# Full Confessional Subscription for Membership



## Abeard

Wondering what are your thoughts on full confessional subscription being required for membership. Is it lawful for this to be a pre-requisite for church membership, or is it only necessary for church officers?

The reason I ask is because our Presbytery will be deciding on this issue in the next year.


----------



## Kevin

It is only required for officers in Presbyterianism. The CanARP's have been heading this direction for years. I pray that it does not pass.


----------



## py3ak

Abeard said:


> Wondering what are your thoughts on full confessional subscription being required for membership. Is it lawful for this to be a pre-requisite for church membership, or is it only necessary for church officers?
> 
> The reason I ask is because our Presbytery will be deciding on this issue in the next year.



In any organization there must be unity of government in order to preserve institutional identity. So requiring confessional subscription for all members is understandable in a setting of congregational church government. 
The problem, of course, is that there some among Christ's sheep who have not reached that place in their development. If only those who are "officer material" are allowed in, it is quite possible that many who would flourish and grow as members will be excluded out of hand. 
It would be wonderful if all Christians held firmly and intelligently one of the Reformed confessions as a genuine expression of their understanding of the Scriptures and public profession to the world. But shepherds are called upon to feed the sheep actually extant, not hold out for some idealized version of them to materialize.


----------



## Herald

Ditto to Ruben's comments. Not everyone is of one understanding on every point of doctrine and practice. While ministers of the Gospel are rightly held to a higher standard, charity must be extended to the sheep of the fold. If not we run the risk of being culpable in exposing them to falsehood.


----------



## Abeard

My understanding of fully subscribing is first a willingness to subject oneself to the doctrines upheld in the Confession. Yes, understanding why we submit to it is important, but if we think we have to fully understand the doctrines in the confession before we submit to it, this would be counter productive.

Take the Trinity for example, there is no way any of us can fully comprehend this doctrine which is the reason why we subscribe to a confession which clearly articulates what we believe. 

Another example is a Husband/wife relationship. Does a wife submit only to her husband when she understands his decisions/convictions? Or, should she submit because she trust his judgment?


----------



## au5t1n

Abeard said:


> My understanding of fully subscribing is first a willingness to subject oneself to the doctrines upheld in the Confession.



That is not what full subscription means. Full subscription means that one believes in all the statements in the Standards, having been persuaded that each one is taught in Scripture.



Abeard said:


> Does a wife submit only to her husband when she understands his decisions/convictions?



When we talk about subscription, we are talking about beliefs, not actions. A wife should _never_ believe a doctrine merely because her husband does without being persuaded herself by Scripture. Anyone who believes that she should cannot be a full subscriptionist to the Westminster Standards because the Confession explicitly prohibits this "implicit faith" in the chapter on Liberty of Conscience. On the other hand, she can practice something she does not consider necessary because her husband does, as long as doing so does not violate her conscience. This is not full subscription either.


----------



## Abeard

Thanks for the reply! 

My question is, what is the difference between understanding the doctrines in the confession and believing? I think this is crucial, correct me if i'm wrong but sometimes I think we feel we have to understand something fully to believe it. Would it be wrong to believe something you don't fully understand?


----------



## Edward

Sounds like some potential church planting opportunities for the PCA. Would current members who can't fully subscribe be purged?


----------



## au5t1n

Abeard said:


> My question is, what is the difference between understanding the doctrines in the confession and believing? I think this is crucial, correct me if i'm wrong but sometimes I think we feel we have to understand something fully to believe it. Would it be wrong to believe something you don't fully understand?



Do you want an Elder in your church to "subscribe" the statements in the confession via a form of belief that does not include having a thorough enough understanding and study of them to affirm that they are "the Confession of my faith"? If you acknowledge that this kind of "subscription" or belief is not enough for Church officers, then you have conceded the issue that the same criteria ought not be applied to Church members and Church officers.


----------



## Abeard

AustinW said:


> Abeard said:
> 
> 
> 
> My question is, what is the difference between understanding the doctrines in the confession and believing? I think this is crucial, correct me if i'm wrong but sometimes I think we feel we have to understand something fully to believe it. Would it be wrong to believe something you don't fully understand?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you want an Elder in your church to "subscribe" the statements in the confession via a form of belief that does not include having a thorough enough understanding and study of them to affirm that they are "the Confession of my faith"? If you acknowledge that this kind of "subscription" or belief is not enough for Church officers, then you have conceded the issue that the same criteria ought not be applied to Church members and Church officers.
Click to expand...


I think the key is believing that the doctrines spelled out in the confession are biblical. Both elder and member can believe the confession is biblical. i agree that the elder should have a more comprehensive understanding of the confession in order to rule with diligence. I believe subsciption requires a belief of the teachings contained in the confession even in the understandings vary. There are many minister's who understand the confession but take exceptions to it.


----------



## Jack K

If we have a high view of church membership, then we want all believers to be church members. This means we must not set the requirements for church membership higher than the requirements for being recognized as a believer.

