# subscriptionism



## Preach (Jul 1, 2005)

Are there any threads or articles that I could read that would introduce me to the general arguments on both sides of the issue?
Thanks,
Bobby


----------



## Michael Butterfield (Jul 2, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Preach_
> Are there any threads or articles that I could read that would introduce me to the general arguments on both sides of the issue?
> Thanks,
> Bobby



Thinking  Maybe we should start one, but then again most *might* agree with a strict subscription position on this board. I really do not know

[Edited on 7-2-2005 by Michael Butterfield]


----------



## Michael Butterfield (Jul 2, 2005)

Have you read The Practice of Confessional Subscription?


----------



## Michael Butterfield (Jul 2, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Michael Butterfield_
> Have you read The Practice of Confessional Subscription?



It is written by David W. Hall _et. al._


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jul 2, 2005)

See this thread. 

Also Charles Hodge on this. 

I also recommend Morton Smith's _The Subscription Debate : Studies in Presbyterian Polity_ and _The Case for Full Subscription to the Westminster Standards in the Presbyterian Church in America_.

For what it's worth, I hold to full subscription to the 1646 Westminster Standards.

[Edited on 7-2-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]


----------



## rmwilliamsjr (Jul 3, 2005)

i'm working on an essay on the topic at:
http://www.dakotacom.net/~rmwillia/hap2.html

i think i've caught most of the online references, plus i have a review of 

The Practice of Confessional Subscription
edited by David Hall printout notebook

the essay, Biblical and Pastoral Basis for Creeds and Confessions by Robert S. Rayburn

is at: http://www.reformedreader.org/bpcc.htm
as mentioned in the review, it is excellent and really is another must read on the topic.

towards the bottom i built a reading list that includes
(search for words printout notebook)

The six papers presented on Subscription at the PCA 29th G.A. which are at:
http://www.tnpc.org/ga/index.htm

i'd appreciate any help on the essay or references, i'll rewrite it in Sept. after the class is over. ought to be a nice one stop for subscription information by then.

....printout notebook

[Edited on 7-3-2005 by rmwilliamsjr]


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jul 3, 2005)

Hall's book is very good. I would recommend that highly.

Also, this may be of help:

_The Illumination of the Holy Spirit & Theological Traditionalism_

http://www.apuritansmind.com/Creeds/WestminsterConfession/McMahonTheologicalTraditionalism.htm

Bobby, Also, Hetherington's book on the Hisotry of the Divines has some very good stuff in it on the topic.

[Edited on 7-3-2005 by webmaster]


----------



## rmwilliamsjr (Jul 3, 2005)

any idea where a copy of History of the Westminster Assembly of Divines is obtainable?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jul 3, 2005)

> _Originally posted by rmwilliamsjr_
> any idea where a copy of History of the Westminster Assembly of Divines is obtainable?



You can read it here online and it is also for sale at Still Water Revival Books.


----------



## jfschultz (Jul 3, 2005)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> I also recommend Morton Smith's _The Subscription Debate : Studies in Presbyterian Polity_ and _The Case for Full Subscription to the Westminster Standards in the Presbyterian Church in America_.



Too bad the PCA doesn't agree with Dr. Smith!


----------



## rmwilliamsjr (Jul 4, 2005)

thank you for both:

http://www.apuritansmind.com/Creeds/WestminsterConfession/McMahonTheologicalTraditionalism.htm
http://www.reformed.org/books/hetherington/west_assembly/
then a link in the footnotes 
http://www.apuritansmind.com/Creeds/WestminsterConfession/FormPresbyterianChurchGov.htm


looks like i have the 4th of July's reading setup for me.
hetherington looks valuable but a long read.

they are already answering some questions for me.
thanks again.

...


----------



## Authorised (Jul 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by jfschultz_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> ...


