A few years ago I was sitting in a presbytery meeting of the PCA where several candidates for ordination were under examination. All had taken exception to the Westminster Standard’s prohibition on recreation on the Lord’s Day, and those exceptions had been accepted by the presbytery. A few members of the presbytery informed the candidates that though the exceptions were granted, they were not allowed to teach them as they contradicted the confession. This elicited a large amount of discussion from the gathered presbyters, and the overwhelming consensus reached, and later affirmed at a following meeting after consultation with the PCA’s stated clerk, was that in granting the exception, the presbytery was allowing the candidates to teach what they believed. To do otherwise would be to bind their conscience to something they did not believe scripture commanded, which in turn would violate the Westminster Standards.

In other instances, I have seen candidates take exceptions where they affirm paedocommunion or reject that divorce is permissible under any circumstances. In both cases the candidates stated that they would bind their own conscience and refrain teaching these positions. My observation is that the presbyteries approved them only because of those assurances, although I know pastors who voted against allowing either exception or ordination on the grounds that you cannot forbid a minister from teaching what they believe…