To be recognized as a believer, it is not necessary to subscribe fully to Presbyterian confessions. Therefore, this should not be necessary for church membership. The Bible makes it clear that church officers, however, are held to a higher standard than other members. So it's appropriate for them to have to subscribe to the confessions.


----------



## Abeard

Thanks for the responses! I didn't realize full subscription for members was so uncommon in the reformed church.


----------



## Unoriginalname

Jack K said:


> If we have a high view of church membership, then we want all believers to be church members. This means we must not set the requirements for church membership higher than the requirements for being recognized as a believer.
> 
> To be recognized as a believer, it is not necessary to subscribe fully to Presbyterian confessions. Therefore, this should not be necessary for church membership. The Bible makes it clear that church officers, however, are held to a higher standard than other members. So it's appropriate for them to have to subscribe to the confessions.



I agree with this, I also find that requiring full confessional subscription for membership opens the door for implicit faith among the laity who have to subscribe to the confessions in order to be a member.


----------



## Andres

Abeard said:


> Thanks for the responses! I didn't realize full subscription for members was so uncommon in the reformed church.



I don't know of any of the major Presbyterian denominations that do require it. Hopefully you recognize from this thread some excellent reasons why this is the case.


----------



## DMcFadden

Historically, some groups differentiated subscription by the terms _quia_ and _quatenus_. Quia subscription involves accepting confessional affirmations BECAUSE they are believed to be biblical. Quatenus subscription equivocates on the the meaning of "subscribe." It suggests that one believes confessional affirmations INSOFAR as they are biblical. Groups which permit quatenus subscription (certainly what some groups designate as "loose subscription" and maybe even "full subscription") soon discover that once you start admitting "exceptions" for reasons of "conscience," it becomes almost impossible to hold to any meaningful confessional boundaries. Look at both the PCUSA and the ELCA for American examples of the outcome of such dithering. 

When we are dealing with strict subscription, good faith subscription, and loose subscription in Presbyterian and Reformed bodies, permission to hold your confesion according to the Burger King motto, "have it your way," will almost certainly result in progressive latitudinarianism and loosening of standards over time.

If pastors and officers do not hold to the confessions completely, there is little chance that the congregations will. Allowing congregational members a bit of liberty to grow in their understanding of their confessions, however, is a somewhat different matter. Pastoral discretion may be involved in working with a person who has doubts, questions, or comes from a background that requires a bit more time before embracing full subscription.


----------



## Scott1

When God converts a sinner, he likely knows little doctrine, especially systematic biblical doctrine. (Not to say none, the Spirit giving faith is already some). But, at the point he is a (new) Christian, he needs to be under the tender care of the church, and recognized as part of it.

One could not expect comprehensive knowledge of, let alone agreement with every statement and/or proposition of doctrine in, e.g. the Westminster Standards by a baby Christian.

Officers can, and ought be qualified with such, e.g. I Timothy 3 and Titus 1.


Maybe,
Full for officers (very limited, minor exceptions); no subscription for members (only vow to peaceably study); ministry group leaders (something in between as determined by pastoral care)


----------



## Kevin

Abeard said:


> Thanks for the responses! I didn't realize full subscription for members was so uncommon in the reformed church.



As far as I know, no Presbyterian church holds to it. It is contrary to our history and our doctrine. It's origins seem to be some of the Dutch reformed sects. 

It is a very divisive practice and it can destroy churches.


----------



## Dearly Bought

Kevin said:


> Abeard said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the responses! I didn't realize full subscription for members was so uncommon in the reformed church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As far as I know, no Presbyterian church holds to it. It is contrary to our history and our doctrine. It's origins seem to be some of the Dutch reformed sects.
> 
> It is a very divisive practice and it can destroy churches.
Click to expand...


Don't you think that "Dutch Reformed sects" is incredibly uncharitable language?...


----------



## Dearly Bought

Since there seems to be a chorus against "full confessional subscription being required for membership," allow me to add a dissenting voice with some qualifications. 

On the one hand, I don't know that I've talked to anyone who believes that subscription for officers should be equivalent to what is required of members, at least in regards to the sort of "comprehensive understanding" which has been mentioned. I guess, technically, I would not actually advocate for a "subscription" by members to the church's standards. Again, I don't know that I've ever met anyone (aside from Baptists) who has advocated for actual "subscription" on the part of unordained church members. I am a firm believer that the church is the proper context for discipleship. Church members don't need to have the same grasp of every fine point of the standards as is necessary for church officers.

On the other hand, I am very concerned that anything other than a "confessional membership" is damaging to the church. What does it do to the discipline of a church if the description of sin and obedience in her subordinate standards is set aside for something undefined? Practically speaking, we tend to see this particularly in the area of Sabbath-keeping where even the surrounding Christian culture grates against God's Law. Presbyterian churches often feel free to set aside the 4th commandment in regards to church members because we are told that "church members do not subscribe the confession." What does it do to the teaching of the church if doctrinal opposition is freely tolerated in regards to any confessional teaching? May a church member argue in a Christian Education class against the confession because "they don't subscribe"?

