The PCA, Subscription and the Creation Week

rmwilliamsll · Mar 30, 2006

Trying to bring several pieces of the current discussion together.

It is not my desire to see the PCA divide. To date, I have not felt compelled by my conscience to leave over any of the positions taken by the PCA, though I do believe she has been in error on a number of occasions.

For example, to say that four different understandings of the length of the days of creation are equally valid seems to me to be an untenable position. Each of the views rejects the others. How can they all be correct? Further, it is clear from the historical evidence found to date that the members of the Westminster Assembly held to the twenty-four hour day position. For an Assembly to ignore the facts brought to it and to say that all four of the views are in accord with the Standards is very difficult to understand, to say the least. I can live with this, since it was only an "in thesi" statement of one Assembly, and thus not binding upon the lower courts. It is this kind of equivocating action voted by the majority of an Assembly that raises questions about the integrity of men who profess adherence to the Presbyterian Confession and Catechisms, but who appear not to act in accord with those Standards. The feeling of a lack of integrity is not just regarding the Standing Judicial Commission, as Dr. Pipa suggests, but of the leadership in a number of the Assembly agencies, and of the "loose" majority in Assemblies.

from: http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=23068781&postcount=5

Creation. There is no other teaching in Scripture that is more foundational and central to the remainder of Holy Scripture and Biblical Christianity than creation. The RPCUS clearly has taken its stand with the Westminster Standards. The Bible teaches that God created the heavens and the earth in the space of six days [six twenty-four hour days] and rested on the Sabbath day [seventh day], thereby instituting the Sabbath day and declaring it very good. What difference does it make? The seeds of neo-orthodoxy are found in the accommodating views that we see today such as: the day age theory, gap theory, and the poetic view of creation. These views cuddle up to an evolutionary view of origins and make room for interpretations of Scripture that do violence to the Bible's own interpretation of itself. It is the chief tool of neo-orthodoxy to take the Word of God and make it say something that it really doesn't say or mean. By this contorted method of hermeneutics, which is the kingpin of neo-orthodoxy, such issues as homosexuality and abortion have been championed and legitimized in our culture. This same method of interpreting the Scripture has been used to deny such cardinal doctrines as the virgin birth and the bodily resurrection of Christ. The very seeds of apostasy and unbelief are being sown and nurtured in my own denomination today. Man after man comes up to me and says, "Well now, Henry, I personally believe in the twenty-four hour day, but you just can't force that view. Scripture just isn't clear and just doesn't say." I want to be part of a denomination that is willing to take a stand on what the Bible clearly teaches regardless of its popularity.

from: http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=23062841&postcount=42

It is not my intention, nor interest here in discussing the proof for various views of the Creation Week in Gen 1. That rightfully belongs on the two forums designated for it.

However what is important is a meta discussion of the topic. That is how does the Church discuss the topic. In particular, how does the PCA settle it's collective mind on the issue and how this relates to our standards.

1-The first problem is with subscription. How to subscribe and what it means to subscribe to the confession is itself not part of the confession.

2-there is no process to amend the confession.

3-the confession itself recognizes that it is wrong in places and rightfully points out that Scripture alone is authoritative. the confession is a secondary level document.

4-least anyone not know, the whole issue of the Creation Week and science really starts in the mid 18thC, 100 years after the writing of the Confession. Those writers did not know about the data to burst upon the scene with the geological studies in England demonstrating to the satisfaction of almost all Christians by 1850 that the earth was several million years old, not 6K.

Ussher does his work on geneologies in the late 17thC so he too postdates the Confession.

So the issue, here to me, is how does the Church, as a confessional church respond to data that most people accept changes the standard interpretation of Gen 1?

HamletsChoice · Mar 30, 2006

rmwilliamsll said:
Trying to bring several pieces of the current discussion together...

1-The first problem is with subscription. How to subscribe and what it means to subscribe to the confession is itself not part of the confession.

2-there is no process to amend the confession.

3-the confession itself recognizes that it is wrong in places and rightfully points out that Scripture alone is authoritative. the confession is a secondary level document.

4-least anyone not know, the whole issue of the Creation Week and science really starts in the mid 18thC, 100 years after the writing of the Confession. Those writers did not know about the data to burst upon the scene with the geological studies in England demonstrating to the satisfaction of almost all Christians by 1850 that the earth was several million years old, not 6K.

