Help with forms of subscription

[ReadBavinck]

In this thread Adam King brought up the form of subscription where one subscribes to the system of doctrine within the confession--kind of a system-in-a system. Because I like to keep thread focused I'm starting this one to ask some questions.

I learned about this view of subscription this morning in one of Dr. Clark's lectures from the Recovering the Reformed Confession conference.

There he categorized the system-subscription as one of the quatenus forms of subscription, (i.e. where person subscripes insofaras it is biblical). And as Adam said, this particular quatenus form, is where one subscribes to the system of doctrine in the confession. This is different from the quia form of subscription where you don't subscribe to a confession but you subscribe (i.e. sign underneath) a confession because it is biblical.

Within the quatenus form you also have the conservative-subscription which is considered strict-subscription, here you subscribe to almost all of it; and good faith-subscription, where every Presbytery decides if the person is subscribing in good faith (PCA).

He said the system-subscription view was held by Hodge, Warfield, Murray, Stonehouse and other old-Princeton and new-Westminster guys. Anyone know at what point did the practice in Presbyterian (and Reformed?) churches change (I assume it did) from quia to quatenus?

Also, I don't see how the quatenus form different from the quia form, when the quia allows for exceptions or scruples. Any thoughts?

 

[ADKing]

Christopher, I have not heard Dr. Clark's lectures on this and my Latin isn't up to what it should be so here is my best stab at it!

While we are on this topic you might find the article by Charles Hodge on this helpful: http://www.apuritansmind.com/WCF/HodgeCharlesWhatIsMeantByAdoptingTheWCF.htm

As I understand Hodge (who speaks about this issue in a number of places) his understanding of Old School subscription (thus Old Princeton) was that one must subscribe to everything that is common to Christianity as well as what makes the particular confession (in his case the Americanized WCF) distinctly Reformed. Hodge then proceeds to outline what this looks like in his opinion. As far as I have been taught about Hodge, he essentially agreed to everything in his confession and the exceptions he gave were at some point revised in the PCUSA. Nevertheless Hodge misses the point in my opinion when he says...

"There are many propositions contained in the Westminster Confession which do not belong to the integrity of the Augustinian or Reformed system. A man may be a true Augustinian or Calvinist, and not believe that the Pope is the Antichrist predicted by St. Paul; or that the 18th chapter of Leviticus is still binding. " I ask: So what? No one denies this. Why are we confining the purpose of subscription to a generic reformed or Augustinian (even broader) system? If Presbyterians believe that the pope is the atichrist predicted by Paul why may we not enforce that as a creedal issue? Indeed we have.

Here is my take on it. I have not done the necessary research to prove this but I am putting my opinion forward for discussion. The system Hodge advocates as a "conservative" Old School form of subscription already is inherently flawed. It opens the doors to myriads of disagreements about what is essential to this generic reformed system. In my opinion what Hodge was advocating in his day was far more conservative than the New School Presbyterians around him that had lost many Presbyterian distinctives. His form of subscription was stricter than theirs who were arguing for some sort of essentials of Christianity creed (as reflected in the article). Today, Hodge's poor system is still in effect but more and more of distinctive Presbyterianism has been lost and now there are some things that are part of the general reformed tradition--even historic catholic Christianity itself! (witness the debate over eternal generation with Reymond and justification) are not considered part of the system by presbyteries. The loophole is being exploited by people who are less conservative and reformed than Hodge himself was (or probably even intended).

Now, not to sound snobbish, but it seems absolutely fine to have a confession that represents the doctrines AND DISTINCTIVES of a church. As a Presbyterian I have great love and respect for my continental brethren who subscribe the Three Forms of Unity. Nevertheless, there are distinctives between our traditions that keep us separate. While I can love and respect them and even cooperate with them quite often, I still want ministers coming in to my denomination to adhere to our distinctive Presbyterian polity etc. Why is this a problem? Because it is impracticle as Hodge says? I do not buy this argument. Because this was not the intention of Old School Princeton and its descendants? I think history shows that their system is very impracticle as well!