----------



## adbauer (Jul 6, 2005)

It would be nice if the concensus of those who composed the Westminster Standards reflected both the guidance of the Spirit and the effective organization of theological truth for the purpose of instructing the church. I just am doubtful that at any time in the past any group's theological framework could have been perfect (acknowledging that such a possibility exists because the Spirit is able to so guide a body of faithful men).

A theological document, whether a Systematic Theology text, a body of standards or a very long letter to a French king will typically differ in content from other similar theological documents. It is my experience that if we embrace a particular document as the particular truth we run into problems. First, we have to declare those documents that differ to be in error (and there are many variations in views among different reformed documents). Second, the acceptance of a particular standard tends to impose filters that encourage glossing over apparent biblical difficulties related to the views of that document. And third, there is a lack of mechanisms by which a new concensus could edit the standards to correct an error determined by a newly illuminated body of faithful men.

It is great to have the Westminster Standards but I believe some of their interpretation on a couple of points reflected accepted long standing positions that lacked biblical support. To presuppose the standards are correct in all their particulars may not allow for an objective and biblical evaluation of their affirmations.

I say all that having observed that people typically interpret a text in light of what they already believe it says rather than what it actually does say. We have become increasingly impoverished in our knowledge of Scripture as we have overlooked what the text says, deferring to our presuppositions.


----------



## Rich Barcellos (Jul 6, 2005)

The book edited by Hall is very good. Anything by Smith is too!


----------



## Arch2k (Jul 6, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Authorised_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by jfschultz_
> ...


----------



## wsw201 (Jul 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by adbauer_
> It would be nice if the concensus of those who composed the Westminster Standards reflected both the guidance of the Spirit and the effective organization of theological truth for the purpose of instructing the church. I just am doubtful that at any time in the past any group's theological framework could have been perfect (acknowledging that such a possibility exists because the Spirit is able to so guide a body of faithful men).
> 
> A theological document, whether a Systematic Theology text, a body of standards or a very long letter to a French king will typically differ in content from other similar theological documents. It is my experience that if we embrace a particular document as the particular truth we run into problems. First, we have to declare those documents that differ to be in error (and there are many variations in views among different reformed documents). Second, the acceptance of a particular standard tends to impose filters that encourage glossing over apparent biblical difficulties related to the views of that document. And third, there is a lack of mechanisms by which a new concensus could edit the standards to correct an error determined by a newly illuminated body of faithful men.
> ...



One point to remember is that no one is forced to be an officer in the Presbyterian Church, therefore if they have a problem subscribing to the Standards they can certainly join a denomination that does not require such subscription. Besides, no church would want to have someone violate there own conscience by subscribing to a standard that they did not believe was true.


----------



## JohnV (Jul 7, 2005)

And also, it is not so much the document itself that is subscribed to, but rather the theology of the Bible that is rightly summarized in it. The Westminster Standard is not another Bible. It is secondary, and only insofar as it states the same doctrine the Bible teaches. It is not *a* interpretation among others; it is *the* interpretation to be believed. We hold the Bible to its superior.

The Reformed Baptists believe the same for their confession. And because the differences are secondary in nature, we can hold them as our brothers in Christ. We cannot do so with those who hold to a document that stands 
alongside Scripture, as an equal in authority to the Word.

As I see it: because it is not primarily a matter of personal interpretation, but of personal and corporate confession and submission to the Bible, to the degree that the officers will be willing to submit to the government of the Church, to that degree they will subscribe to her corporate confession. The more it becomes a matter of personal interpretation, at the cost of corporate submission to the Word, the less willing the officers will be willing to subscribe. 

Personal conviction is very important, but so is corporate submission to the Word. They cannot go against each other; the one cannot be put up against the other. The freedom to follow the Word has to be within the context of a faithful church that does not elevate any other authority to the level of Scripture, but submits only to the rule of Christ through the Word, both personally and corporately. 

So I think subscriptionism is important. 

But I also think that every church already has a subscriptionism of some sort, whether they know it or not. Every church tries to maintain a Scripture only claim. That is a form of subscriptionism too.


----------

