Physically subscribing a Confession of Faith

[Sebastian Heck]

As we know, the correct term for subscription is subscribing A confession, not subscribing TO A confession. You subscribe TO A journal, e.g. But you subscribe A confession because in former times, at least in some churches (Dutch, Emden, London, etc.), you were required to physically put your name on the dotted line underneath a confessional document of the church.

Now my question: are there any churches/federations out there still doing that - requiring physical subscription?

 

[dannyhyde]

I'm pretty sure all of the Dutch bingo denominations do, with ministers, elders, and deacons signing the Form of Subscription when ordained to office.

 

[Sebastian Heck]

Hi Danny,
yes, but what about members?

 

[dannyhyde]

Not that I know of. The URCNA's Form for Public Profession of Faith elicits a verbal response, not subscription.

 

[jwithnell]

The OPC and PCA do not require subscription for membership: a profession of faith backed by a faithful life and demonstrating an acceptance of Christian dogma is "all" that's required. Officers must subscribe, but I can't say if a physical signature is involved. I believe the distinction between members and officers is fitting: one is admitted to Christ's Bride by clinging to Jesus alone for salvation and by defining that salvation by God's infallible word. Those who show oversight must accept, teach, and lead by the doctrines of the denomination.

 

[Edward]

I didn't have to sign a copy of the actual confession, but I was required to submit a writing containing exceptions taken to the confession and subscribing to the confession subject to those (actually, that) exception(s).

 

[Christusregnat]

It sounds like a good practice. Maybe some would be honest and strike through portions they don't like.

 

[Jack K]

Having been raised in the Dutch tradition, where such signing was the norm, I was a bit disappointed that in the PCA I didn't get to sign anything.

 

[jwithnell]

Does seem like some kind of ceremony would be involved; I suppose presbytery would be the best place.

 

[Sebastian Heck]

Does seem like some kind of ceremony would be involved; I suppose presbytery would be the best place.

Why Presbytery? Presbyterian. is not involved in receiving members of congregations. Pastors, for sure. But members should subscribe/sign in the context of the worship service where they are received as communicant members.

 

[Scott1]

I think we understand in the PCA, members to join are examined for a credible profession of faith, baptism, and vow to peaceably study the church's doctrine, support its work, and submit to its government and discipline. This is done, ordinarily in public ceremony, an ordinance of public worship, with membership having been approved by session.

Officers (deacons and elders) go through a much more extensive process, including examination of reformed biblical doctrine and an exemplary Christian life. Their ordination and installation, involve public oath, and are ordinances of public worship. They are sealed by vows that they understand, and receive every statement and/or proposition of doctrine in the Westminster Standards, unless granted an exception.

It doesn't seem like there is anything in the Book of Church Order that would prevent written recording of subscription (or the other vows), but usually this is all done by public ceremony, with approvals by session kept in a written record of minutes of session meetings.

 

[Sebastian Heck]

Yes, Scott. I know the PCA polity on this. The PCA understands subscription to be via their officers. That makes the church "Reformed", while in some other (Continental) Reformed churches one understood the members to confess (and therefore subscribe) as well. They would not have admitted Baptists e.g. in a Reformed church because they simply couldn't subscribe the confessional standards. That is what I meant. I wondered where/in what church bodies that i still being done.

 

[Scott1]

You may find helpful a search of threads on this topic.

This one references a list of denominations:


http://www.puritanboard.com/f47/confessional-membership-40129/

 

[dudley]

Not that I know of. The URCNA's Form for Public Profession of Faith elicits a verbal response, not subscription.

I believe the Associate Reformed Presbyterian churches also elicit a verbal response to the following question: "Do you accept the doctrines and principles of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church, so far as you understand them, as agreeable to and founded on the
Word of God?"

I personally think It would be perhaps appropriate to ask for a written subscription for membership especially for converts such as myself. I would have joyfully singned my name physically on the dotted line underneath the confessional document of my church which in my case is the Westmister Confession of Faith.

 

[Austin]

The EPC requires a physical subscription for ordination, though few follow that rule. We are also supposed to physically subscribe when we transfer Presbyteries. It is, in my mind, inappropriate for unordained members to do so, though I don't have time now to explain. If anyone is interested, let me know & I'll do so.

