Subscriptionism - Do you Agree?

[C. Matthew McMahon]

Here is the whole article, but the points below are helpful. What do you think?

http://www.gpts.edu/resources/resource_subscription.html

By Joseph Pipa.

FIVE PROPOSALS FOR UNITY
On the basis of this brief discussion I suggest that in reality without full subscription you have no subscription. If I am correct, given our current state of affairs, how do we remedy the problem? I offer the following proposals.

First, every candidate for the eldership, licensure and ordination should be required to subscribe to all the articles of doctrine in the Westminster Standards. Scruples may be taken over particular propositions or expressions as long as they are not contrary to any doctrine. Let us take for example two serious issues. With respect to the Sabbath no exception is allowable with respect to the doctrine that the first day of the week is to be spent in public and private worship except deeds of necessity and mercy. An acceptable scruple might be allowing for some private, family recreation on Sunday afternoon. But for a Presbyterian to profess to hold to a "continental" view of the Sabbath is not acceptable. The careful observance of the Lord's Day is part of our covenantal piety. With respect to creation, a man must subscribe to the eight fiat acts of Genesis 1 as immediate, direct, creative acts of God and deny any progressive creation or theistic evolution. An allowable scruple might be taken with respect to the length of the days.

Second, all office-bearers already ordained who do not fully subscribe to the Standards would be "grandfathered," but not allowed to teach against any doctrine of the Standards.

Third, no congregation, denominational committee, nor approved seminaries shall be allowed to teach or practice anything contrary to any article of doctrine in the Westminster Standards, apart from allowable scruples. For example, even though a pastor might think recreation is permissible on the Lord's Day, since the Standards prohibit it, churches should not sponsor organized recreation on Sunday afternoons or nights. No approved seminary should teach anything contrary to the doctrines of the Standards, apart from allowable scruples.

Fourth, a minister with exegetical concerns about any doctrine in the Standards may present study papers to Presbyteries and colleagues, though he may not publicly teach contrary to the Standards. If he convinces the Church, she will alter the Standards. If he fails, he must abide by her ruling or align with a denomination that accepts his view.

Fifth, those office-bearers that cannot abide by these principles should be allowed to leave the denomination as members in good standing, as long as the process of discipline has not been begun against them or they are not under discipline.

 

[wsw201]

I was at that GA when he gave this speech as part of a debate on subscription. Needless to say, the whole discussion was edifying.

One of the problems you are going to have with "scruples" is which are going to be acceptable and not acceptable. Dr. Pipa gave an example concerning Divorce, in that you could have a candidate who believed that the WCF was incorrect in allowing a divorce based on abandonment. An exception could be given but the TE could not preach against the WCF. David Coffin, who was one of the speakers noted that the candidate would then be in a real pickle in that he would not be able to preach and teach what he believed was the "whole council of God". I think the PCA puts Elders in a real bind by allowing exceptions to the Standards that go against the essence or substance of what the Standards teach and then granting the exception but not allowing them to preach or teach their view. A real life example is peadocommunion. This is a clear exception that many Presbyteries allow, but do not let the Elder teach it.

 

[fredtgreco]

[quote:d8001036d6][i:d8001036d6]Originally posted by wsw201[/i:d8001036d6]
I was at that GA when he gave this speech as part of a debate on subscription. Needless to say, the whole discussion was edifying.

One of the problems you are going to have with "scruples" is which are going to be acceptable and not acceptable. Dr. Pipa gave an example concerning Divorce, in that you could have a candidate who believed that the WCF was incorrect in allowing a divorce based on abandonment. An exception could be given but the TE could not preach against the WCF. David Coffin, who was one of the speakers noted that the candidate would then be in a real pickle in that he would not be able to preach and teach what he believed was the "whole council of God". I think the PCA puts Elders in a real bind by allowing exceptions to the Standards that go against the essence or substance of what the Standards teach and then granting the exception but not allowing them to preach or teach their view. A real life example is peadocommunion. This is a clear exception that many Presbyteries allow, but do not let the Elder teach it. [/quote:d8001036d6]

Wayne,

This is exactly why Confessions are needed. The problem is that today we view the individual (the specific TE with an exception) as far more important and in need of protection of conscience than the corporate community. We are ONE church. To allow paedocommunion to be practiced would DESTROY the peace and unity of the church. Here is one small example: why should I and my family, who AGREE with the CHURCH's confession on the issue of images of Christ, be subejected to a PCA church bulletin that has a "picture of Jesus" on the front cover because an elder (or group of elders) takes "exception" to that truth? Why should the church be completely bypassed in that instance?

 

[fredtgreco]

[quote:f4d1f9e7d8][i:f4d1f9e7d8]Originally posted by webmaster[/i:f4d1f9e7d8]
Here is the whole article, but the points below are helpful. What do you think?

http://www.gpts.edu/resources/resource_subscription.html

By Joseph Pipa.

FIVE PROPOSALS FOR UNITY
On the basis of this brief discussion I suggest that in reality without full subscription you have no subscription. If I am correct, given our current state of affairs, how do we remedy the problem? I offer the following proposals.