It seems to me the only solution is not to try and regulate exceptions but to return to a full subscription. Let us use the confession for what it was intended for--to bring about a covenanted uniformity in doctrine, worship and government.

 

[dannyhyde]

CJ,

You asked, "Anyone know at what point did the practice in Presbyterian (and Reformed?) churches change (I assume it did) from quia to quatenus?"

"Reformed" churches, a.k.a., Continental Reformed churches, never did change to a quatenus view of subscription. For some of my colleagues, including myself, the quia view actually was a reason for joining a "Reformed" church as oppossed to a "presbyterian" church.

 

[ReadBavinck]

Adam, thanks for your response.

What should a candidate for ordination do under a full subscriptionist system if he sincerely believes the confession is wrong at some point. What implications does this have on a man's calling into ministry, especially in light of the church's role in calling him?

 

[ADKing]

You raise difficult but good questions. These involve both the duties of the church and the candidate.

"What should a candidate for ordination do under a full subscriptionist system if he sincerely believes the confession is wrong at some point?"

Under a full subscriptionist system a presbytery will not accept a candidate for ordination if he is in disagreement with the standards. However, what is a candidate in that circumstance to do? First, I would suggest that he seriously gives himself to studying the issue with which he thinks he has problems. He should be willing to study the works suggested to him by the ministers. Guided study is a good thing in my opinion. If after a thorough study of the church's position he is still not persuaded the confession is correct he may raise his question to the presbytery/synod of his denomination and request that they examine it in the light of scripture. This can result in different outcomes. 1. If the confession truly is in error a church is duty bound to alter it to reflect the Bible's teaching and bring their belief into conformity with the Word of God. If this happens (though you must understand that this would be extremely rare) the cadidate would then have no problem. 2. The church refuses to alter its standards because it continues to believe they are biblical. In this case a candidate would be forced to re-evaluate his position. If in good conscience he cannot accept the teaching of the church as biblical, he must go elsewhere where the teaching reflects his own convictions or decide not to pursue office in the church.

Isn't this the honest thing to do? How can a minister with integrity volunatrily agree to refrain from teaching what he believes is the whole counsel of God on the one hand or teach something as truth that he does not believe on the other? Some have said that such a one could agree to teach the doctrine as "the position of the church" thus somehow leaving his own conscience clear. But this is almost always perceived by the congregation and they then know that their own pastor does not personally believe what the church believes--you see the dilema for them I trust. As a candidate for the ministry would you not much rather be ordained where the confession of the church is the confession of yourfaith? In my opinion personal integrity demands it.

If a cadidate can find NO church that he could minister in with a clear conscience under its confession as his confession, then as hard as it may sound, I think he should reconsider his calling.

As I have said before, the alternative to this approach just doesn't make sense for the church or the candidate. A confession cannot truly be the confession of a church if many actually reject its teaching (even privately or secretly--God knows the heart--and as I have argued the consequences always follow). Neither can a minister maintain his integrity on one hand or his conscience on the other.

I hope this helps?

 

[ReadBavinck]

Dear Adam,

You give good answers! This is a hard teaching though. In my case, which is not unique, I am pursuing the ministry with a history of unfamiliarity with confessional reformed theology. I and most of my brothers at seminary did not grow up in confessionalism of any kind.

So I spent a lot of my time before coming to seminary (even before deciding to try and use my gifts as a pastor) studying confessional/reformed theology. In that process I have come to love it an and find much joy in being confessional (hat tip to Dr. Clark). Nevertheless I find myself in the uncertain place of still learning, yet also pursuing the ministry. I don't feel I have to come at every issue as if it were my job to rediscover the wheel for myself, but there are things which I still don't know what to think, e.g. Sabbath practice. I don't want to get down the road and find that I don't agree with the way the confessions talk about something and be in our hypothetical candidate's place.

But, I suppose this just affirms that we better get our theology down before seeking ordination, that is if we really are seeking to serve our Lord and his church the best we can and with integrity.