Ussher does his work on geneologies in the late 17thC so he too postdates the Confession.

So the issue, here to me, is how does the Church, as a confessional church respond to data that most people accept changes the standard interpretation of Gen 1?

It is indeed your intention to again debate the Creation week here. Your post demonstartes that, and of course there's no problem debating it but debating it you are with stmt's like "all this evidence bursting on the scene, demonstrating to almost 'all' Christians that the Earth is millions of years old."

There is no eveidence to the Earth being millions of years old, none!

The so-called "evidence" is merely conjecture and extrapulation by proponents of an anti-Christian worldview to support their faith that God doesn't exist and/or in evolution, and by some Christians who don't want to be "caught not seeing the Emperor's clothes."

Presbyterians strict subscription to the WCF should only be required as it complies with the teaching of Scripture, but when it does comply with the plain teaching of Scripture it should be strictly adhered to. The Scriptures plainly teach that God created all creation in the "mornings and evenings of six days."

There should be no amendments to this teaching, it should be simply believed. I believe this is a central problem with the PCA today, the willingness to "amend."

Jon_ · Mar 30, 2006

rmwilliamsll said:
It is not my intention, nor interest here in discussing the proof for various views of the Creation Week in Gen 1. That rightfully belongs on the two forums designated for it.

However what is important is a meta discussion of the topic. That is how does the Church discuss the topic. In particular, how does the PCA settle it's collective mind on the issue and how this relates to our standards.

1-The first problem is with subscription. How to subscribe and what it means to subscribe to the confession is itself not part of the confession.

2-there is no process to amend the confession.

3-the confession itself recognizes that it is wrong in places and rightfully points out that Scripture alone is authoritative. the confession is a secondary level document.

4-least anyone not know, the whole issue of the Creation Week and science really starts in the mid 18thC, 100 years after the writing of the Confession. Those writers did not know about the data to burst upon the scene with the geological studies in England demonstrating to the satisfaction of almost all Christians by 1850 that the earth was several million years old, not 6K.

Ussher does his work on geneologies in the late 17thC so he too postdates the Confession.

So the issue, here to me, is how does the Church, as a confessional church respond to data that most people accept changes the standard interpretation of Gen 1?

I think you really answered your own question if we refer back to #3. The Bible teaches that God created everything in the space of six days. There are no hermeneutical reasons to think that these were not literal, 24-hour days. The only way the text can say anything different is to read empirical science into the text.

The evolutionary view of Gen. 1 has no biblical support. It is for this reason that it is rejected by orthodox Presbyterians.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

rmwilliamsll · Mar 30, 2006

HamletsChoice said:
It is indeed your intention to again debate the Creation week here. Your post demonstartes that, and of course there's no problem debating it but debating it you are with stmt's like "all this evidence bursting on the scene, demonstrating to almost 'all' Christians that the Earth is millions of years old."

There is no eveidence to the Earth being millions of years old, none!

The so-called "evidence" is merely conjecture and extrapulation by proponents of an anti-Christian worldview to support their faith that God doesn't exist and/or in evolution, and by some Christians who don't want to be "caught not seeing the Emperor's clothes."

Presbyterians strict subscription to the WCF should only be required as it complies with the teaching of Scripture, but when it does comply with the plain teaching of Scripture it should be strictly adhered to. The Scriptures plainly teach that God created all creation in the "mornings and evenings of six days."

There should be no amendments to this teaching, it should be simply believed. I believe this is a central problem with the PCA today, the willingness to "amend."

i've got plenty of opportunties to discuss the CED issues elsewhere. What is lacking in my development on the topic is the ability to discuss the issues with respect to subscription. I don't understand why you would deny that motivation. The "meta" issues of the CED debate and how the PCA is going to interact with science over the generations is far more important than the specifics of the CED debate.

The issue of subscription, of what it means to subscribe to the confession, especially in the face of changing interpretations of Scripture over the generations can only be done in a forum such as this. I've broached the subject of things like Sabbatarianism on the origins board here and at TWEb and the universal response is complete ignorance.

I've been working on the issues for years, i don't need another CED debate, what i need to understand is the underlying ideas expressed in the two pieces i quoted above. How does science influence and modify our theology? What are the ground rules, the metaphysics of the discussion?