 

[Sebastian Heck]

The EPC requires a physical subscription for ordination, though few follow that rule. We are also supposed to physically subscribe when we transfer Presbyteries. It is, in my mind, inappropriate for unordained members to do so, though I don't have time now to explain. If anyone is interested, let me know & I'll do so.

yep, please do –*when you get the chance!

 

[Austin]

Sebastian: My objection to requiring the average church member to subscribe to a Confessional standard (in my case the Westminster Standards) is both rather simple and rather complex.

At base, my objection is that while it is good and appropriate for those in ordained office to subscribe (i.e. ministers, elders, & deacons), it is unnecessary, illogical, and counterproductive for churches to require average members to do so. For officers, they are required to subscribe because they hold a teaching position in the Church. This is obvious for ministers, and to a lesser extent (due to the common practice, not due to the theology of the office) for elders. But it also holds true for deacons. After all, if we are to demonstrate the Gospel through word & deed, then we are to remind ourselves that deacons 'teach' through leading God's people in service. That is, as those who hold the power of order singly and the power of jurisdiction jointly, they have the authority of the Spirit to teach God's people what deaconal service looks like (teaching through example through the power of order) as well as the authority to say "Thus saith the Lord" as they lead God's people in service (teaching through the power of jurisdiction) by creating opportunities for service which God's people are supposed to obey.

Consequently, those who are in a teaching position in the Church (all ordained officers) ought to be willing and able to subscribe to the teaching position of the Church, as they will be expected to lead from that basis. It ought to go without saying that it is counterproductive at best for the ordained officers of the Church to be pulling the cart in different directions when it comes to theology. Plus, as we peruse Church history we find that the low value placed on elders and deacons in the last century or so is historically anomalous. Athanasius famously drafted the Creed which goes by his name while "only" a deacon. ALL ordained officers are to be expected to contend for the faith and to be able to lead God's people in giving a reason for the hope that they have within them.

That said, as we look at the Scriptures in relation to the concept of subscription, we find two things.

First (if I may be rather blunt), when the crowds on the day of Pentecost asked the Apostles what they needed to do in order to be saved, Peter did not say, "Repent and believe that these three documents contain the system of doctrine taught in Scripture." We know, of course, that he said, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call." The call is not to those who adhere to the Westminster Standards, but to all who turn from sin and trust in Christ. To require subscription implies (implicitly, if not explicitly) that something other than, or beyond, the apostolic statement is required for Church membership.

Second, and building upon that thought, Church membership is membership in the Covenant people. When one is baptized, one becomes a member of the Visible Church. Membership in the Visible Church has always been (since the days of Abraham) a promise and a type of membership in the Invisible Church. This is why we have Church discipline (at least in part): to try to maintain, as much as we are able, a correspondence between the Visible and Invisible Church. Now, if someone makes a profession of faith in Christ, is baptized, lives among the Covenant community, doesn't contemptiously espouse a doctrine that the Apostles would have called anathema, and doesn't sin without repentance and with a high hand, then there is no reason to discipline that member. ALL THAT IS REQUIRED OF CHURCH MEMBERSHIP IN SCRIPTURE IS FAITH IN Christ.

If we then bind the consciences of Christians who do not hold to (let's say) Limited Atonement, the baptism of covenant children, reprobation, or covenant theology, and make this a requirement of Church membership, then we have ourselves become anathema. We are no better than the judaizers who came to the Galatians and told them that they need "Jesus PLUS circumcision & lawkeeping." Paul expressly states that to do this is to deny the Gospel.

Church membership is admission to the Covenant community, to the sacraments, and to the blessings of the Kingdom. Did the Lord require subscription to some summary of doctrine before Abraham could be admitted to it? Did Moses say that the people needed to subscribe in order to partake of the blessings of the Passover and go out from Egypt? (Quite the contrary, the Hebrews obviously received the sacrament prior to any-- ANY-- depth of knowledge involving doctrine.) And, if one objects that "that was then in the OT, and this is now in the NT," I would ask if the Ethiopian eunuch, the people at Pentecost, or anyone else in the NT was required to subscribe prior to receiving the sacraments or inheriting the Covenant & becoming members of the Commonwealth of Israel. (Of course, if one says, "that was then, this is now" in relation to the 2 testaments, then he ought not join the church because his hermeneutic is extra-confessional!)