First, every candidate for the eldership, licensure and ordination should be required to subscribe to all the articles of doctrine in the Westminster Standards. Scruples may be taken over particular propositions or expressions as long as they are not contrary to any doctrine. Let us take for example two serious issues. With respect to the Sabbath no exception is allowable with respect to the doctrine that the first day of the week is to be spent in public and private worship except deeds of necessity and mercy. An acceptable scruple might be allowing for some private, family recreation on Sunday afternoon. But for a Presbyterian to profess to hold to a "continental" view of the Sabbath is not acceptable. The careful observance of the Lord's Day is part of our covenantal piety. With respect to creation, a man must subscribe to the eight fiat acts of Genesis 1 as immediate, direct, creative acts of God and deny any progressive creation or theistic evolution. An allowable scruple might be taken with respect to the length of the days.

Second, all office-bearers already ordained who do not fully subscribe to the Standards would be "grandfathered," but not allowed to teach against any doctrine of the Standards.

Third, no congregation, denominational committee, nor approved seminaries shall be allowed to teach or practice anything contrary to any article of doctrine in the Westminster Standards, apart from allowable scruples. For example, even though a pastor might think recreation is permissible on the Lord's Day, since the Standards prohibit it, churches should not sponsor organized recreation on Sunday afternoons or nights. No approved seminary should teach anything contrary to the doctrines of the Standards, apart from allowable scruples.

Fourth, a minister with exegetical concerns about any doctrine in the Standards may present study papers to Presbyteries and colleagues, though he may not publicly teach contrary to the Standards. If he convinces the Church, she will alter the Standards. If he fails, he must abide by her ruling or align with a denomination that accepts his view.

Fifth, those office-bearers that cannot abide by these principles should be allowed to leave the denomination as members in good standing, as long as the process of discipline has not been begun against them or they are not under discipline. [/quote:f4d1f9e7d8]

This is the proper view, but a practical impossibility in the PCA today.

 

[wsw201]

Fred,

Agree! It is interesting that when you read the history of the Reformed Churches, things start going down hill when subscription standards decline. Our Session approved a resolution that follows David Coffin's proposal for subscription. Exceptions can not be taken that affect the substance or essence of what the Standards teach. So basically, you could not take an exception on the two points Dr. Pipa noted but peadocommunion is a non-starter as well. Of course this only affects other RE's and Deacons, but our TE's have agreed that in order to preserve the peace and unity of the Church, they would submit to their bretheren and abide by the resolution. So don't expect any pictures of Jesus on the bulletins at CPC.

 

[twogunfighter]

I am one that is only on the way to reform not completely there yet. I chose the PCA primarily because I saw Presbyterian polity as the biblical way to govern a church. Since I was allowed to remain a member without baptising my kids I didn't really think much about it until recently and now I guess I am in the "Christopher/Bushey" category.

I say that to say that I understand why some have exceptions to the confession. Even though I understand why they have exceptions, I could not be an elder in a church that taught in its official doctrine something that I felt was scripturally wrong. As an elder, your primary purpose is to hold the doctrinal line so that the congregation does not drift. An elder's purpose is to teach and exhort the congregation for the purpose of bringing the congregation's lives and thought into line with the confession (which we all know is a concise expression the important items of biblical doctrine). By definition no part of the confession is minor or ancillary.

If elders themselves cannot fully subscribe to the confession then why should I? And since they see the sabbath or six day creation as a minor point that is not doctrinally significant then why can I not say the same thing about beleivers baptism? Further why can't I be an elder? My exception is as good as any that those elders that take exceptions get to take. What is harder to defend exegitically beleivers baptism or theistic evolution? What verse is more clear Exodus 20:8 or Acts 2:39? Who are you O elder to tell me to get my act straight on baptism when you don't have your ducks in a row about creation?

I am not a particularly wise or strong Christian but I know something about leadership and leadership that equivocates about the standard is not upholding the standard but tearing it down. Further, as a not particularly strong or wise Christian I value greatly leadership that is strong and united. United leadership lends credence to the doctrine that they are espousing. I tend to be willing to follow leadership that is united whether I personally understand their position or not. I trust united leadership that stands on a document that has stood the test of time for 400+ years and is based on the biblical record.

Don't forget that every elder that joins the PCA volunteers. Why should the volunteer get to change the rules? That's like saying that you want to volunteer to join the Army but you want to take exception to that whole saluting thing. It is laughable.

With this subscription thing it is becoming clear that the powers that be in the PCA are being conformed to the spirit of this world (individualism) not reforming the world.

My view from the bottom.

Chuck

 

[fredtgreco]

[quote:8c67c2ac63][i:8c67c2ac63]Originally posted by twogunfighter[/i:8c67c2ac63]
I am one that is only on the way to reform not completely there yet. I chose the PCA primarily because I saw Presbyterian polity as the biblical way to govern a church. Since I was allowed to remain a member without baptising my kids I didn't really think much about it until recently and now I guess I am in the "Christopher/Bushey" category.