Presbyterians strict subscription to the WCF should only be required as it complies with the teaching of Scripture, but when it does comply with the plain teaching of Scripture it should be strictly adhered to. The Scriptures plainly teach that God created all creation in the "mornings and evenings of six days."

There should be no amendments to this teaching, it should be simply believed. I believe this is a central problem with the PCA today, the willingness to "amend."

this is what i am interested in understanding. AFAIK there is NO route to amend the Confession, there is no mechanism in the Confession to amend it, and there is no definition of what it means to subscribe to it.

Presbyterians strict subscription to the WCF should only be required as it complies with the teaching of Scripture, but when it does comply with the plain teaching of Scripture it should be strictly adhered to. The Scriptures plainly teach that God created all creation in the "mornings and evenings of six days."

There should be no amendments to this teaching, it should be simply believed. I believe this is a central problem with the PCA today, the willingness to "amend."

the one thing obvious about the discussion, if anything is, is that it is NOT plain, that there is controversy over the topic, that it is the subject of ordination examinations, that it is a discussion in the church. To assert that it is plain and simply to be believed is not going to fix the problems with the fracturing of unity over the relationship of science to our theology. the discussion is not going to go away. almost all of the big socially divisive issues in our society have their basis in science, abortion, euthenasia, reproductive technologies, etc. and the big one, the technological increase in life spans is just around the corner. All of these will and do build on the issues discussed in the CED debate.

HamletsChoice · Mar 30, 2006

rmwilliamsll said:
Presbyterians strict subscription to the WCF should only be required as it complies with the teaching of Scripture, but when it does comply with the plain teaching of Scripture it should be strictly adhered to. The Scriptures plainly teach that God created all creation in the "mornings and evenings of six days."

There should be no amendments to this teaching, it should be simply believed. I believe this is a central problem with the PCA today, the willingness to "amend."

the one thing obvious about the discussion, if anything is, is that it is NOT plain, that there is controversy over the topic, that it is the subject of ordination examinations, that it is a discussion in the church. To assert that it is plain and simply to be believed is not going to fix the problems with the fracturing of unity over the relationship of science to our theology. the discussion is not going to go away. almost all of the big socially divisive issues in our society have their basis in science, abortion, euthenasia, reproductive technologies, etc. and the big one, the technological increase in life spans is just around the corner. All of these will and do build on the issues discussed in the CED debate.

Youre mistaken, the one thing that is obvious about this discussion is that the Scriptures plainly teach that God created everything in the morning and evening of six days. Faith in the plain teaching of Scripture does fix things.

What complicates things is to adopt the indoctrination of godless atheists in attempt to fit in with the worlds way of thinking and then to ask and teach Christians to amend.

rmwilliamsll · Mar 30, 2006

HamletsChoice said:
You’re mistaken, the one thing that is obvious about this discussion is that the Scriptures plainly teach that God created everything in “the morning and evening of six days.” Faith in the plain teaching of Scripture does “fix things.”

What complicates things is to adopt the indoctrination of godless atheists in attempt to “fit in” with the world’s way of thinking and then to ask and teach Christians “to amend.”

Description of Poisoning the Well

This sort of "reasoning" involves trying to discredit what a person might later claim by presenting unfavorable information (be it true or false) about the person. This "argument" has the following form:

1. Unfavorable information (be it true or false) about person A is presented.
2. Therefore any claims person A makes will be false.

This sort of "reasoning" is obviously fallacious. The person making such an attack is hoping that the unfavorable information will bias listeners against the person in question and hence that they will reject any claims he might make. However, merely presenting unfavorable information about a person (even if it is true) hardly counts as evidence against the claims he/she might make. This is especially clear when Poisoning the Well is looked at as a form of ad Homimem in which the attack is made prior to the person even making the claim or claims.

from: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/poisoning-the-well.html

it is also the error of the double question.
akin to "when did you stop beating your wife" or "can i open your truck, what do you have to hide?"

the exact formulation is:
"why are you asking this question, for only atheists ask it?

the proper response appears to be:
this is a discussion forum, i come here to discuss and to learn, and these logical errors both defeat this purpose and are fundamentally unanswerable thus ending the conversation before it even begins, furthermore i either hoped for or expected more from this particular forum and the people who attend to it.