 

[KenPierce]

The PCA and OPC both allow men to take exception (or in the case of the OPC, scruples). In the PCA, we can allow a man to hold and not teach, or allow him to hold and teach. In the OPC, as I understand it, any allowable scruple can be taught.

This is not "system" or "loose" subscription. In the PCA, a candidate states his differences with the confession, and the court determines the allowability of the exceptions. The Gneral Assembly has review and control of what exceptions are allowed.

In short, the candidate does not determine what the system is, the court does. In practice, this is done by every confessional denomination of any size. We need to note, too, the difference between the Three Forms of Unity, which are not as precise as the Westminster Standards, and therefore far "easier" documents to which to subscribe.

And, the truth is, not everything in the Westminster Standards is of equal importance. For instance, the Standards uphold exclusive psalmnody. Very few Presbyterians (excepting, of course, the RPCNA), hold to that position. And, the Westminster Standards indeed contradict themselves, in one place saying that the Covenant of Grace is made with Christ, and in another, saying that it is made with believers (even though it makes no mention of the pactum salutis, another shortcoming). The Confession also is notoriously silent on the matter of Christ's active obedience. THese have been huge debates and the confession only adds to the confusion on the matter. It is a wonderful, but not a perfect, document.

The solution to the subscription problem in the Reformed denominations can never lie with the document itself. It must always lie with the credentialing agency, passing difficult judgment on difficult questions. A denomination can plead that it is a full subscription denomination, and then fail to do due diligence in pressing its candidates on whether they hold to every word of the confession. I think you will find very few faithful Reformed ministers with whom that is the case.

NOw, please don't come back and accuse me of being anti-Confessional. I love the Westminster Standards, and have fought battles to see them upheld in the PCA. It is the best and most precise doctrinal document in the world. But, it is a human document, and thus, by definition, must contain flaws. It is not Scripture; it is a subordinate standard, and thus must always be seen that way.

 

[R. Scott Clark]

Hi Christopher,

There might be some confusion in my lecture. What I meant to say is that under the quatenus form of subscription there are two or more varieties. Most American Presbyterians have subscribed the Standards quatenus (insofar as) since 1729. There was a lot of debate in Am. Presbyterianism in the 18th century so that several successive synods commented on what was intended in 1729 because it wasn't clear. It wasn't clear because folk such as Dickinson opposed the Old Siders such as Thomson and the only way to get the two together was to use ambiguous language. Successive synods seem to say, however, that at least to take a conservative quatenus approach to the Standards, i.e, that there isn't much distance between what the Standards say and that to which ministers are obligated in their ordination vows.

I don't think the point correlating "to subscribe" and "subscribe to," to quia and quatenus, tis accurate. One cannot allocate the one to quia "because it's biblical") subscription and the other to quatenus subscription. In the nature of things one subscribes, i.e., one writes his name under, the standards. The question is how one writes his name under the document, quia or quatenus.

The early Reformed and Presbyterian subscription was quia. By the 18th century, however, most Am. Presbyterians subscribed quatenus. Most Reformed subscription remained quia with the exception of the Hervormde Kerk in the NL in the early 18th century. I don't think the RCA required quia subscription very long in the New World (probably losing it in the 19th century). The RCUS lost quia subscription in the 19th century and the CRC is losing it presently. BTW, in each of those cases, the refusal to hold on to quia subscription was either a symptom or a cause of genuine theological decline.

There are multiple varieties of quatenus subscription: system, full, and good faith. "System" is Hodge's view (and Murray and Warfield and Will Barker most recently). "Full" is Morton Smith's and Joey Pipa's view and "Good Faith" is that of folks such as Tim Keller and Bryan Chappell in the PCA. They all allow exceptions the questions are how far and to what effect?

Among the NAPARC folk who subscribe the Three Forms, most (as Pastor Hyde illustrates) subscribe those Standards quia.

Among "borderline" groups such as the CRC and the EPC one finds a variety of views. The EPC seems to be moving in a confessional direction (e.g., Fourth Pres in DC) and the CRC is moving in a non-confessional direction (e.g., Synod 2006).