I say that to say that I understand why some have exceptions to the confession. Even though I understand why they have exceptions, I could not be an elder in a church that taught in its official doctrine something that I felt was scripturally wrong. As an elder, your primary purpose is to hold the doctrinal line so that the congregation does not drift. An elder's purpose is to teach and exhort the congregation for the purpose of bringing the congregation's lives and thought into line with the confession (which we all know is a concise expression the important items of biblical doctrine). By definition no part of the confession is minor or ancillary.

If elders themselves cannot fully subscribe to the confession then why should I? And since they see the sabbath or six day creation as a minor point that is not doctrinally significant then why can I not say the same thing about beleivers baptism? Further why can't I be an elder? My exception is as good as any that those elders that take exceptions get to take. What is harder to defend exegitically beleivers baptism or theistic evolution? What verse is more clear Exodus 20:8 or Acts 2:39? Who are you O elder to tell me to get my act straight on baptism when you don't have your ducks in a row about creation?

I am not a particularly wise or strong Christian but I know something about leadership and leadership that equivocates about the standard is not upholding the standard but tearing it down. Further, as a not particularly strong or wise Christian I value greatly leadership that is strong and united. United leadership lends credence to the doctrine that they are espousing. I tend to be willing to follow leadership that is united whether I personally understand their position or not. I trust united leadership that stands on a document that has stood the test of time for 400+ years and is based on the biblical record.

Don't forget that every elder that joins the PCA volunteers. Why should the volunteer get to change the rules? That's like saying that you want to volunteer to join the Army but you want to take exception to that whole saluting thing. It is laughable.

With this subscription thing it is becoming clear that the powers that be in the PCA are being conformed to the spirit of this world (individualism) not reforming the world.

My view from the bottom.

Chuck [/quote:8c67c2ac63]

Chuck,

Well said. We very often forget that the church is a [b:8c67c2ac63]voluntary[/b:8c67c2ac63] association. We are also FAR too concerned with the individual liberty of conscience of the elder than we are with violating the conscience of those in the Church who actually AGREE with the Confession.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

What good is a confession if we don't all subscribe to it fully?

 

[JohnV]

The Dutch Reformed have a Form of Subscription that MUST be signed by any newly appointed elder or deacon. Every officebearer has to sign it. I don't know if that is still in effect in the CRC, but the URC still has it, as far as I know.

But once things start to drift, it doesn't help anymore. The CRC survived the 1920's and 1930's shift in theology, but had weakened from the inside, and could not withstand the feminism and theistic evolution onslaught in the 80's. Even subscriptionism couldn't help out once the trend got a solid footing.

Subscriptionism, I'm all for it. I am disappointed in the OPC that it's as loose as it is. But I find that you cannot have it without a strong doctrinal stand on the Bible. Taking liberties with God's Word, as if God speaks to every person a different and unique Word, is the problem here. A good subscription policy will come with it if we stand on the truth of God's Word together, and after we realize that our individual scruples have nothing to do with the unity of a confessional church.
:wr50:

 

[fredtgreco]

[quote:fd37f7a1df][i:fd37f7a1df]Originally posted by JohnV[/i:fd37f7a1df]
The Dutch Reformed have a Form of Subscription that MUST be signed by any newly appointed elder or deacon. Every officebearer has to sign it. I don't know if that is still in effect in the CRC, but the URC still has it, as far as I know.

But once things start to drift, it doesn't help anymore. The CRC survived the 1920's and 1930's shift in theology, but had weakened from the inside, and could not withstand the feminism and theistic evolution onslaught in the 80's. Even subscriptionism couldn't help out once the trend got a solid footing.

Subscriptionism, I'm all for it. I am disappointed in the OPC that it's as loose as it is. But I find that you cannot have it without a strong doctrinal stand on the Bible. Taking liberties with God's Word, as if God speaks to every person a different and unique Word, is the problem here. A good subscription policy will come with it if we stand on the truth of God's Word together, and after we realize that our individual scruples have nothing to do with the unity of a confessional church.
:wr50: [/quote:fd37f7a1df]

John,

The problem is not subscriptionism. It is honesty and courage. A confession can only stem the tide of error and apostasy inasmuchas the elders of the Church are willing to defend the truth. The problem in the CRC is that it has "full subscription" but no one actually asks the question of candidates what they believe. They are simply asked proforma to subscribe (it was the same in the PCUSA at the turn of the century). It is an exercise in futility.

 

[kceaster]

John...

[quote:4b0a618db2][i:4b0a618db2]Originally posted by JohnV[/i:4b0a618db2]
The Dutch Reformed have a Form of Subscription that MUST be signed by any newly appointed elder or deacon. Every officebearer has to sign it. I don't know if that is still in effect in the CRC, but the URC still has it, as far as I know.

But once things start to drift, it doesn't help anymore. The CRC survived the 1920's and 1930's shift in theology, but had weakened from the inside, and could not withstand the feminism and theistic evolution onslaught in the 80's. Even subscriptionism couldn't help out once the trend got a solid footing.