HamletsChoice · Mar 30, 2006

rmwilliamsll said:
from: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/poisoning-the-well.html

it is also the error of the double question.
akin to "when did you stop beating your wife" or "can i open your truck, what do you have to hide?"

the exact formulation is:
"why are you asking this question, for only atheists ask it?

the proper response appears to be:
this is a discussion forum, i come here to discuss and to learn, and these logical errors both defeat this purpose and are fundamentally unanswerable thus ending the conversation before it even begins, furthermore i either hoped for or expected more from this particular forum and the people who attend to it.

No, your question is how do we go about amending the WCF? As if it needs amending. You are the one begging the question. We are simply sticking to Orthodoxy by believing in six-day creation and trusting God,

HEB 11:3 ¶ By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible.

rmwilliamsll · Mar 30, 2006

HamletsChoice said:
No, your question is how do we go about amending the WCF? As if it needs amending. You are the one begging the question. We are simply sticking to Orthodoxy by believing in six-day creation and trusting God,

HEB 11:3 ¶ By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible.

IV. All synods or councils, since the apostles' times, whether general or particular, may err; and many have erred. Therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith, or practice; but to be used as a help in both.[5]

WCF 31:4

II. As magistrates may lawfully call a synod of ministers and other fit persons to consult and advise with about matters of religion; so, if magistrates be open enemies of the Church, the ministers of Christ, of themselves, by virtue of their office, or they, with other fit persons, upon delegation from their churches, may meet together in such assemblies.

WCF 31:2 1647

V. The purest Churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error: and some have so degenerated as to become apparently no Churches of Christ. Nevertheless, there shall be always a Church on earth, to worship God according to his will.

WCF 25:5

IV. Marriage ought not to be within the degrees of consanguinity or affinity forbidden in the Word; nor can such incestuous marriages ever be made lawful by any law of man, or consent of parties, so as those persons may live together, as man and wife. The man may not marry any of his wife's kindred nearer in blood than he may of his own, nor the woman of her husband's kindred nearer in blood than of her own.

WCF 24:4 1647

it has been adopted in amended form on at least 3 different occasions in the American Presbyterian churches.
yet no amendment route is specified in the WCF unlike the process of amendment for the US Constitution.

HamletsChoice · Mar 30, 2006

rmwilliamsll said:
WCF 31:4

Exodus 20:11

Jon_ · Mar 30, 2006

rmwilliamsll said:
the one thing obvious about the discussion, if anything is, is that it is NOT plain, that there is controversy over the topic, that it is the subject of ordination examinations, that it is a discussion in the church. To assert that it is plain and simply to be believed is not going to fix the problems with the fracturing of unity over the relationship of science to our theology. the discussion is not going to go away. almost all of the big socially divisive issues in our society have their basis in science, abortion, euthenasia, reproductive technologies, etc. and the big one, the technological increase in life spans is just around the corner. All of these will and do build on the issues discussed in the CED debate.

I believe I understand where you are coming from on this issue.

The Bible teaches us that all men err and tradition (we carefully consider its non-binding implications here) teaches us that congregations have historically decided how much error they have been willing to accept in their leadership. Sadly, many churches today will accept a considerable deal of error before rejecting a pastor. Many congregations have become very superficial, looking for a pastor that will bring exciting programs and high attendance numbers, rather than sound doctrine.

Nevertheless, when it comes to matters of interpretation, the Confession speaks very clearly.

WCF 1:9 said:
The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.

Neither the Bible nor the Confession teach an evolutionary origins doctrine.

But that was only part of the topic. You raised another very good point concerning what it means to subscribe to the Confession. I consider subscription to be belief that the Confession rightly and properly summarizes the basic biblical doctrines that Christians ought to believe. Now, naturally, being a man-made document, it is subject to error. For that reason, we say that belief in the Confession is belief in the spirit of it, rather than the letter of it. The Confession itself denies that it should be used as a letter-by-letter document of authority where strict interpretation is necessary. Instead, it sends us back to the Scriptures (1:10), from which it presumes to base its doctrines. Subscribing to the Confession means believing the Confession does derive its teaching from the Scripture and that its doctrines are correct in spirit, if not in letter.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

rmwilliamsll · Mar 30, 2006

But that was only part of the topic. You raised another very good point concerning what it means to subscribe to the Confession. I consider subscription to be belief that the Confession rightly and properly summarizes the basic biblical doctrines that Christians ought to believe. Now, naturally, being a man-made document, it is subject to error. For that reason, we say that belief in the Confession is belief in the spirit of it, rather than the letter of it. The Confession itself denies that it should be used as a letter-by-letter document of authority where strict interpretation is necessary. Instead, it sends us back to the Scriptures (1:10), from which it presumes to base its doctrines. Subscribing to the Confession means believing the Confession does derive its teaching from the Scripture and that its doctrines are correct in spirit, if not in letter.

