Taking exception to the Westminster Confession of Faith

[drjean]

Not me, mind you. But in Reformed Presbyterianism there are allowances for a minister to take an "exception" to something in our creeds or confessions, book of order etc.

I take exception to that!

My church has just dissolved the relationship with the pastor, though the session said they had no argument with his theology, I sure did.

He has been there so long no one would recall if they had been notified of any of his "exceptions" and in fact, I will ask him tomorrow (his last day) if I get the chance.

He believes a person can give back their salvation. This, to me, is an exception to the Perseverance of the Saints...and direct conflict with Scripture such as in Romans that says nothing can separate us, and the verses of our being Sealed by the Holy Spirit until the day of Redemption.

He also preached that Pentecost was the beginning of the Church, which is also in conflict with Presbyterian beliefs (Acts 1).

There were other items over the months that I disagreed with him about... yet didn't have to take issue because the relationship was dissolved on other conflicts.

Do you think someone who disagrees with our basics of faith (essentials?) should be allowed to call themselves Presbyterian (especially when it is directly connected to a particular segment of Presbyterianism?)

I think eternal security of a believer is truly an Essential.

 

[Osage Bluestem]

Not me, mind you. But in Reformed Presbyterianism there are allowances for a minister to take an "exception" to something in our creeds or confessions, book of order etc.

I take exception to that!

My church has just dissolved the relationship with the pastor, though the session said they had no argument with his theology, I sure did.

He has been there so long no one would recall if they had been notified of any of his "exceptions" and in fact, I will ask him tomorrow (his last day) if I get the chance.

He believes a person can give back their salvation. This, to me, is an exception to the Perseverance of the Saints...and direct conflict with Scripture such as in Romans that says nothing can separate us, and the verses of our being Sealed by the Holy Spirit until the day of Redemption.

He also preached that Pentecost was the beginning of the Church, which is also in conflict with Presbyterian beliefs (Acts 1).

There were other items over the months that I disagreed with him about... yet didn't have to take issue because the relationship was dissolved on other conflicts.

Do you think someone who disagrees with our basics of faith (essentials?) should be allowed to call themselves Presbyterian (especially when it is directly connected to a particular segment of Presbyterianism?)

I think eternal security of a believer is truly an Essential.

I do not believe exceptions to the Westminster Confession should be allowed to teaching elders, ruling elders, or deacons.

I believe that exceptions to the confession should only be allowed to the laity.

 

[Iosias]

Do you think someone who disagrees with our basics of faith (essentials?) should be allowed to call themselves Presbyterian

I would say that yes, it is essential for ministers to have the right to take an "exception" to something in the Westminster Standards. These documents were written in 1649, we now live in 2013, and so there will be things that were believed in 1649 that we no longer believe for a variety of reasons. Michael Horton says, and I think correctly, that we must now move beyond the historic formularies, but nonetheless we must move through them. Each Presbytery ought be allowed to decide what type of subscription it requires, and whether the exceptions the minister takes is deemed acceptable.

 

[JM]

I'm pretty sure the OPC and ARP require full subscription to the Westminster Standards. What church body do you belong to?

 

[DanielRB]

I would say that yes, it is essential for ministers to have the right to take an "exception" to something in the Westminster Standards. These documents were written in 1649, we now live in 2013, and so there will be things that were believed in 1649 that we no longer believe for a variety of reasons. Michael Horton says, and I think correctly, that we must now move beyond the historic formularies, but nonetheless we must move through them. Each Presbytery ought be allowed to decide what type of subscription it requires, and whether the exceptions the minister takes is deemed acceptable.

While I do not hold to the Westminster Confession per se, I do not hold this reasoning is valid. Just because something is old doesn't make it untrue...and just because we don't believe in those things in 2013 doesn't make those "many reasons" valid. Talk about specific reasons why NOT to believe it, then we can have a discussion. Saying "it's old" as a reason to reject it is not logically valid.

 

[Iosias]

While I do not hold to the Westminster Confession per se, I do not hold this reasoning is valid. Just because something is old doesn't make it untrue...and just because we don't believe in those things in 2013 doesn't make those "many reasons" valid. Talk about specific reasons why NOT to believe it, then we can have a discussion. Saying "it's old" as a reason to reject it is not logically valid.

