent. It would seem to be that you know you disagree with the changes, and by way of what is not said saying as much as what is said, there is an implied exception. But I tend to think out loud more than most; I would want to advertise those "differences" to make sure there is agreement with a full and complete view of what I believe. But that is me.

---------- Post added at 09:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:16 PM ----------

In my short experience few sessions I have dealt with are aware there were actually any changes to the Confession. I cannot tell you how many sessions I have talked with that were completely ignorant of 1789/1908 (or any other changes). They assumed the WCF in the ARP/PCA/EPC manual was written in 1646.

That a session would not know there were changes would be distressing to me. Our training included a whole section of church history, and we were shown the changes put in place and examined those changes.

 

[Glenn Ferrell]

Brian: Officers are only responsible for what their official confession says. If they've read, understand and can truthfully subscribe, they've been faithful. Of course knowing that changes have been made and why is helpful.

I have no problem telling anyone I believe the pope is the antichrist. However, one certainly does not need to declare the fact in an ordination exam. The OPC/PCA Confession does not say the pope IS NOT the antichrist. So, one is free to believe he is or is not.

It is possible to say too much in an ordination exam. I've seen men dig a deeper hole for themselves the more they talked. I advise peple to answer questions concisely. If the examiners want more information, they can ask.

I don't see how anyone could get into trouble affirming the original of XXIII:iii, unless he did it in an arrogant manner or had weird applications as a pastor. For example, I was asked, "What if you had a county commissioner as a member of your church, who was asked to approve a construction permit for a Mormon chapel, what would you advise him?" My reply, "I assume he has taken an oath to uphold the US Constitution and the Constitution of the state of Idaho. In such case, he is bound by oath, and must obey or resign." Can't remember if I said it on the floor of presbytery; but, I have been known to tell people, my views do not mean I'm going to raise a Presbyterian militia, march on DC and demand the National Covenant be adopted.

I am not a theonomist or theocrat. Those terms are often misunderstood. The Westminster Standards are neither; and I simply affirm what is in the original Standards. If one is going to wave red flags, better be able to answer the resulting questions, showing you have thought out your views, or are unsure of some things and are willing to learn. Men who get into trouble are those who pretend to know more than they do, or lecture the court.

 

[dudley]

When I came into the OPC, I took exception to the alternative language of XXIII:iii, affirming rather the original 1646 version of that paragraph. The other changes in the confession are deletions rather than substitutions. For example, the American form no longer calls the pope the antichrist. I believe the pope is the antichrist, the man of sin and son of perdition spoken of in 2 Thessalonians 2. However, the OPC version no longer including this language does not necessitate my taking an exception there. I’m not restricted by the ordination vow from believing something which the Confession no longer says, something not affirmed or denied. The same may be said for the deletion in XXIV:iv.

When I made my public acclimation of faith as a Presbyterian I took exception to the alternative language of XXIII:iii, affirming rather the original 1646 version (WCF 1646)of that paragraph. I particularly took exception from the American revised Confession which no longer calls the pope the antichrist. I too believe the pope is the antichrist, the man of sin and son of perdition spoken of in 2 Thessalonians. It is also why as I have mentioned earlier in other posts that when I converted to the Presbyterian fold I openly renounced my former Roman Catholicism as well as the Pope, because I do believe that the papacy is an antichrist system and the pope is an antichrist.