Subscriptionism, I'm all for it. I am disappointed in the OPC that it's as loose as it is. But I find that you cannot have it without a strong doctrinal stand on the Bible. Taking liberties with God's Word, as if God speaks to every person a different and unique Word, is the problem here. A good subscription policy will come with it if we stand on the truth of God's Word together, and after we realize that our individual scruples have nothing to do with the unity of a confessional church.
:wr50: [/quote:4b0a618db2]

Is it subscriptionism or the lack of discipline that is the problem in your opinion?

Because, to my mind, one can subscribe to just about anything, but what happens when they teach contrary to it? Are they willing to repent and submit?

If the 3FU or the WCF is what is signed in oath on the dotted line, with scruples if they are allowed, does not this draw a line in the sand that says, "Beat me if I turn to the right or to the left?"

In football, the sidelines would not mean a thing if the referee refused to blow the whistle when they were crossed.

Is this a valid point?

In Christ,

KC

 

[JohnV]

Fred, you said:
[quote:02f6c78de6]The problem in the CRC is that it has "full subscription" but no one actually asks the question of candidates what they believe. They are simply asked proforma to subscribe (it was the same in the PCUSA at the turn of the century). It is an exercise in futility. [/quote:02f6c78de6]
You are right about this. But somewhere along the line they went from these expectations to an exercise in futility. In actual fact, there was an allowance for exceptions at the time when it was still in force. An elder could have a persausion which was contrary to the Confession, but there was a process by which it was handled. The expectations of godliness were on both sides of the discussions, and protection against causing division was paramount. Such a person could be an elder, without question, as long as he held to his obligations to keep it to himself and to the appointed discussions.

I don't think, KC, that you can have full subscription without allowing some lateral movement. As long as priorities are kept in place it should cause very little problem. You just cannot compare today's scenario with that of when the churches were more faithful in observing discipline. In today's setting our own periodicals are being used to undermine the unity of the churches. They are following what the readership wants, flaming issues. And the officers of the church are always on their heels against the latest [b:02f6c78de6]ism[/b:02f6c78de6] coming over the wires, and it always seems to come out of left field. What used to shock us is now expected, to keep interest going.


It is not [b:02f6c78de6]that[/b:02f6c78de6] we have differences that cause trouble, it is how we handle them, and how big we make them. Individuality does not have to militate against unity; it actually should give it vitality and real meaning. To follow your example, if all the players on the field wore the same uniforms, and played the same position, and ran the same patterns, it would not be a game. Unity means nothing without a diversity to unity with. That is what makes it rich and meaningfull. It is also in line with our created self, in the image of a triune God. It keeps us from being too narrow, and adds the fullness of ever increasing understandings.

But when do you blow the whistle? When is it out of bounds? I'm afraid that our ecclesiastical constitutions have gone the same way that our civil constitutions have gone, a "living and breathing" document which only gets the courts involved with the decadent motions, and have begun to ensure that variance will get its way.

Think of it a moment, is there any Biblical warrant for believing in the three-day creation hypothesis? Isn't it just a theory that happens to fit an interpretation, but cannot itself be found to be necessitated from Scripture itself? Is it not in fact a humanly originated theory, and not a Biblically originated theory? Where have the linesmen been on this? It should never have gotten to first base, because it is not derived from Scripture. There is no necessary inference here. It is completely unnecessary.

Yet here it is, and it's a lively issue. Why was this not kept quiet by the office-bearers? Why did this have to become a public issue, placed in the hands of popularity? And now the "full subscriptionist" denominations are just a open to it as any others.

 

[kceaster]

John...

[quote:29fe9fa119]I don't think, KC, that you can have full subscription without allowing some lateral movement. As long as priorities are kept in place it should cause very little problem. You just cannot compare today's scenario with that of when the churches were more faithful in observing discipline. In today's setting our own periodicals are being used to undermine the unity of the churches. They are following what the readership wants, flaming issues. And the officers of the church are always on their heels against the latest [b:29fe9fa119]ism[/b:29fe9fa119] coming over the wires, and it always seems to come out of left field. What used to shock us is now expected, to keep interest going.[/quote:29fe9fa119]

So by saying this, do you agree that the problem is discipline and not subscriptionism? Or, is it a tertium quid? Could another problem be lack of submission?

[quote:29fe9fa119]It is not [b:29fe9fa119]that[/b:29fe9fa119] we have differences that cause trouble, it is how we handle them, and how big we make them. Individuality does not have to militate against unity; it actually should give it vitality and real meaning. To follow your example, if all the players on the field wore the same uniforms, and played the same position, and ran the same patterns, it would not be a game. Unity means nothing without a diversity to unity with. That is what makes it rich and meaningfull. It is also in line with our created self, in the image of a triune God. It keeps us from being too narrow, and adds the fullness of ever increasing understandings.[/quote:29fe9fa119]

True. I was not equating subscriptionism to a uniformity of a single position. There is diversity within that framework because some will be both leaders and followers in it and some just followers. I was referring to the football analogy because whatever the position, the rules must be followed and the referee must call infractions. The out of bounds lines are important to both defensive positions and offensive positions, just as are the lines of scrimmage and the goal lines. These are all boundaries. The out of bounds lines are always out of bounds. The lines of scrimmage and the goal lines have their appropriate use at the appropriate times. But any infraction of any of these lines must be called by the official and must be honored by both the teams involved (submission).