My hope is that Presbyterian folk in NAPARC will move toward either system or full subscription. I think "Good Faith" is a recipe for serious trouble. Even Hodge's defense of "system," was reductionist - when he actually spells out what the "system" is he gives the Five Points of Dort! There's a lot more to the "system of doctrine" in the WCF than that. It's much happier to say that the Standards ARE the system.

I don't have profound problems with hearing "scruples" (that system was built into American Presbyterianism in 1729 - it happened at the first Synod where men expressed concerns about the way a doctrine was stated -- the CRC recognized this necessity in 1976) and adjudicating them at Presbytery but the Good Faith "vitals of religion" standard is reductionist. It will result in "mere Christianity."

I don't think a man should be allowed to deny any doctrine of the confession. He might quibble with or want to re-phrase this phrase or that but to say, "I reject the confession's doctrine of x" is probably too much. In that case he's really saying, "I like some things about being Reformed, but I really don't want to be bound to the whole thing." Fine. Let him go to some Free Church where he can hold or deny the Reformed faith at will.

For what it's worth, often when otherwise good men say that want to take an "exception" I find that it's grounded in some misunderstanding. I've known fellows to want to take exception to HC 37. When it is explained properly the exception goes away. I find the same to be true of the Westminster Standards.

rsc

 

[ADKing]

Dr. Clark,

I agree with you that often candidates feel they need to take exceptions or scruples because they have not thoroughly been taught or have not understood the point of the confession. This is too bad. In an ideal world this should be taken care of before a candidate is actually being examined by a presbytery. However, I have too often seen in NAPARC denominations the very thing you mentioned where men simply do not want to accpet the totality of what it means to adhere to their denomination's standards. This seems to me to be a recipe for disaster.

If I understand you corretly, what you are saying is that you believe that "exeptions" or "scruples" ought to be limited to the way a position is phrased in a confession, rather than the substance of it?

With regards to the 1729 synod of the Presbyterian Church (later PCUSA), I think that is a unique circumstance. That synod was concerned with adopting the standards that would bind the officers in the future. In order to adopt a standard as a denomination they had to be in agreement about the standard. It is only natural and right that before adopting standards they should have a chance to debate or "scruple" the content of the standards they are considering adopting. On several occassions after 1729, the synod emphasized that they expected future candidates to recieve the standards as strictly or fully (or whatever the exact term was) as they had when the standards were adopted. In their case that was everything but certain qualifications about the doctrine of the civil magistrate. (Note: I bring this up quite apart from a discussion about whether their qualifications were correct or not but rather as a means of discussing subscription as such).

 

[rmwilliamsjr]

If a cadidate can find NO church that he could minister in with a clear conscience under its confession as his confession, then as hard as it may sound, I think he should reconsider his calling.

As I have said before, the alternative to this approach just doesn't make sense for the church or the candidate. A confession cannot truly be the confession of a church if many actually reject its teaching (even privately or secretly--God knows the heart--and as I have argued the consequences always follow). Neither can a minister maintain his integrity on one hand or his conscience on the other.

I hope this helps?

tough love.

a very personal thank you. i fought these issues for 25 years, this helps settle my mind that i did the right thing. Even if you imagine that you have the gifts for teaching, if God does not provide an outlet for them, then you are wrong. The outer call must confirm the inner. thank you.

 

[ReadBavinck]

Dr. Clark,

I'm sorry if I misunderstood you lecture, thanks for clarifying the "subscription to" point. Would you mind helping me understand the difference, if there is one, betweeen the quia form and a full/strict subscription under quantenus (I can't tell the difference)? Thanks.

BTW, I'm reading the materials (and some more) suggested earlier by the board and finding them very helpful.

 

[R. Scott Clark]

It seems to me that all forms of quatenus (note the spelling) subscription assume some distance between the Standards and the Scriptures. Hence, as I recall John Frame's comments on this in seminary, he and others would be suspicious of anyone who did NOT take an exception to something in the standards. Suspicious, because the assumption is that no one really believes everything in the standards and therefore someone is likely not telling the truth about their views. This view represents one end of the spectrum and the "full" subscription folk represent the other end. They see less distance between Scripture and standards.