Daniel, two immediate issues: (1) Pope as Antichrist, and (2) six-day creationism. For both of these it would be legitimate for a minister to take exception for various reasons, modern scientific discoveries unavailable to those living in 1649 being one example. A more ecumenical age, being another. And so on and so forth.

Other legitimate exceptions would be (3) the Sabbath since many are now influenced by the Continental view, and (4) Justification in the light of the New Perspective on Pau, and (5) the application of the Regulative Principle of Worship.

It is important that we seek to interpret the documents in their original context; how many of us hold to an historicist interpretation of Revelation? Not many, and most who do do so because the Puritans and framers of the Westminster Standards did. The Standards were a product of their time and it is unreasonable to expect contemporary ministers to accept wholesale the theological views of theologians of the 1600s.

 

[Iosias]

John Frame:

The long-standing Reformed debate over the nature of subscription to confessions continued through the twentieth century. Reformed churches are traditionally confessional, requiring all officers (in some communions, all members) to pledge agreement with historic Reformed confessions, such as the Westminster Confession and Catechisms, the Belgic Confession, etc. The controversy over liberal theology convinced many conservatives that the confessions should be taken more seriously. Some warned, however, that there are dangers in a form of subscription that is too strict: If subscription means that one may never teach anything contrary to the confession, then, for all practical purposes the confessions are unamendable and are placed on the same level of authority as Scripture. Reformed theology embraces sola Scriptura and therefore must allow practical means by which the Bible can lead us to revise the confessions if need be.

Theologians have advocated different views of subscription, some more strict than others. In my judgment, this debate has focused too much on history, not enough on theology. It has stressed too much the attempt to define the historic view of American Presbyterianism, too little the theological question of what kind of subscription is desirable: both to maintain orthodoxy in the church and to maintain the supremacy of Scripture above all secondary standards.

 

[RINO 72]

I'm pretty sure the OPC and ARP require full subscription to the Westminster Standards. What church body do you belong to?

Same with the PCA I believe.

 

[Calvinist Dark Lord]

Not me, mind you. But in Reformed Presbyterianism there are allowances for a minister to take an "exception" to something in our creeds or confessions, book of order etc.

I take exception to that!

My church has just dissolved the relationship with the pastor, though the session said they had no argument with his theology, I sure did.

He has been there so long no one would recall if they had been notified of any of his "exceptions" and in fact, I will ask him tomorrow (his last day) if I get the chance.

He believes a person can give back their salvation. This, to me, is an exception to the Perseverance of the Saints...and direct conflict with Scripture such as in Romans that says nothing can separate us, and the verses of our being Sealed by the Holy Spirit until the day of Redemption.

He also preached that Pentecost was the beginning of the Church, which is also in conflict with Presbyterian beliefs (Acts 1).

There were other items over the months that I disagreed with him about... yet didn't have to take issue because the relationship was dissolved on other conflicts.

Do you think someone who disagrees with our basics of faith (essentials?) should be allowed to call themselves Presbyterian (especially when it is directly connected to a particular segment of Presbyterianism?)

I think eternal security of a believer is truly an Essential.

Jean, i am not subscribing to anything you may perceive as detrimental or insulting that i'm about to say to you. That is not my intention, so put the gun down.

First, i'm assuming RPCUS, a.k.a. "The Covenantors"...Correct? We have a lot of those congregations here in Western PA, and their seminary is in Pittsburgh. i've attended a few of them.

i'm in favour of denominations. i believe that independent church is an oxymoron, and my church is a member of a Presbyterian Denomination...just to get THAT out of the way.

The issue here isn't the confessions of your denomination or mine. Those things are sound to you, or you wouldn't be there.

The real problem, especially with Presbyterian Denominations of all stripes is that they've been locked into the so-called "Main Line Denomination" praxis when it comes down to how they conduct business.

It would seem to both you and me that if the denominations our congregations came out of were so aberrant so as to call for separation, then it follows that their business practices (Presbyteries, Committies, rules or order, etc) are also aberrant.

In other words, the Denominations (yours, and mine) still need to be reformed. That is keeping with the Reformation idea that the visible church is constantly reforming.

Oddly enough, the first --and so far, only-- person i'd ever heard make this point was John MacArthur.

Here is what really irritates me in my own denomination, and i would guess would also be true in yours...