Third, Church membership is a promise is to the children of believers. My 5 year old son is a church member. He was baptized as an infant, and thus is a member of the Church, with the right to the blessings of the Covenant community, Church discipline, etc. And, while I may rejoice that even at five he has a remarkable interest in the deeper things of Scripture, he is in no way ready to subscribe to the Confession and Catechisms of the Church in which he is a member. Just the other day, as we were looking at the mountains north of Tucson, I sang him the 121st Psalm. He asked me what it means that "He who keeps Israel shall neither slumber nor sleep." When I explained this to him, his response was to say, "Daddy, I'm a part of Israel because I was baptized, right?" Of course, I said that he was right. Then he said that because he'd asked Jesus into his heart and asked Him to take away his "badness" that the promise of his baptism was answered. I again said that he was right. He is a son of Abraham, an heir of the Covenants of promise, and a member of the Commonwealth of Israel. And yet he is unable to subscribe.

Now, what shall we say to those who say that subscription is necessary for membership? Could my son subscribe as an infant? Of course not. What about the deeply faithful man in my former congregation who was slow? He was borderline retarded, though married and high functioning. He knew Jesus loved him, he delighted in the preaching of the Word, and led his family in preparing themselves for the sacraments. But he could not subscribe. Neither could his wife, who had converted from Romanism while they were dating. They love Jesus. Their son loves Jesus. But they could not subscribe. What mad fool would require that they sign a covenant of membership, subscribing to even the WSC (which was written for children and the slow), prior to receiving the blessings offered to them in Christ? In the name of Christ I rebuke even the thought!

Ah, but some will say, "Yes, but at the age of accountability..." Show me in Scripture where there is a two-tiered system of Church membership and I'll engage that discussion. According to standard Reformed interpretation of Scripture, all persons who have professed faith in Christ to the church session are to be admitted to the Table. Did Moses or Ezra stipulate that one must have a minimum level of theological sophistication prior to participating in the Passover? Did Paul do so in regard to the Table? No. To set up some extra-Scriptural two-tiered system is itself extra-Confessional. If you hold this view, you just voted yourself out of the membership of your congregation!

Third, requiring subscription for membership is sectarian. The whole goal of the Reformation was to reform the entire Church Catholic according to Scripture. It was not to shake the dust off of their feet and create a "pure community." As the Confession itself says, the Church is always an admixture of truth and error. Sectarianism is what the Anabaptists and "radical reformers" wanted to create. And they were condemned by the universal assent of the magisterial reformers such as Luther, Calvin, Knox, etc. There's a reason we affirm that we "believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church." Reformed Christians are Catholic. We are not sectarians. Along with the heralds of orthodoxy in every age, we say, "Quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus creditum sum!" ("What has always, everywhere, and by all been believed.")

Would you deny Augustine, Athanasius, Ambrose, Luther, Cranmer, Latimer, Ridley, Spurgeon (if you're Presbyterian), Calvin (if you're Baptist), Bunyan, Lewis, or Chrysostom membership in your congregation? These are all men with whom we may have disagreements, but to deny that they are members of Christ's Church is beyond ludicrous, it is heretical. I would rather receive the Lord's Supper from the ministers among them than from a sectarian. How can we approach the Table affirming the catholic creeds of the Church and then say that those who share the faith enunciated in those creeds cannot be members with us in our churches? To be sure, they may not all be able to be officers in our churches, but to say that they must bind their consciences prior to sharing the blessings of the Covenant with us? Let us tread carefully on such ground.

4th, and finally, our beginning point, end point, and every step along the way must be Sola Scriptura. Do we see in Scripture ANY warrant for requiring subscription prior to joining the Church. No, we do not. Is it our Reformed heritage to add to the clear meaning of Scripture? No, it is not. Would having a congregation composed wholly of those who agree with us up front make life easier? Maybe. But IS IT BIBLICAL? No, it is not. While I will die on the hill of subscription for officers, I will similarly die on the hill that stands fast with the Reformers and the Westminster Divines. I will not bind another man's conscience. I will not unchurch children or the slow or even those who are wrong simply because they cannot articulate the finer points of the Canons of Dordt, the doctrines of the Active and Passive Obedience of Christ, or a coherent sacramentology.

What should our sole requirement be for Church membership? Let us remember the words of our Lord, Who said, "Repent and believe, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand."

Soli Deo Gloria.

---------- Post added at 07:46 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:42 AM ----------

Oops, I meant to say "we find a FEW things" st the top. Oh well...