There may be a long and difficult debate about the validity of a person privately holding an opinion contrary to the confession. Pastoral practice in regards to members who stray in practice or doctrine is also a difficult matter for discussion. However, the fundamental principle is quite clear to me: the subordinate standards of the church should be understood to govern the public practice and speech of church members. I will therefore contend for "confessional membership" on those grounds.


----------



## One Little Nail

having been influenced by a strict covenanter stream (still waters steelites) in the first decade of my christian profession soon after having come to an understanding of the Reformed faith, i did hold to it thinking it was the way,that is full subscription membership, it seemed to be right, how could not a required profession of the truth be wrong, it was an _idealistic_ & _romanticised_ view of Church membership, even _perfectionist_, i do still hold to many Reformed Presbyterian doctrinal istinctives.

the problem with full subscription membership is, chiefly & firstly, that God or the Scriptures don't make it a criteria for Church Membership, a person with a credible profession of faith or the seed of believers have the right or entitlement to receive membership in a Church as they are allready considered members thereof, & as a consequence of their standing or position are entitled to the covenant sign of Baptism, which is also a sign for admission into the membership of a particular Church or Congregation, not vice versa.

the Reformed Churches teach that there is a two fold membership of the Church, there is the membership just spoken of admission into the Body of the external professing Church & there is communicant membership, which is the admission of 
a member of the Church into privelage of partaking of The Lord's Supper or Table, this according to Paul was only for such members who could discern the Lord's Body, which would definitely discriminate against infants & young children, new born babes
&/or immature in Christ & the mentally deranged, not to mention sinning believers or those under discipline.

To sum up, the Elders or Bishops of the Church alone , there you go Sola No 6,ought to be required to partake of Full Confessional Subscription, as they bear rule & particularly the Pastors & Teachers of the Churches who not only rule
but unto them it is given to teach the whole council of God to the flock


----------



## Herald

I have read in this thread of pragmatic reasons for confessional church membership, but where is the biblical warrant? Some people may be concerned about purity of doctrine, keeping the unity of the body, and protecting the flock from falsehood. All good intentions, but good intentions cannot exceed scripture. The prerequisite for local church membership is belief and baptism. My Presbyterian brethren would generally agree, except for their view of baptized infants also being part of the visible church. That point of difference aside, where does scripture require a potential member to agree _en toto_ with a confession? I think it is perfectly permissible to tell a potential new member that our church is confessional and explain what that means. It is also permissible to tell them that, while they are not required to fully subscribe to the confession before membership, that they do agree to taught from it (in essence they are being taught by scripture since we believe the confession is a faithful exposition of scripture). This is what we do in our church. It is the responsibility of the elders to maintain church order in this area. 

As Kevin Rodgers pointed out, requiring confessional subscription for membership can destroy churches. I will drill down on that one level deeper; it can destroy people. It creates an unbiblical roadblock to membership which may result in prospective members joining a different church that teaches dangerous doctrine. It also reeks of Classism.


----------



## Dearly Bought

Herald said:


> I have read in this thread of pragmatic reasons for confessional church membership, but where is the biblical warrant? Some people may be concerned about purity of doctrine, keeping the unity of the body, and protecting the flock from falsehood. All good intentions, but good intentions cannot exceed scripture. The prerequisite for local church membership is belief and baptism. My Presbyterian brethren would generally agree, except for their view of baptized infants also being part of the visible church. That point of difference aside, where does scripture require a potential member to agree _en toto_ with a confession? I think it is perfectly permissible to tell a potential new member that our church is confessional and explain what that means. It is also permissible to tell them that, while they are not required to fully subscribe to the confession before membership, that they do agree to taught from it (in essence they are being taught by scripture since we believe the confession is a faithful exposition of scripture). This is what we do in our church. It is the responsibility of the elders to maintain church order in this area.
> 
> As Kevin Rodgers pointed out, requiring confessional subscription for membership can destroy churches. I will drill down on that one level deeper; it can destroy people. It creates an unbiblical roadblock to membership which may result in prospective members joining a different church that teaches dangerous doctrine. It also reeks of Classism.



What does it mean to "agree to be taught from it"? I'm against creating some crazily high standard of cognition necessary for church membership. Discipleship should occur within the church after basic catechesis. Yet again, I ask where Scripture permits a church to define sin and duty and then say, "oh, that isn't required of church members." Really, this conversation is all about whether contemporary Presbyterian churches should actually require their members to keep the Sabbath and present their children for baptism. That's what it generally boils down to.


----------



## Edward

Dearly Bought said:


> Really, this conversation is all about whether contemporary Presbyterian churches should actually require their members to keep the Sabbath and present their children for baptism. That's what it generally boils down to.