The quia approach requires candidates to subscribe all the documents because they are biblical. There is presumed no distance between the standards and the Scriptures. The standards say what they do because it's what we understand Scripture to say. The presumption is that there is no extraneous, unnecessary material in the Standards.

The Dort form of subscription requires the ordained minister, if his views change substantially (e.g., he begins to feel the urge to sympathize with the Remonstrants!) that he must notify his consistory and/or classis about his change of views so they can adjudicate them, whether they constitute a deviation from the standards.

The difference is that under the quatenus system, candidates are often allowed exceptions on the way in to the ministry. Under quia potential exceptions are examined on a case-by-case basis after ordination.

I can see a candidate under the quia system saying, "I agree with the doctrine of the standards on this point, but I would express it this way...." The body can judge whether that way expressing the same thing is faithful to the intent of the standards.

We need standards that we can subscribe without exceptions and we need ministers who can subscribe them honestly and extensively.

Perhaps I'll see you in the Spring HT615 Reformed Confessions course?

rsc

Dr. Clark,

I'm sorry if I misunderstood you lecture, thanks for clarifying the "subscription to" point. Would you mind helping me understand the difference, if there is one, between the quia form and a full/strict subscription under quatenus (I can't tell the difference)? Thanks.

BTW, I'm reading the materials (and some more) suggested earlier by the board and finding them very helpful.

 

[AdamM]

Dr. Clark,

I don't really see a difference at the practical level between quia and quatenus subscription as it works out in most NAPARC churches. For example, the URCNA subscribes quia, but all one has to do is spend a little time on web and you'll find very different things being said by URC ministers on confessional doctrines. So it seems to me that any system of subscritpion would also need a binding interpreation of the standards, otherwise you end up with a form of quatenus system subscription whether folks call it that or not.

 

[R. Scott Clark]

I suspect that, as a practical matter, you are correct.

That isn't to say, however, that the theory on which one subscribes one's standards isn't important. It is.

It also means that we need to get folks to take the standards much more seriously.

At its beginning, the URCNA had an open-door policy and that was not healthy. They were thinking, it appears, in "conservative/liberal" categories rather than "confessional/non-confessional" categories. Thus anyone with a background in conservative Dutch Reformed Christianity (i.e., the CRC) who rejected women-in-office and theistic evolution was "in."

Now, I think, folk realize that was a mistaken procedure. It bought us 10 years of John Barach and others. John is "conservative," but not Reformed in a significant ways.

Here is the value of semper reformanda as touching subscription. We all took the same vow and need to begin to get consistories to take those ordination vows seriously and we need to get folk to come clean if, in fact, they hold views at variance with the standards.

If the assumption is from the "get go" that there must be variance, then we have less firm ground from which to work.

rsc

Dr. Clark,

I don't really see a difference at the practical level between quia and quatenus subscription as it works out in most NAPARC churches. For example, the URCNA subscribes quia, but all one has to do is spend a little time on web and you'll find very different things being said by URC ministers on confessional doctrines. So it seems to me that any system of subscritpion would also need a binding interpreation of the standards, otherwise you end up with a form of quatenus system subscription whether folks call it that or not.

 

[ReadBavinck]

Perhaps I'll see you in the Spring HT615 Reformed Confessions course?

rsc

I didn't know that was coming up this spring! I sure hope I can.

 

[elnwood]

You raise difficult but good questions. These involve both the duties of the church and the candidate.

"What should a candidate for ordination do under a full subscriptionist system if he sincerely believes the confession is wrong at some point?"