[quote:29fe9fa119]But when do you blow the whistle? When is it out of bounds? I'm afraid that our ecclesiastical constitutions have gone the same way that our civil constitutions have gone, a "living and breathing" document which only gets the courts involved with the decadent motions, and have begun to ensure that variance will get its way.[/quote:29fe9fa119]

I can understand where you are coming from. Perhaps men with chests should step forward to referee, not making their own rules, but enforcing the ones already there. It is still incumbent upon the ones out of bounds to submit to the ruling on the field. That is exactly what is not happening in our government. But if anywhere it can be enforced, it should be in the church.

[quote:29fe9fa119]Think of it a moment, is there any Biblical warrant for believing in the three-day creation hypothesis? Isn't it just a theory that happens to fit an interpretation, but cannot itself be found to be necessitated from Scripture itself? Is it not in fact a humanly originated theory, and not a Biblically originated theory? Where have the linesmen been on this? It should never have gotten to first base[b:29fe9fa119] don't you mean the first down marker (stick with the football analogy) [/b:29fe9fa119], because it is not derived from Scripture. There is no necessary inference here. It is completely unnecessary.

Yet here it is, and it's a lively issue. Why was this not kept quiet by the office-bearers? Why did this have to become a public issue, placed in the hands of popularity? And now the "full subscriptionist" denominations are just a open to it as any others. [/quote:29fe9fa119]

I hear this, too. I do not think that we can quell these issues. Someone will always come up with something new, although I recently read a quote by Bertin that says, "There is nothing new but what is forgotten." I really liked that because if there were reminders that it is not new but only a resuscitation of a long dead lie, then perhaps men would not go after such things.

But the human ego is a marvelous thing. It can think thoughts that it thinks no one has thought before. If only it were to realize that whatever it thinks now is merely variations on a theme, (a sinful one, at that) perhaps it would be more apt to stay within bounds.

It is amazing when we note what things are completely out of bounds in this world. Science can look at data that proves creation and yet consider that type of thinking out of bounds so the data is manipulated to the point it no longer bears that truth.

Judges may be want to decide one way on a case, realizing that if they do so they will have to stand against a sea of woes from a minority group who will hire the ACLU to take up their cause. Their right thinking becomes out of bounds for them.

I think this is all a part of man twisting the lie to make it the truth and vice versa. It is also an indication that God is allowing certain men to be given over to the perversion of their own minds.

What must we do? As I alluded to earlier, and as C. S. Lewis suggests, we should be men with chests. We should live and abide by the rules even when men think us mad to do so. We should hold those accountable who say they want to live by those rules. We should amend those rules only when it is warranted.

And this we shall do if God is gracious.

In Christ,

KC

 

[JohnV]

[quote:cc073c2619][i:cc073c2619]Originally posted by kceaster[/i:cc073c2619]
So by saying this, do you agree that the problem is discipline and not subscriptionism? Or, is it a tertium quid? Could another problem be lack of submission?[/quote:cc073c2619]

I am assuming that you are staying with the football analogy. Is "tertium quid" like "first and ten?" Or, if not, do you need some special bait to catch it?:biggrin:

Subscriptionism without discipline is not subcriptionism at all. Lack of submission is lack of discipline, which includes self-discipline automatically. But none of this is of any use by itself. We are talking about a system in place for those who have a true faith, and are willingly subject to God's leading by His Word and Spirit. Such a system will not stop willful men that are bent on their own ways. But it will protect those who are determined to remain faithful.

[quote:cc073c2619]These are all boundaries. The out of bounds lines are always out of bounds. The lines of scrimmage and the goal lines have their appropriate use at the appropriate times. But any infraction of any of these lines must be called by the official and must be honored by both the teams involved (submission). [/quote:cc073c2619]
Point taken. If the "officials" are not being honoured, then soon the lines will get fuzzy too, until they are no longer seen. And if the officials are in favour of a free-for-all on the field, then the rules will fall away. And if everyone forgets what the end zones are for, then soon they will all be playing a different game. I think this makes our concern.

[quote:cc073c2619]It is amazing when we note what things are completely out of bounds in this world. Science can look at data that proves creation and yet consider that type of thinking out of bounds so the data is manipulated to the point it no longer bears that truth.

Judges may be want to decide one way on a case, realizing that if they do so they will have to stand against a sea of woes from a minority group who will hire the ACLU to take up their cause. Their right thinking becomes out of bounds for them.

I think this is all a part of man twisting the lie to make it the truth and vice versa. It is also an indication that God is allowing certain men to be given over to the perversion of their own minds.

What must we do? As I alluded to earlier, and as C. S. Lewis suggests, we should be men with chests. We should live and abide by the rules even when men think us mad to do so. We should hold those accountable who say they want to live by those rules. We should amend those rules only when it is warranted.

And this we shall do if God is gracious.
[/quote:cc073c2619]
:thumbup:
It will take devotion on our part, Kevin.

 

[wsw201]

About two or three years ago there was a debate in the PCA about the original intent of the divines as to the Chapter on Creation.