No, it isn't.


----------



## Dearly Bought

Edward said:


> Dearly Bought said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really, this conversation is all about whether contemporary Presbyterian churches should actually require their members to keep the Sabbath and present their children for baptism. That's what it generally boils down to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it isn't.
Click to expand...

Would you care to advance the discussion with some explanation or engagement with what I've advocated?


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Herald said:


> It is also permissible to tell them that, while they are not required to fully subscribe to the confession before membership, that they do agree to taught from it (in essence they are being taught by scripture since we believe the confession is a faithful exposition of scripture).


I would add to this that they agree to keep the peace by not advocating contrary to the confessional basis.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Dearly Bought said:


> Really, this conversation is all about whether contemporary Presbyterian churches should actually require their members to keep the Sabbath and present their children for baptism. That's what it generally boils down to.


I wonder about this. Yes, it is one of the sins described, but so are the ten commandments. Can this discussion solely be about the sabbath and baptism? Are you effectively advocating that members be required to not sin? Would this not be the logical conclusion?


----------



## Jake

As I have thought about this recently, and then read this thread, I have a related question that has come up. Bear with me, for it probably shows a serious misunderstanding. Is it for belief and/or practice that one is/can be disciplined? 

The reason why I ask is because of how this would play out. Using Bryan's two issues to illustrate scenarios might make this clear:

Couple A: An elderly couple not convinced of paedo-baptism, but wishing to join a Presbyterian church. They are willing to receive the teaching of the church, and have no children around and in their household that need to be baptized.
Couple B: A young couple with a child that has recently been born not convinced of paedo-baptism, but wishing to join a Presbyterian church. They would refuse to submit their children for baptism until they had made a profession of faith.

Person A: This man is not convinced of the teaching on the fourth commandment regarding recreation. However, he still abstains from recreating on the Lord's Day for unrelated reasons (e.g., he spends all day in communion with the saints at church and so doesn't have time to recreate generally and so abstains).
Person B: This man is not convinced of the teaching on the fourth commandment regarding recreation. Thus, he freely goes out to a ballgame after church.

In the A cases above, the belief is wrong and known to be wrong, but there is not a wrong action to accompany it, per se. In the B cases above, the belief means that the person(s) in question are sinning in action. I think it's obvious that the A cases should involve disciplinary action, but I'm not sure if the B cases should or do.

This obviously impacts church membership. Can one join and then immediately be put under discipline? Can Couple A join but not Couple B because A is not going to face discipline for not baptizing their children? 

I hope that my questions are clear and that someone can help to clear up my concerns.


----------



## Dearly Bought

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Dearly Bought said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really, this conversation is all about whether contemporary Presbyterian churches should actually require their members to keep the Sabbath and present their children for baptism. That's what it generally boils down to.
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder about this. Yes, it is one of the sins described, but so are the ten commandments. Can this discussion solely be about the sabbath and baptism? Are you effectively advocating that members be required to not sin? Would this not be the logical conclusion?
Click to expand...


I'm using this for a bit of rhetorical effect here. Obviously other issues come up, but these seem to be the battle ground. I am not advocating that "members be required not to sin." I am saying that the standard for evaluating public scandal, etc. should be what is found in the confessional standards of the church.


----------



## Edward

Dearly Bought said:


> Edward said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dearly Bought said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really, this conversation is all about whether contemporary Presbyterian churches should actually require their members to keep the Sabbath and present their children for baptism. That's what it generally boils down to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Would you care to advance the discussion with some explanation or engagement with what I've advocated?
Click to expand...


Your comment bears no real relationship to the question under discussion, which deals with whether full subscription should be required for membership. (You have misconstrued it as a question of discipline for members, not the bar that must be hurdled for membership). 

A better re-casting of the original question would be 'Should professed believers in Christ be denied the benefits of church membership, including fellowship and and the sacraments, if they do not yet have a complete understanding of, and complete subscription to, the Standards of the Church?' 

I haven't seen an answer to my question up thread as to whether the adoption of such a rule would bring with it a purge of the current membership rolls. It would certainly seem unfair not to re-examine the entire current membership and excommunicate any that don't meet the new standard.