there are two big issues in how discussions like creation week or ordination of women relate to the confession.

creation week works by trying to amend the confession. ordination of women operates by trying to add to the confession, in particular to add a clause that prohibits ordinance of women.

but in either case. not only is the confession unamendable in its current form. it has been amended in the past, i quoted the several relevant sections earlier. the whole issue of subscription itself does not appear in the confession, the confession simply does not say how to subscribe to it.

both of these are critical issues to even start the meta discussion of how to discuss these issues.

if stricter, phrase by phrase type of subscription is in mind, a TE can not even broach the subject of creation week for to do so is to violate the subscription by questioning the clause on 6 day creation.

likewise no one can insist that women not be ordained because there isn't a clause in the confession prohibiting it. since no route of amendment exists, there is no way to introduce the topic......

take your favorite issue, or historical issues, the only way they can effect the confession is to de facto modify the major interpretation of the confession.

HamletsChoice · Mar 30, 2006

rmwilliamsll said:
it has been adopted in amended form on at least 3 different occasions in the American Presbyterian churches.

yet no amendment route is specified in the WCF unlike the process of amendment for the US Constitution.

But the WCF is not the sole constitution of the PCA Church. The PCA Book of Church Order defines the PCA constitution as follows:

"III. THE CONSTITUTION DEFINED

The Constitution of the Presbyterian Church in America, which is subject to and subordinate to the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, the inerrant Word Of God, consists of its doctrinal standards set forth in the Westminster Confession of Faith, together with the Larger and Shorter Catechisms, and the Book of Church Order, comprising the Form of Government, the Rules of Discipline and the Directory for Worship; all as adopted by the Church."

Now the Book of Church Order is amendable and has been amended. And it speaks in detail of the ordination of ministers and elders and thank God it plainly states that the offices of elder and deacon, "are open to men only." I mean, that is, if that's considered "plainly stated" enough for you. It is important to note that this provision has never been nor apparently ever needed even consideration of amendment.

So the PCA doesn't need to heed your urgent call to find a way to amend the WCF to prevent the ordination of women, although I'm sure that is a very pressing issue for you right now.

It's already in their constitution!

Now as far as amending the WCF to allow the anti-Scriptural doctrine of theistic evolution, there is no process nor should there ever be a process for amending truth, because the Scriptures plainly teach the revealed truth "that everything that is created was created out of nothing and not out of something" unlike the teaching of evolution.

HEB 11:3 ¶ By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible.

We shouldn't leave room for amending important biblical doctrines like the Divinity of Christ, the Virgin Birth, Christ's Miracles, the Inerrancy of the Bible, or Creation. Some things are just not amendable, kinda like your analogy to political documents, like how the Declaration of Independence statement that "all men are created equal," that should never be amended, right?

Jon_ · Mar 30, 2006

rmwilliamsll said:
there are two big issues in how discussions like creation week or ordination of women relate to the confession.

creation week works by trying to amend the confession. ordination of women operates by trying to add to the confession, in particular to add a clause that prohibits ordinance of women.

but in either case. not only is the confession unamendable in its current form. it has been amended in the past, i quoted the several relevant sections earlier. the whole issue of subscription itself does not appear in the confession, the confession simply does not say how to subscribe to it.

both of these are critical issues to even start the meta discussion of how to discuss these issues.

if stricter, phrase by phrase type of subscription is in mind, a TE can not even broach the subject of creation week for to do so is to violate the subscription by questioning the clause on 6 day creation.

likewise no one can insist that women not be ordained because there isn't a clause in the confession prohibiting it. since no route of amendment exists, there is no way to introduce the topic......

take your favorite issue, or historical issues, the only way they can effect the confession is to de facto modify the major interpretation of the confession.

I suppose I don't quite understand your follow-up here. The question of the ordination of women certainly can be resolved based on the articles of the Confession. In this particular case, 1:10 points us back to Scripture. And Scripture says, "But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence" (1 Timothy 2:12 KJV).