David Hall did an excellent job in showing what the original intent of the divines were. If you are interested here is the site:

http://capo.org/creationstudies.html

But there was an article by Ligon Duncan discussing original intent and subscription that I found very enlightening consider that on the Creation thread some believed that not taking a 6/26 position was an exception that should bar someone from ordination.

[b:0ea2f58f6e]Recently, an able OPC minister and historical theologian, John V. Fesko has challenged David W. Hall's methodology for determining the original intent of the Westminster Assembly of Divines on the matter of the nature or length of the creation days, and even more significantly, has challenged the very status of original intent as a hermeneutical tool in establishing the meaning of a confessional document for the church. His concerns are at least twofold. First, he questions whether Hall's interpretive approach is a legitimate way of establishing the meaning of the Confession on the subject. Second, he is concerned that if Hall's "erroneous" approach is adopted, it could lead to a dangerous latitude or a restrictive narrowing on other issues.

The Question of Interpretive Method
The first thing that needs to be said in response is that Fesko misrepresents Hall's methodology. Because this is the case, his whole critique misses the mark. Fesko summarizes the methodology he attributes to Hall this way: "if a person can find a view other than six twenty-four hour literalism, then this would legitimize the permissibility of other views" [of the Confession's statement 'in the space of six days'].
Having spent hours in discussion with Mr. Hall on these matters, I can assure that he does not argue thusly: "In a comprehensive perusal of the extant writings of members of the Assembly, no divines have been found who held to a view other than 24-hour day creation days, therefore the Confession must mean to assert 24-hour creation days in its phrase 'in the space of six days' and therefore anyone differing with the Confession on this point ought to have to state his exception to it; conversely, if we were to find any member of the Assembly who held to another view, we would have to declare the phrase ambiguous or open on the matter of the creation days." That's not Mr. Hall's argument. In other words, David Hall doesn't think that the way you figure out what the Confession means is to go count up the varying individual members' opinions, gleaned from their published writings, and then impose the majority view upon any construction found in the text of the Confession or allow for diversity in subscription to the Confession if any diversity is discovered in the divines' private opinions.

Mr. Hall's logic, rather, goes like this.

(1) The Confession uses a phrase not found in Scripture in its chapter on creation. This phrase asserts that God created the world "in the space of six days." This phrase, in and of itself, seems to suggest that the Confession is specifying something positively about the nature and duration of the creation week.
(2) Though many respected late-nineteenth century interpreters of the Confession argue that the Confession is non-committal on the issue, at least one of their number (who does not embrace a '24-hour view') asserts that the Confession's original intent is that God created in six literal days, and no commentator on the Confession prior to 1850 suggests that there are various acceptable views of this clause.
(3) Lo and behold, it turns out that Calvin, who was a literalist on the nature of the days [pace Robert Letham et al], uses the phrase "in the space of six days" in his commentary on Genesis and this language was repeated by Ussher, another literalist, in his Irish Articles (so influential on the Westminster Assembly). It is this literalist language that is retained in the Confession.
(4) When challenged and charged with over-reading the phrase "in the space of six days" by those who believe the Confession to be non-committal or evasive for the sake of consensus, Mr. Hall then simply asks: "What evidence is there that there was a diversity of opinion on this issue that needed to find a consensus in a non-committal statement?"
(5) Then and only then does Mr. Hall go to the writings of the divines to see if there is indeed evidence for diversity. Any evidence of diversity at all.
(6) Having surveyed those writings he produces the following: [a] no member of the Assembly articulated a belief in the day-age view; no member of the Assembly articulated a belief in any form of a literary view; [c] no member of the Assembly articulated a belief in the Augustinian view; [d] every member who specifies his view specifies the traditional calendar day view (the so-called 24-hour view); [e] there is strong evidence to suggest that the phrase "in the space of six days" was specifically deployed to rebut and rule out the neo-Augustinian views represented in the thinking of contemporaries like Colet; [f] Such 'diversity' as can be found amongst the divines is all within the parameters of a literal view of the creation week.
In conclusion, Hall notes that there is no evidence whatsoever that any member of the Assembly held anything other than the traditional calendar day view. There is no evidence whatsoever of a diversity on this issue that needed a non-committal consensus statement in order to bring agreement within the Assembly. And therefore, when people claim that because the Confession was a consensus document it must be necessarily ambiguous on this matter, they do so without a single shred of historical evidence to support their entirely speculative, if not desperate, assertion.
This methodological issue is important because Dr. Fesko is not the only writer/speaker on this issue to charge Mr. Hall with bad logic. The very people who initially argued that the Divines were non-committal on this matter challenged Mr. Hall to study the original sources. They believed (without any evidence mind you) that an alleged diversity amongst the divines on this issue justified diversity amongst presbyterians today. Mr. Hall simply challenged their assumption and then produced the primary source material to back up his challenge.