----------



## Herald

Dearly Bought said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have read in this thread of pragmatic reasons for confessional church membership, but where is the biblical warrant? Some people may be concerned about purity of doctrine, keeping the unity of the body, and protecting the flock from falsehood. All good intentions, but good intentions cannot exceed scripture. The prerequisite for local church membership is belief and baptism. My Presbyterian brethren would generally agree, except for their view of baptized infants also being part of the visible church. That point of difference aside, where does scripture require a potential member to agree _en toto_ with a confession? I think it is perfectly permissible to tell a potential new member that our church is confessional and explain what that means. It is also permissible to tell them that, while they are not required to fully subscribe to the confession before membership, that they do agree to taught from it (in essence they are being taught by scripture since we believe the confession is a faithful exposition of scripture). This is what we do in our church. It is the responsibility of the elders to maintain church order in this area.
> 
> As Kevin Rodgers pointed out, requiring confessional subscription for membership can destroy churches. I will drill down on that one level deeper; it can destroy people. It creates an unbiblical roadblock to membership which may result in prospective members joining a different church that teaches dangerous doctrine. It also reeks of Classism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does it mean to "agree to be taught from it"? I'm against creating some crazily high standard of cognition necessary for church membership. Discipleship should occur within the church after basic catechesis. Yet again, I ask where Scripture permits a church to define sin and duty and then say, "oh, that isn't required of church members." Really, this conversation is all about whether contemporary Presbyterian churches should actually require their members to keep the Sabbath and present their children for baptism. That's what it generally boils down to.
Click to expand...


To "be taught from it" means that the doctrine contained in the confession will be the presupposition by which the local church approaches scripture. It is not necessary to each the confession itself during corporate worship; rather the theological position of the confession is representative of what the church believes. So, if Joe joins the church he understands that the confession accurately summarizes the doctrinal position of the church and agrees to submit himself to those teachings. Whether he submit by adopting those positions as his own is a separate matter.


----------



## Herald

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is also permissible to tell them that, while they are not required to fully subscribe to the confession before membership, that they do agree to taught from it (in essence they are being taught by scripture since we believe the confession is a faithful exposition of scripture).
> 
> 
> 
> I would add to this that they agree to keep the peace by not advocating contrary to the confessional basis.
Click to expand...


Indeed.


----------



## Dearly Bought

Edward said:


> Dearly Bought said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Edward said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dearly Bought said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really, this conversation is all about whether contemporary Presbyterian churches should actually require their members to keep the Sabbath and present their children for baptism. That's what it generally boils down to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Would you care to advance the discussion with some explanation or engagement with what I've advocated?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your comment bears no real relationship to the question under discussion, which deals with whether full subscription should be required for membership. (You have misconstrued it as a question of discipline for members, not the bar that must be hurdled for membership).
> 
> A better re-casting of the original question would be 'Should professed believers in Christ be denied the benefits of church membership, including fellowship and and the sacraments, if they do not yet have a complete understanding of, and complete subscription to, the Standards of the Church?'
> 
> I haven't seen an answer to my question up thread as to whether the adoption of such a rule would bring with it a purge of the current membership rolls. It would certainly seem unfair not to re-examine the entire current membership and excommunicate any that don't meet the new standard.
Click to expand...


I've never seen confessional membership understood, at least within the Continental churches I have been a part of, as requiring a complete understanding of the Standards of the Church akin to what is required of officers. If I read the OP and the followup clarifications from Alex correctly, he doesn't understand it this way either.


----------



## MW

Dearly Bought said:


> I've never seen confessional membership understood, at least within the Continental churches I have been a part of, as requiring a complete understanding of the Standards of the Church akin to what is required of officers.



Would that not require "implicit faith," contrary to the Westminster Confession?


----------



## Edward

Dearly Bought said:


> I've never seen confessional membership understood, at least within the Continental churches I have been a part of, as requiring a complete understanding of the Standards of the Church akin to what is required of officers. If I read the OP and the followup clarifications from Alex correctly, he doesn't understand it this way either.



In the Presbyterian tradition, I've never heard of 'full subscription' having a different meaning depending on who is doing the subscribing. At this point, I'm picturing something along the lines of the definition sections of the Bankruptcy Code (specifically Section 109 - who can be a debtor). 

Are there different definitions for different offices/roles, or are there just two definitions of the term 'strict subscription', one for all officers and one for lay members?


----------



## Abeard

Heres another question I have:

If a session allows into membership a person who is a credo-Baptist, won't that, in a sense, compromise their authority over them? Does making an exception to their own standards to bring a person into membership say something about the session's belief in their own standards?

The tricky thing is deciding what members can take exception to in the standards, and how many exceptions. Where is the line drawn?


----------



## Kevin

Alex it is not an "exception to the standards" to allow a credo baptist to be a member. Since all that is necessary for membership is baptism and a credible profession Of faith. 

To require any other standard of members is in itself an exception to the standards!


----------



## Andres

Dearly Bought said:


> Really, this conversation is all about whether contemporary Presbyterian churches should actually require their members to keep the Sabbath and present their children for baptism.



What do you do when officers don't even hold to these standards? Now I've never heard of an officer in a Presbyterian church who rejects paedobaptism but I think we all know far too many that take exceptions to the Sabbath.


----------



## Kevin

Andrew, taking an allowed exception is not failure to hold to the standards. And many (the majority?) of elders express an interpretation of some part of the language of the confession. These are allowed and should be encouraged because they show a serious examination of the standards. They ought not to be troubling.