Now, if you're questioning on what basis we can infer that 1:10 directs us to Scripture (that is, questioning the very validity of inferring the correct meaning from a statement) then you certainly are addressing a much more difficult question. As yet, I have never read anything that even began to demonstate how it is possible to validly infer a particular meaning from any proposition without arguing in a circle. Meaning appears to be totally a priori despite the apparent a posteriori faculty by which we seem to acquire it. Such a problem really only has philosophical significance, though, so I'm assuming we're talking about something else.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

rmwilliamsll · Mar 30, 2006

Some things are just not amendable

but the confession has been amended, at least 3 times in the US. i marked the sections i am aware of above.

the interpretation of the confession has changed as well. the term inerrant has been substituted for the term infallible, for one example.

my interest is in understanding how the discussion of these issues can arise in a confessional church where amending the confession is not possible nor is the basic rules governing subscription not written into the confession either.

HamletsChoice · Mar 30, 2006

rmwilliamsll said:
Some things are just not amendable

but the confession has been amended, at least 3 times in the US. i marked the sections i am aware of above.

the interpretation of the confession has changed as well. the term inerrant has been substituted for the term infallible, for one example.

my interest is in understanding how the discussion of these issues can arise in a confessional church where amending the confession is not possible nor is the basic rules governing subscription not written into the confession either.

The PCA seems to provide for amendment by using all the PCA's constitution and amending the Book of Church Order by proper provision, but you seek to amend the truth of Creation for which there is no provision. But you don't like the PCA amendment process through the Book of Church Order. You seek to amend the WCF to restrict the ordination of women just to demonstrate the WCF needs to and can be amended. Then you will use this opportunity to seek amendment to allow for your ungodly doctrine of evolution and another will use it to deny the Deity of Christ and another the Virgin of Birth. No wonder you have been struggling so long, you are trying to amend truth, the unamendable.

You seek to amend the Declaration of Independence crying out "it needs amendment, it's man made!!" When all it declares is truth needing no amendment.

Truth is not amendable.

Jon_ · Mar 31, 2006

rmwilliamsll said:
Some things are just not amendable

but the confession has been amended, at least 3 times in the US. i marked the sections i am aware of above.

the interpretation of the confession has changed as well. the term inerrant has been substituted for the term infallible, for one example.

my interest is in understanding how the discussion of these issues can arise in a confessional church where amending the confession is not possible nor is the basic rules governing subscription not written into the confession either.

The Westminster Confession of Fatih has never been amended. It has been altered and rewritten and made into an inferior document on more than one occasion, though.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

HamletsChoice · Mar 31, 2006

Jon_ said:
The Westminster Confession of Fatih has never been amended. It has been altered and rewritten and made into an inferior document on more than one occasion, though.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

We still hold to the original in our denomination.

Jon_ · Mar 31, 2006

HamletsChoice said:
We still hold to the original in our denomination.

I only wish more denominations did, brother.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

HamletsChoice · Mar 31, 2006

Jon_ said:
I only wish more denominations did, brother.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

Me too!

rmwilliamsll · Mar 31, 2006

ok.
say the PCA held to the 1647.
and there was a group of pastor's who wanted to delete the phrase on making the limits of consanguinity equal to the limits of affinity and remove the penalities for it as practiced in the past.

since subscription standards are not part of the WCF, how do they express their disagrement with the standards without violating their subscription? without a clear route to amend the confession, how can the discussion even begin, what is it that those pastor's are asking for, being as amendments are not setup?

or take the erastian features of the 1647 confession. President Bush calls for a church wide council to write a new Christian Constitution and uses the clause in the confession to compel the Presbyterians to attend. what is the response from this imaginary 1647 subscribing to PCA?

it is this level of metadiscussions that i am curious about. not the details of the particular issues, but how can the discussions even occur?

The PCA, Subscription and the Creation Week

avid reader

HamletsChoice

Guest

Senior Veteran

avid reader

HamletsChoice

Guest

avid reader

HamletsChoice

Guest

avid reader

HamletsChoice

Guest

Senior Veteran

avid reader

HamletsChoice

Guest

Senior Veteran

avid reader

HamletsChoice

Guest

Senior Veteran

HamletsChoice

Guest

Senior Veteran

HamletsChoice

Guest

avid reader

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency