Comments on: When the Exception Becomes the Rule: An Observation from the Recent PCA General Assembly

By: Jim Cassidy

Jim Cassidy — Tue, 20 Jun 2017 21:11:01 +0000

Andy – then in that case the church has already surrendered the regulative principle. Why would any believe that images of Christ are allowable but not required if they believe in the RPW?

By: Shay Fout (a ruling elder in PCA Ohio Valley Presbytery)

Shay Fout (a ruling elder in PCA Ohio Valley Presbytery) — Tue, 20 Jun 2017 01:55:11 +0000

For information, I think that very few, if any, PCA presbyteries would grant an exception to anyone who believes that it is appropriate to use pictures of Jesus in a worship service. At least the stated difference (the PCA term for scruple) that I’m familiar with are for its use in Sunday School materials. This has become an increasingly common difference, especially for recent graduates of reformed seminaries, and usually judged as “more than semantic, but not out of accord” with our standards. As a result of the exception granted by our presbyteries, men are allowed to teach and practice their difference. The debate on the Review of Presbytery Records (RPR) Committee minority report last week was both encouraging and discouraging. As Pastor Jim stated, the assembly came down on the right side of the issue, but that may be because some of the more progressive members departed early. The debate was somewhat misleading and discouraging because the distinction between teaching and worship was not made by either side in the debate. It also was discouraging because the majority on the RPR saw no problem with it. The PCA certainly made a major mistake when they voted for Good Faith subscription, and this will lead us to increasingly diverse theologies. If you haven’t read them a couple of good books on subscription are David Hall, ed. 1997. The Practice of Confessional Subscription. The Covenant Foundation, Oak Ridge, TN, and Ian Hamilton 2010. The Erosion of Calvinist Orthodoxy. Christian Focus Publications, Geanies House, Scotland.

By: John

John — Mon, 19 Jun 2017 15:56:17 +0000

I encountered this in an extreme years ago in the old Northern Church and its Book of Confessions. After a staff person for the college group denied the authority of Scripture, I went to discuss this with one of the ministers. This minster backed the lady up 100% citing the Confession of 1967 that the Bible was written by men.

By: Andy Schreiber

Andy Schreiber — Mon, 19 Jun 2017 14:46:09 +0000

Jim, you said, “Some have said that we may allow exceptions to the standards so long as the person taking the exception promises to not teach or practice their actual convictions. I think that is a horrible attack on Christian conscience. How can we ask a believer to bury their convictions? If a believer does not do or proclaim (since he is called – especially if a minister – to declare the whole counsel of God) what he believes is biblical then he is in sin. Therefore to ask our brethren to not teach or practice their convictions is to ask them to sin. How cruel is that? ”

A minister’s scruple or exception to the Standards should not be allowed to bind the consciences of all the members of his church. That is far more “cruel” (to use your word).

Not only that, but in this particular case, having the pastor refrain from the use of images in the worship of his church cannot reasonably be interpreted as binding his conscience, unless he somehow believed that Scripture *required* him to use images. I certainly hope that no one is silly enough to try to make that argument.

By: Jim Cassidy

Jim Cassidy — Mon, 19 Jun 2017 13:09:38 +0000

Thanks Ryan. If by that you mean the church should change its standards rather than grant exceptions, I am in full agreement. Don’t get me wrong. I don’t think the standards should be changed (the Westminster Standards are great the way they stand – leave ’em be!). But if a church is self-consciously moving away from believing or practicing certain things, the church should alter the standards rather than grant exceptions. Its the more intellectually honest way to go.

By: Ryan Ross

Ryan Ross — Sun, 18 Jun 2017 23:50:02 +0000

Many in the OPC hold positions that should be “scrupled” or “excepted,” but they do not. The practice has so deteriorated the meaning of subscription that it makes “good faith” and “strict” subscription indistinguishable.

In my view, ordinand testing should have some specific questions open to change by GA committee. Permissible exceptions should be expected to be taught. The intentional ambiguity on a host of doctrines has produced this problem and ignoring it any denomination will make matters worse.

Denominations need to overture on the Standards.

By: Jim Cassidy

Jim Cassidy — Sun, 18 Jun 2017 14:36:08 +0000

I can’t speak for the PCA, John. As far as scruples, the OPC has no position on it. The OPC has no official position on subscription (i.e., how to subscribe). Its left to the Presbyteries. Culturally, few men take exceptions in the OPC, and when they scruple its usually over minor wording, etc.

By: John

John — Sun, 18 Jun 2017 13:53:09 +0000

Good article. I’m a member of ARBCA, and while I don’t think that ARBCA has taken an official stance on this issue yet (our confessional standard is the LBCF 1689, which doesn’t explicitly mention it, and the Baptist Catechism, like the WSC, does not have the explicit language of WLC 109), I do believe that most of the ARBCA leadership and elders of member churches would affirm WLC 109. I suspect if it became a problem there would be a position paper issued to address it.

I also have a good friend and coworker who is an elder in the PCA, and he said that while their church’s teaching elder does affirm the Westminster Standards’ position on the Lord’s Day, elders are not required to either affirm it or walk according to it. Has PCA leadership also considered that an allowable exception?

By: Jesse Light

Jesse Light — Sun, 18 Jun 2017 13:02:09 +0000

Good thoughts. I watched the debate as well and was disheartened to see how acceptable violating WLC 109 has become.

A question: how does the PCA’s practice of allowing exceptions compare to the OPC’s practice of ‘scrupling’? I know of OPC men who ‘scruple’ various parts of the standards, typically regarding Sabbath prohibitions. Is there a meaningful difference?