----------



## Andres

Kevin said:


> Andrew, taking an allowed exception is not failure to hold to the standards. And many (the majority?) of elders express an interpretation of some part of the language of the confession. These are allowed and should be encouraged because they show a serious examination of the standards. They ought not to be troubling.



Whether it's troubling or not is for another thread, but my point was in response to Bryan's question where he stated, "Really, this conversation is all about whether contemporary Presbyterian churches should actually require their members to keep the Sabbath and present their children for baptism." So my question in response to that is essentially, how could/would a church where elders have no problem going out to lunch after service or watching sports on the Lord's Day also forbid a member from doing such. Bryan, do churches that require members to subscribe to the Westminster Standards also allow for exceptions to the standards?


----------



## Kevin

Part of the difficulty in a conversation like this is that a lot of assumptions and baggage get carried along from other discussions. 

I think that considering an elder that has a (presumably allowed) exception , or a different interpretation. Of the standards to be in "violation" on a point that you differ is clouding this discussion. 

A different interpretation of a part of the standards does not equal abandonment of them.


----------



## Pilgrim Standard

armourbearer said:


> Dearly Bought said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've never seen confessional membership understood, at least within the Continental churches I have been a part of, as requiring a complete understanding of the Standards of the Church akin to what is required of officers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would that not require "implicit faith," contrary to the Westminster Confession?
Click to expand...


Rev. Winzer, respectfully, there are stark distinctions between promotion of “fides implicita” and requiring agreement to the Church’s Standards as founded upon and agreeable to Scripture as a condition of full membership, especially when the standards contain not only the catechism(s) but also scriptural proofs, while not expecting a deep understanding. Requiring agreement in an elementary since is not analogous to the same level of understanding one would hold a Presbyter to especially when they are making an oath to _uphold_ the standards. In the same since the Lay are not examinied to the degree that the Presbyter is. This is not an argument of fides explicita vs fides implicita. 

If “the congregation is a divinely instituted and well-defined body of people with reciprocal privileges and duties one towards another” and the scriptures teach that the “means of identifying this body” “is accomplished in terms of membership”, but the agreed confession of the Church is not held by the members and elders as a condition of membership, then how can the Church function in an ordinary and orderly manner? By what standard are any held if not that which is agreed upon by the Church as the Standard? How can one even continue to call them the standards if this is not how the confessions are treated?

Say one is allowed exception to the standards, are they to agree that they are to be held to those standards by the Church anyway? If not, then the standards be no standard at all, or they be standards only for some.


----------



## Afterthought

Pilgrim Standard said:


> Say one is allowed exception to the standards, are they to agree that they are to be held to those standards by the Church? If not, then the standards be no standard at all, or they be standards only for some.


I might be misunderstanding the discussion, but it seems to me there is a difference between being held to a standard and being required to personally believe the standard? In the former case, the members of the Church agree to abide by the Church's teaching. By being members, they implicitly submit themselves to its discipline. Their duty is to hear what the Church has to say to them and to not disturb the peace of the Church with respect to its teaching. In doing this, they submit to and abide by the Church's standard, regardless of whether they personally agree with the teaching or not, even as one may abide by a law of one's government without personally agreeing with it. Of course, said discipline would take into account the person's condition and state of knowledge and patiently bear with the person as the Church teaches them. In the latter case of personally believing, they not only are required to submit to it as a matter of external order and hearing and considering what the Church teaches, but they are required to internally believe the doctrines to be true.


----------



## MW

Pilgrim Standard said:


> If “the congregation is a divinely instituted and well-defined body of people with reciprocal privileges and duties one towards another” and the scriptures teach that the “means of identifying this body” “is accomplished in terms of membership”, but the agreed confession of the Church is not held by the members and elders as a condition of membership, then how can the Church function in an ordinary and orderly manner? By what standard are any held if not that which is agreed upon by the Church as the Standard? How can one even continue to call them the standards if this is not how the confessions are treated?



Some of those quoted portions sound familiar. 

The answer is simple. Subscription to a confession is required for good government. We are Presbyterian, not Congregational; the government is in the hands of church-officers, not the membership of the congregation.


----------



## Abeard

Edward said:


> A better re-casting of the original question would be 'Should professed believers in Christ be denied the benefits of church membership, including fellowship and and the sacraments, if they do not yet have a complete understanding of, and complete subscription to, the Standards of the Church?'



I think there is a misunderstanding with that. There are churches who do not require membership to partake of the sacraments. We have a couple at our church who aren't members but still take part in the life of the church. The only privilege they don't have is the right to vote. 



Edward said:


> I haven't seen an answer to my question up thread as to whether the adoption of such a rule would bring with it a purge of the current membership rolls. It would certainly seem unfair not to re-examine the entire current membership and excommunicate any that don't meet the new standard.


 
I don't think that would be the case at all. If there were some who could not, in good conscience, subscribe to the confession, the worst thing that would happen is that they would not be able to vote. (This is my own understanding, I could be wrong)


----------



## Edward

Abeard said:


> I think there is a misunderstanding with that. There are churches who do not require membership to partake of the sacraments. We have a couple at our church who aren't members but still take part in the life of the church. The only privilege they don't have is the right to vote.



The American ARPs seem to have a different rule:

"FORM OF GOVERNMENT
191
Amendment No. 5 effective June 15, 1982 (V, A.3)
CHAPTER V
A.
DEFINITION OF A CHURCH MEMBER

1. The communicant church member is one who has been baptized, who has made public his profession of faith in Jesus Christ and who has submitted his life to His Lordship and to the ministry of the Church. He is entitled to all the rights and privileges of the congregation, including the right to vote in congregational meetings, the right to hold office unless restricted by a minimum age limit set by the session,* the right to participate in the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper*, and the right to present his children for the Sacrament of Baptism."

And from the Directory for Worship:

"Those who have been baptized and have made profession of faith and have entered into communion with Christ in the visible Church shall be invited to participate... Those who are not members of the visible Church and others who should not partake of the sacrament may be invited to remain during the administration of the sacrament."

Perhaps you could point me to the current governing documents of the Canadian church so I might see how they differ.


----------



## Abeard

Edward said:


> Abeard said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think there is a misunderstanding with that. There are churches who do not require membership to partake of the sacraments. We have a couple at our church who aren't members but still take part in the life of the church. The only privilege they don't have is the right to vote.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The American ARPs seem to have a different rule:
> 
> "FORM OF GOVERNMENT
> 191
> Amendment No. 5 effective June 15, 1982 (V, A.3)
> CHAPTER V
> A.
> DEFINITION OF A CHURCH MEMBER
> 
> 1. The communicant church member is one who has been baptized, who has made public his profession of faith in Jesus Christ and who has submitted his life to His Lordship and to the ministry of the Church. He is entitled to all the rights and privileges of the congregation, including the right to vote in congregational meetings, the right to hold office unless restricted by a minimum age limit set by the session,* the right to participate in the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper*, and the right to present his children for the Sacrament of Baptism."
> 
> And from the Directory for Worship:
> 
> "Those who have been baptized and have made profession of faith and have entered into communion with Christ in the visible Church shall be invited to participate... Those who are not members of the visible Church and others who should not partake of the sacrament may be invited to remain during the administration of the sacrament."
> 
> Perhaps you could point me to the current governing documents of the Canadian church so I might see how they differ.
Click to expand...

I don't believe they have anything different. When I visited other Presbyterian churches I was able to partake of the sacraments. Not sure how that all works out. Thanks for bringing that up!


----------



## Pilgrim Standard

armourbearer said:


> Some of those quoted portions sound familiar.






armourbearer said:


> The answer is simple. Subscription to a confession is required for good government. We are Presbyterian, not Congregational; the government is in the hands of church-officers, not the membership of the congregation.


I had to re-write what you stated in crayon and ponder it last night. I think what you are saying is that you believe the confession is for the government of the church, which is in the hands of the church-officers, therefore they are held to the standard of the Confession of the Church for purposes of governing. The members, being laypersons are not held to this as a condition of membership because the government of the Church is not in their hands. Is that what you are conveying?


----------



## MW

Pilgrim Standard said:


> Is that what you are conveying?



Yes, almost. It must be remembered that the ministry and government of the church are authoritative and to be exercising a genuine influence in the discipleship of the members, and that the members should be teachable and submissive. This is obviously not going to appeal to an independent mindset. The principles of Presbyterianism will need to be operative throughout the church.


----------



## Edward

Abeard said:


> When I visited other Presbyterian churches I was able to partake of the sacraments. Not sure how that all works out.



The PCA has a different formulation, but functionally it probably works out the same - you have to be a member in good standing of a gospel preaching church to take communion if you visiting when the sacrament is served. The problem with the body in the original post is that they would deny membership. So the professing Christian being denied membership would be denied communion both at their home church and at any other Presbyterian denomination which requires membership in the visible church.


----------



## Abeard

The PCA has a different formulation, but functionally it probably works out the same - you have to be a member in good standing of a gospel preaching church to take communion if you visiting when the sacrament is served. The problem with the body in the original post is that they would deny membership. So the professing Christian being denied membership would be denied communion both at their home church and at any other Presbyterian denomination which requires membership in the visible church.[/QUOTE]

I guess it also depends if the Church is open or closed communion (which can be saved for another thread  )


----------



## Edward

Abeard said:


> I guess it also depends if the Church is open or closed communion



No, and I'd refer you to some of the older threads on the meanings of those terms.


----------



## au5t1n

Perhaps off topic a bit, but I'm surprised nobody has voted for partial subscription for members and officers. I had thought a lot of people here believed that some exceptions should be allowed for officers. Interesting result.


----------



## Kevin

Andrew, taking an allowed exception is not the same as partial subscription.