Then they immediately started crying (1) that Mr. Hall was acting like a Rabbi and talmudically counting human opinions to establish spiritual truth rather than appealing to the Bible [a charge that so misses the point of this historical aspect of the creation debate that one wonders whether they are in the same discussion or not] or (2) that he hadn't found enough evidence of the calendar day view ["Oh," they said, "you've only proven that 20% of the Assembly held this view, you'll need to show explicitly that a majority held this view before we'll listen"] or (3) that Lightfoot held that the first day was 36 hours and hence the Assembly meant to be non-committal [anyone who wants to try to squeeze Lightfoot's first day literalism (which puts modern ICR-devotees in the shade with their mere insistence on the literal meaning of 'yom' and the significance of the use of the ordinal) into the mold of a day-age, literary, or Augustinian view, can be my guest] or (4), and I'll rejoin Dr. Fesko regarding this approach in my second major point, they say, "well, original intent doesn't matter after all [which is kind of like losing the game and then declaring that you weren't playing in the first place].

Now let's be clear. I believe that there should be a certain accepted diversity on the issue of the nature of the creation days within the Reformed tradition and within the PCA. So does Mr. Hall. I've worked hard as a conciliator on this issue at both the presbytery and General Assembly levels. But there is also another concern here. In our zeal to establish such legitimate diversity, do we make a wax nose out of the Confession in the process? Hasn't recent research forced us to admit that we've probably misunderstood the specific meaning of the Confession at this point? isn't the humble thing to do to say "we got this wrong, we'll allow a certain latitude on this, but we recognize that the original intent is clear and did not have in view such diversity."

The Importance of Original Intent
So, on to my next point. There seems to be an new industry today in Reformed circles. It's an industry committed to downplaying original intent whilst declaring Old School sympathies. And it's going to hurt us in the long run. Unfortunately, Dr. Fesko has devoted his considerable wisdom and learning to the work of this industry. He complains that, instead of appealing to original intent, "we must determine what animus imponentis ('the spirit of the entity imposing the oath') a church places upon the Westminster Standards." In other words, the most important thing in the ecclesial use of a confession is figuring out what the adopters meant to do when they adopted it. The problems with this approach begin, however, when the church itself has produced no publicly deliberated and received testimony as to what its animus imponentis was. Neither the OPC nor the PCA has done so, and that leaves us in a very vulnerable position when appealing to this principle. Hence, today, we hear intelligent men making goofy arguments (I promise I'm not making this up) like: "Well, when the OPC was formed it had dispensationalists in it, and nobody argued then that this was out of accord with the Confession, therefore dispensationalism should be confessionally acceptable in the OPC today." This sort of a subjective approach to determining the animus imponentis has Michael Foucault and Paul Ricoeur smiling.
Now, we do not deny the importance of a church's adopting act in ratifying the Confession, nor do we deny that this animus imponentis is (along with original intent) an important hermeneutical component to establishing the confessional obligations of churchmen, especially in connection with obscure or disputed points, but it is (1) ridiculous to pit the animus imponentis over against original intent as the norm of interpretation (unless we've bought into a postmodern view of truth-flux, won't we generally expect the two to agree, even if they are occasionally different?) and (2) insane to suggest that the animus imponentis can replace original intent altogether in our interpretation of the Confession.

When the Church of Scotland adopted the Westminster Confession it specified two areas in which it disagreed with the Confession: (1) presbyterian polity [the Presbyterians of Scotland went on record as saying that the Confession's failure to articulate a full-blown jure divino Presbyterianism was not to be taken as an indication that the Church of Scotland was not fully committed to such] and (2) the civil magistrate's right to call an Assembly [the Confession had granted to the magistrate the right to call ecclesiastical assemblies, as it had the Westminister Assembly (!), but the Scots said this applied only to "unsettled kirks' -- in other words, it was okay for the English to do this, once, because they didn't have their act together, but this will never be allowed here in Scotland where we have an honest-to-goodness Reformed Kirk and nation].

So, in this case, via the Adopting Act, we can say definitively what the animus imponentis of the Scottish church was when it embraced the Confession. No member of that body ever need "take exception" to the specified clauses or chapters. Further, in these two instances, the animus imponentis is indeed contradictory of original intent. Indeed the animus imponentis stands the Confession on its head at these two points! As for the rest of it, the Scottish Kirk demanded that the "whole doctrine" of the Confession be embraced simpliciter.

But things are not so easy when it comes to the PCA and OPC. They have no adopting acts stating these sorts of corporate understandings and exceptions. Hence, determining what the Founding Fathers of both communions intended latitude on becomes notoriously difficult and often dependent upon anecdotal evidence. Furthermore, can one fairly appeal to evidence of accommodation or toleration of a view as evidence of the animus imponentis of the Church? It is doubtful.