 

[Scott1]

Austin,

Not to distract from this thread, which I understand is about "physical subscription" whether of members, officers or both,
there have been threads with robust discussion of the topic of "confessional membership" for ordinary church membership you may find helpful:
http://www.puritanboard.com/f117/establishment-principle-confessional-church-membership-61272/

 

[dudley]

I didn't have to sign a copy of the actual confession, but I was required to submit a writing containing exceptions taken to the confession and subscribing to the confession subject to those (actually, that) exception(s).

I was not required to do the following but I elected on my own to do something similar.

I wrote the following to the elders and the Presbyterian minister and brought it to a meeting of the session where I had to be examined by them before making a Public confession of faith a few Sundays later in the Sunday service. It was not required but I wanted to do it.

I Dudley Davis reject all the traditions and teachings of the Roman Catholic church which are contrary to scripture and I renounce her pope and as a Protestant I accept, embrace and believe the following as part of my Christian Reformed Protestant faith

I believe in the God of the Bible
I believe that the bible is the inspired word of God
I believe God is trinity, one God in three persons
I believe Jesus Christ is very God of very God
I believe that the Christ has come in the flesh
I believe in the resurrection of the dead
I believe in eternal judgment

I believe in a heaven and a hell and that all who are elected by the saving grace of God and accept Jesus Christ as their Redeemer and thus are born again in Jesus Christ as believers of His Gospel and live the life of evangelizing his good news will be with his Father in Gods Kingdom of Heaven for all eternity.

I believe in justification by faith alone.

I sincerely receive and adopt the Westminster Confession of Faith and Larger and Shorter Catechisms of the Presbyterian church as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures and I submit to the teachings of the Presbyterian Protestant tenets and doctrine.

I believe the Bible as the word of God and the only and final authority and path to salvation I submit in discipline to the doctrines of John Calvin and the teachings of the Presbyterian Church in doctrine and life.

It is Christ alone who is salvation to our souls, not the Church of Rome or the Pope"

I believe in the doctrines of the Protestant Reformation, the authority of the Bible alone in all matters of faith and practice and that salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone.

I believe now as the Reformers who realized as they studied the Scriptures that the great central doctrine of the gospel was expressed in the comprehensive sentence, “Christ died for our sins.” The death of Christ was the great center from which the doctrine of salvation sprung.

On the Sunday I was received into the Presbyterian Church I also read the above in front of the congregation after the minister asked me to respond to 4 questions that was my formal reception into the Presbyterian church.

 

[dudley]

Austin,

Not to distract from this thread, which I understand is about "physical subscription" whether of members, officers or both,
there have been threads with robust discussion of the topic of "confessional membership" for ordinary church membership you may find helpful:
http://www.puritanboard.com/f117/establishment-principle-confessional-church-membership-61272/

Scott, I went to the post you mentioned and found the following piece which I agree with completely by PB brother Kaalvenist . I have found that I have a deeper understanding of the Reformed Confessions especially the WCF than many cradle Protestants in my congregation. I took my Christian faith and conversion to the Presbyterian church and Protestantism very seriously. I think one must have full understanding of the confession to which you subscribe and the beliefs of your church.

PB brother Kaalvenist said: and I agree completely:

From the Larger Catechism:
Q. 105. What are the sins forbidden in the first commandment?
A. The sins forbidden in the first commandment, are, ... ignorance, forgetfulness, misapprehensions, false opinions, unworthy and wicked thoughts of him (God)... vain credulity, unbelief, heresy, misbelief...

Q. 113. What are the sins forbidden in the third commandment?
A. The sins forbidden in the third commandment are, ... misinterpreting, misapplying, or any way perverting the word, or any part of it, to ... the maintaining of false doctrine... the maligning, scorning, reviling, or any wise opposing of God's truth, grace, and ways...

1. Churches that have subordinate standards affirm that certain doctrines and practices are God's truth, and the result of truly interpreting and applying the Word of God.

2. Admitting individuals to church membership, while not requiring that they affirm the truth of that church's subordinate standards, is an authoritative toleration of these sins against the first and third commandments.

3. According to Brown of Haddington, such authoritative toleration of sin is technically impossible, since the authority or power of the church (as with every other created or ordained thing) derives said authority from God, who cannot Himself grant an authoritative toleration of sin, and therefore cannot grant such authority or power to any derived creature or institution.

4. Therefore, it is necessary for individuals being received into church membership to accept the subordinate standards of that church, as their own confession or profession.