----------



## Scott1

AustinW said:


> Perhaps off topic a bit, but I'm surprised nobody has voted for partial subscription for members and officers. I had thought a lot of people here believed that some exceptions should be allowed for officers. Interesting result.




I would say there is no such thing, really as partial subscription.

It would be saying she is partially pregnant.

The system of doctrine, its statements and/or propositions of doctrine are related to each other and form a logical, reasonable whole both intentionally and in practice. Minor differences (exceptions, scruples) need to be evaluated by a spiritual jury of peers that they indeed are minor and do not have major consequences on other doctrines of the system. E.g. an exception to Chapter I of the WCF that unknown tongues and interpretation continue likely means someone believes extra-biblical revelation ordinarily comes outside of Scripture, which has major implications (which could not be consistent w/ the WCF). A minor difference that might be able to stand alone without impact, e.g. light, unorganized recreation on the Sabbath, which violates one clause of Westminster Chapter XXI. Of Religious Worship and the Sabbath Day ought be thoroughly evaluated, but likely could be an exception (difference, scruple) without significant impact on other doctrine.

From this, you can see why a baby Christian (brand new Christian) could not be expected to know all this. An officer must, substantially know this, because for him it is a qualification God has given for office.

This would all be under what might be called Full, Complete or Strict subscription.


----------



## DMcFadden

Once you admit the possibility of "allowed" exceptions, you have begun to vitiate the very meaning of subscription. What this generation considers acceptable exceptions will become a wider set in the next generation.

Almost all seminaries began with either a required confessional subscription or expected conformity to a doctrinal statement. The change from faithful adherence to rampant unbelief did not occur in singular acts of faithlessness. Rather, individual professors began demurring from this or that "secondary" belief. In time the culture of the institution was transformed from one of its original fidelity to a doctrinal statement or confession to that of proliferated "exceptions," in short, subscribing to the confession/doctrinal statement in name only.

My alma mater moved from its founding with a requirement of inerrancy to non-inerrancy in a mere 20 years! The denomination that originally ordained me now boasts of its "non creedal" freedom to believe just about anything. And, they do. Ordained gay clergy, flirtations with eastern religions, widespread denial of the exclusivity of Christianity, etc.

Confessional subscription is only meaningful if it is done sincerely and without equivocation, variation, or mental reservation.


----------



## Abeard

How thoroughly does an ruling elder need to understand the confession before he can subscribe to it? It seems subjective since there isn't a thorough examination process of an elder.


----------



## Scott1

Abeard said:


> How thoroughly does an ruling elder need to understand the confession before he can subscribe to it? It seems subjective since there isn't a thorough examination process of an elder.



Having gone through the process, deacons and elders go through the same process in the PCA, the standard is thorough, designed to provide confirmation of a call by the congregation, by God and acknowledged by the officer candidate.

It may be useful to thing of the standard as substantial compliance, not perfection. That is, an officer, needs to have comprehensive knowledge and agreement with the system of doctrine. That's part of the test of the call, and what the congregation relies on in choosing those who would rule over them. In the PCA, it is such that if an officer has a difference with any statement and/or proposition of doctrine in the Westminster Standards, it must be declared and evaluated. Ignorance is not an excuse.


----------



## Edward

Abeard said:


> It seems subjective since there isn't a thorough examination process of an elder.



That wasn't my experience. A year-long class on the Standards and doctrine, plus a second class focusing on the role of the particular office (Elder and deacon candidates took the first together, and then separated for the second); followed by a comprehensive written exam and a written statement of faith; written exceptions, if any; oral interviews at the beginning and end of the process. This was before they added the required section on English Bible.


----------



## Andres

Abeard said:


> It seems subjective since there isn't a thorough examination process of an elder.



What's your definition of "thorough"? Like the others, I studied/trained for the office for months and then was examined by my session before they would even consider bringing my name before the congregation to vote. That was in the OPC. 

Now myself and some other men are going through elder training at our local RPCNA church. Attached is a list of our training. Personally, I don't think this is a flippant training/examination process. View attachment DRPC Elder Training Schedule.pdf


----------



## au5t1n

Kevin said:


> Andrew, taking an allowed exception is not the same as partial subscription.



"Almost full" falls under the category of partial, not full. This does not entail a judgment on whether exceptions ought to be allowed for Church officers. It is just the meaning of the words. In any case, the context of the thread is a church considering "full member subscription," and I can guarantee you that any church, now or in the past, which practices full member subscription means to allow no exceptions. If that were not the case, we would not be having this discussion. Most everyone would be saying, "Sure, require full subscription by members. Just let them take a few exceptions." I'm Austin, by the way.


----------



## Abeard

Sorry if my previous question was broad and not an accurate of other denominations. I assumed ruling elders aren't as thoroughly examined as ministers. Thanks for the replies Dr. Clark, Andrew and Edward. 

I may have another thought/question later. Thanks for your patience!


----------