IF that pastor had been discovered to be consuming alcoholic drinks (i'm assuming that the RPCUS still requires temperence from it's clergy), THEN they would have removed him from his position in a second, or not permitted his ministry in the RPCUS from the outset.

Of course they're correct to have their own rules of conduct, but why this is never applied to doctrine is a real mystery to me. After all, which is the real poison?

My last congregation had a pastor that subscribed to only three points of the TULIP. Certainly he should have been disqualified from the Pastoral office in my denomination on that basis alone.

Again, we need to reform our way of doing business in the governing of the church.

My suggestion is an ascending overture to the Presbytery (and then on to the Synod) requiring strict subscription of all Teaching and Ruling Elders before being installed into office...and then have the congregation(s) select Ruling Elders who will enforce the rule.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Not me, mind you. But in Reformed Presbyterianism there are allowances for a minister to take an "exception" to something in our creeds or confessions, book of order etc.

I take exception to that!

My church has just dissolved the relationship with the pastor, though the session said they had no argument with his theology, I sure did.

He has been there so long no one would recall if they had been notified of any of his "exceptions" and in fact, I will ask him tomorrow (his last day) if I get the chance.

He believes a person can give back their salvation. This, to me, is an exception to the Perseverance of the Saints...and direct conflict with Scripture such as in Romans that says nothing can separate us, and the verses of our being Sealed by the Holy Spirit until the day of Redemption.

He also preached that Pentecost was the beginning of the Church, which is also in conflict with Presbyterian beliefs (Acts 1).

There were other items over the months that I disagreed with him about... yet didn't have to take issue because the relationship was dissolved on other conflicts.

Do you think someone who disagrees with our basics of faith (essentials?) should be allowed to call themselves Presbyterian (especially when it is directly connected to a particular segment of Presbyterianism?)

I think eternal security of a believer is truly an Essential.

I agree, and although the Reformed faith is about all of Scripture, and all of life, I do believe the Five Points, including Perseverance of the Saints which is related to eternal security, are essential to all denominations which identify themselves with Calvinism. Stated differently, I do not believe there is such a thing as a "4 point Calvinist", anything less than Five is simply inconsistent, and contrary to the Reformed foundation that has been paved before us. Exceptions should be limited to certain aspects, secondary or non-essentials. Exceptions on essentials can only take us downward the liberal spiral.

 

[drjean]

Yes there are items that might be okay to take exception on--- but specifically mentioned was Perseverance of the saints... And as agreed to IT IS an essential to Presbyterianism!!! I cannot mind someone who unfortunately does not trust God at His Word, but you cannot be a Calvinist if you do not believe like one ... ROFL

The preacher just removed went from PCUSA to EPC. I am not sure when his beliefs were formed. His Anglican wife "received the Holy Spirit " from her elders at her church by laying on of hands....

 

[Iosias]

Doug Wilson on Perseverance of the Saints and Apostasy « The Federal Vision

 

[DanielRB]

Daniel, two immediate issues: (1) Pope as Antichrist, and (2) six-day creationism. For both of these it would be legitimate for a minister to take exception for various reasons, modern scientific discoveries unavailable to those living in 1649 being one example. A more ecumenical age, being another. And so on and so forth.

The fact that we might live in a "more ecumenical age" should have precisely zero bearing on whether or not the Pope is the antichrist or not. The fact that such a statement might be considered offensive is by not a logical standard to judge its validity.

Now, I may think such a claim is untrue; but "living in a more ecumenical age" is absolutely no reason to challenge an idea

Other legitimate exceptions would be (3) the Sabbath since many are now influenced by the Continental view, and (4) Justification in the light of the New Perspective on Pau, and (5) the application of the Regulative Principle of Worship.

Sure, new understandings and insights can be useful. But the fact that they are "new" does not make them more valid.

It is important that we seek to interpret the documents in their original context; how many of us hold to an historicist interpretation of Revelation? Not many, and most who do do so because the Puritans and framers of the Westminster Standards did. The Standards were a product of their time and it is unreasonable to expect contemporary ministers to accept wholesale the theological views of theologians of the 1600s.

Again, the "theological views of theologians of the 1600s" are neither more or less valid simply because they are old. To use the standard of age to render a viewpoint "inferior" is laughable.

 

[JM]

If I'm not mistaken some Presbyterian bodies have you subscribe to the Westminster Standards before you can become a member.