Under a full subscriptionist system a presbytery will not accept a candidate for ordination if he is in disagreement with the standards. However, what is a candidate in that circumstance to do? First, I would suggest that he seriously gives himself to studying the issue with which he thinks he has problems. He should be willing to study the works suggested to him by the ministers. Guided study is a good thing in my opinion. If after a thorough study of the church's position he is still not persuaded the confession is correct he may raise his question to the presbytery/synod of his denomination and request that they examine it in the light of scripture. This can result in different outcomes. 1. If the confession truly is in error a church is duty bound to alter it to reflect the Bible's teaching and bring their belief into conformity with the Word of God. If this happens (though you must understand that this would be extremely rare) the cadidate would then have no problem. 2. The church refuses to alter its standards because it continues to believe they are biblical. In this case a candidate would be forced to re-evaluate his position. If in good conscience he cannot accept the teaching of the church as biblical, he must go elsewhere where the teaching reflects his own convictions or decide not to pursue office in the church.

I think there's a third option to consider because I believe this is the situation with PCA and the Sabbath.

3. The church, after careful consideration, decides that they cannot conclusively say that the confession is in error or that the confessional teaching is biblical. In this case, what do you do?

Here are a couple options that have been done before:
a) You remove that section from the confession. (For example, the part of the WCF that says the Pope is the anti-Christ). Denominations are afraid of doing this because the confession is so much a part of their identity and history. Thus, they are hesitant to change the confession. So they usually opt for b).
b) You allow for exceptions / scruples.

The problem I see with the full subscription model is that it seems to exclude this third situation, as if the church always will be able to conclusively reach a decision one way or the other, or that they ought to always reach a decision on a given doctrine. I don't think it's that simple, and I don't think that God promises or expect us to be able to reach a consensus on all issues.

 

[ADKing]

I think there's a third option to consider because I believe this is the situation with PCA and the Sabbath.

3. The church, after careful consideration, decides that they cannot conclusively say that the confession is in error or that the confessional teaching is biblical. In this case, what do you do?

Here are a couple options that have been done before:
a) You remove that section from the confession. (For example, the part of the WCF that says the Pope is the anti-Christ). Denominations are afraid of doing this because the confession is so much a part of their identity and history. Thus, they are hesitant to change the confession. So they usually opt for b).
b) You allow for exceptions / scruples.

The problem I see with the full subscription model is that it seems to exclude this third situation, as if the church always will be able to conclusively reach a decision one way or the other, or that they ought to always reach a decision on a given doctrine. I don't think it's that simple, and I don't think that God promises or expect us to be able to reach a consensus on all issues.

If a church cannot decide if something is biblical or not, it is a poor idea to confess it as the biblical truth. This is what a confession is afterall--a statement of what a church believes the Bible to teach. If a church has one or more doctrines in its public profession of what the Bible teaches that they are unsure whether or not the Bible teaches, that church is not a trumpet sounding a clear signal. Allowing scruples on this point in particular is not a good answer. Members of such churches are being sent terribly mixed signals about how to obey the fourth commandment. What some regard as sin, others regard as acceptable. Each member ends up doing what is right in his own eyes. As a result one may have to sit at the communion table with someone he perceives to be a notorious and impenitent Sabbath breaker. I fail to see why this is a better option.

Of course we will not come to concesus on every issue at denominational levels. But the confession is by its nature supposed to represent those areas where we have come to concensus.

 

[ReadBavinck]

I don't think it's that simple, and I don't think that God promises or expect us to be able to reach a consensus on all issues.

The great thing about confessionalism is that it creates both unity and diversity within the body at the same time. Strict subscriptionsim says (truthfully) that we are united on what we confess but on other things we can allow for differences (e.g. educational methods, head coverings, what movies to watch, etc.)

 

[elnwood]

The great thing about confessionalism is that it creates both unity and diversity within the body at the same time. Strict subscriptionsim says (truthfully) that we are united on what we confess but on other things we can allow for differences (e.g. educational methods, head coverings, what movies to watch, etc.)

I understand what you are saying and I think I agree. Given that the PCA believes Sabbath is non-essential, would you then conclude that, given their convictions, that they should remove Sabbatarianism from their confessed WCF? (Option A in my previous post)

On a similar note, should the OPC modify or clarify the confession with regard to exclusive Psalter, since they do not believe that?

 

[ReadBavinck]

I can't speak to these specific issues but what I can say is that if a church officially decides it is not necessary to confess a certain point of doctrine then it should not be a part of the confession. This maintains integrity.