 

[Iosias]

Sure, new understandings and insights can be useful. But the fact that they are "new" does not make them more valid.

Have you read Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions?

 

[Calvinist Dark Lord]

Yes there are items that might be okay to take exception on--- but specifically mentioned was Perseverance of the saints... And as agreed to IT IS an essential to Presbyterianism!!! I cannot mind someone who unfortunately does not trust God at His Word, but you cannot be a Calvinist if you do not believe like one ... ROFL

The preacher just removed went from PCUSA to EPC. I am not sure when his beliefs were formed. His Anglican wife "received the Holy Spirit " from her elders at her church by laying on of hands....

Oh great, that's the last thing we need in the EPC, another squishy pastor.

i wish they'd learn that EPC does NOT stand for Everybody Please Come.

 

[drjean]

Thanks for all the great comments!

Yes, we did dissolve the relationship with this "squishy" preacher...but he remains in the EPC. Yes, he did come out of the PCUSA, which was always a bit "squishy" to me, coming from the PCA. He brought the church out of the PCUSA because of the homosexual issues... but I have NO idea why he chose EPC over something else (except PCA because so much of the church is run by the women--- which I fully believe could be changed since there are so many capable men who are sitting back and letting the women run it rather than fight them.)

What concerns me most now is not the minister who remains in the EPC now, but why the Session and Deacons did not have any theological issues with this man!!!

 

[Calvinist Dark Lord]

Thanks for all the great comments!

Yes, we did dissolve the relationship with this "squishy" preacher...but he remains in the EPC. Yes, he did come out of the PCUSA, which was always a bit "squishy" to me, coming from the PCA. He brought the church out of the PCUSA because of the homosexual issues... but I have NO idea why he chose EPC over something else (except PCA because so much of the church is run by the women--- which I fully believe could be changed since there are so many capable men who are sitting back and letting the women run it rather than fight them.)

What concerns me most now is not the minister who remains in the EPC now, but why the Session and Deacons did not have any theological issues with this man!!!

At the risk of going too far off topic, i can tell you as a 20 year member of the EPC that female Ruling or Teaching elders is NEITHER the norm of the denomination, nor the majourity report.

Your former pastor probably chose the EPC precisely because it is somewhat looser in what one must subscribe to. It is the same reason that many former PCUSA congregations have come over to the EPC rather than denominations such as the PCA, OPC or RPCUS.

It is my belief that eventually the EPC will have to tighten up it's standards, and give a sad farewell to those congregations and ministers who insist on creating controversy by taking no stand on important issues. Without that tightening, the EPC might as well become the PCUSA, because it will eventually have to tolerate more deviance from scripture and Reformed Theology.

 

[drjean]

Yes, thank you for that. Being female myself, and quite capable of leading worship, I would rather sit quietly and allow the men of God to be so lead.

Those reading are welcomed to pray for my congregation, and for what part I may play in either instruction, leadership, or the actual pulpit supply hunt. It could be I may be too dogmatic in my Presbyterian beliefs to be chosen to help. One lady on the worship committee had an absolute meltdown when I suggested an orderly one hour worship service for Sunday mornings...and changing the time to 11 am rather than 10:30 am as it will be easier to bring in the unchurched. In the meltdown another patted her on the back and said something about her "pentacostal background". Oh boy. God give me patience and grace in standing firm for the Reformed Theological foundations the church proclaims to hold! Needless to say, I added in two more hymns for her benefit to the mock up worship services I was asked to create for future use.

I wonder what exceptions to the Westminster Confession she--and other non-educated members--hold. This was another of my silent complaints about the former minister. He had dumbed down the potential new member class to a one hour paper session...and used Church of Christ materials! Of course, I only found these things out last fall...and was not silent before God. Perhaps my prayers added to the other members who saw the demise helped change things. wink wink. Anyway, there are many "members" who have no clue what Presbyterians believe, and I suspect plenty of "members" who are still lost in their sin having not found eternal life in Christ yet. Pray for me as I try to find a suitable course of direction (and charm to present) for this church. (It isn't nice to suggest that church members aren't really who they think they are....is it?)

I wonder how involved I can personally be with the Presbytery at this point. It could be he has tainted them against us...but I pray they are far more discerning than he may have thought.