The Problem of Latitude or Narrowing on Other Disputed Issues
Third, and finally, let me address Dr. Fesko's contention that Mr. Hall's approach to original intent opens us up to a range of problems in other disputed territories. He basically suggests that Hall's method either forces us to allow positions we wouldn't want to allow or forces us to make people take exceptions to positions we've previously allowed and want to continue to allow. First, let me remind the patient reader that Fesko's version of Hall's methodology is not, in fact, Hall's methodology. Second, let me be so bold as to assert that it is Fesko's approach to confessional subscription that actually opens the door to the problems. "How so," you say?
Well, Fesko charges that since the Confession is ambiguous or open on the questions of Amyraldianism and the Active and Passive Obedience of Christ, but apparently clear and definite on that of Natural Theology, Lapsarianism, Theonomy. So, he argues, an original intent approach to interpreting the requirements of confessional adherence leaves us open, on the one hand, to four point Calvinists, and advocates of the passive-obedience-only-imputation view, while on the other hand forcing Van Tillians, Supralapsarians, and Theonomists to take an exception to the Confession! Now, dear reader, let me pause to say right now, this argument brings me no small amusement.

How shall we respond? First, by saying that Theonomists of the Bahnsenian stripe ought to have to take an exception to the Confession! They are clearly and irretrievably out of accord with the Confession's view of biblical law. So, when Fesko argues that 'if you use original intent as your subscriptional hermeneutic then Bahnsen-style theonomes will have to declare an exception,' my response is "Right. So? Next question." Now, of course, this argument of Fesko's is a sly ad hominem. He knows that many OPC theonomists are pushing for six day creation on the basis of strict subscription and he wants to back them down by showing that they themselves are not strict subscriptionists in terms of original intent. He's right. But the response he hopes for is for them to shy away from original intent appeals. Nevertheless, he's actually provided us here with a good argument for an objective original intent approach as opposed to a subjective animus imponentis approach to confessional hermeneutics.

Second, I'm inclined to agree with Fesko's assessment of the Confession's infralapsarianism, though the Confession's statements are light as a feather on this matter. Indeed, I'm publishing his outstanding dissertation on the subject! Pick up a copy from Reformed Academic Press later this Autumn (2001)! At any rate, there is far more evidence of a desire on the part of the Divines to achieve a consensus on this issue than that of creation. That fact alone helps to keep us careful in judging original intent, and thus behooves us to caution in placing too strenuous demands on subscribing supralapsarians.

Third, as a critic of certain aspects of Van Tillian epistemology, including its idealism and confused rendering of the historic Reformed orthodox doctrine of the noetic effects of sin, I was chuffed to hear Fesko's admission regarding the Confession's first chapter and its implications for a genuinely Reformed view of natural theology! He's right, of course. WCF 1.1, 1.6, 10.4, 20.4, 21.1 are not friendly to one of Van Til's greatest emphases. Nevertheless, even I would be hard-pressed to justify making a Van Tillian take an exception to the Confession on that ground. Fesko's argument does show that the widespread OPC practice of requiring assent to Van Tillianism of ordinands is actually unsupported by the Confession itself, and that R.C. Sproul has more in common with the Assembly of Divines on this point than does Cornelius Van Til! But he has not shown that the Confession's moderately Protestant Scholastic stance on natural revelation and theology is fundamentally at odds with Van Tillianism (much as I would love to declare it to be!).

Fourth, regarding Amyraldianism, the subjective animus imponentis approach suggested by Fesko will get the PCA and OPC into hot water much more quickly than will original intent. I'll explain that in a moment. But while one can certainly concur with Fesko that the Confession's statements on lapsarianism and even limited atonement are much more restrained and cautious than those of Dordt and Turretin, one cannot take the next step and declare that original intent gives us no aid here. The fact is that the Confession's moderate expressions of infralapsarianism in combination with its careful assertions of limited atonement and denials of universal redemption (as well as its failure to postulate a hypothetical universalism) constitute a tacit rejection of the Amyraldian scheme. Further, it is unlikely that Calamy and company really entertained a full-blown Amyraldianism - we might call them "semi-Amyraldians." The original intent thus does not imperil our current rejection of Amyraldians from ministerial communion in the PCA and OPC. One can argue that the Assembly wrote a document that, with regard to the decree and the nature of the atonement, was minimally offensive to Amyraldians and which allowed a minority of "semi-Amyraldians" to support it initially, but the document itself neither inculcates the Amyraldian system nor supplies the basic affirmations that would allow it to survive within the framework of a confessing church.

Fifth, Fesko's strongest argument regards the active and passive obedience debate. He suggests that the Confession allows for but does not explicitly demand the position that Christ's active and passive obedience are imputed to us. There is substance to this argument, but it needs more study before original intent is conceded or adduced here. Nevertheless, perhaps more than in other areas, we do see in this the marks of the consensual work of the Assembly. But the animus imponentis doesn't give you any help here either, because the OPC has never spelt out in an Adopting Act the requirement that the Confession be understood to teach the imputation of the whole obedience of Christ, active and passive. It may be the generally assumed practice of the Church (and that counts for something, I want to emphasize) but it does not constitute the animus imponentis in any kind of a formal sense.

Subjective Assertion of animus imponentis a Pandora's Box
Now, I have already charged that Fesko's approach actually causes problems in subscription, not Hall's. What do I mean? Well, let's take his one of his five examples and think about it in practice. It is almost certain that in both the PCA and OPC there were Amyraldians amongst the founding fathers. They may have been unwitting Amyraldians. They may not have even understood the terms. But it is almost certain that there were ministers and elders in good standing who would have articulated a perfectly good Amyraldian view given the chance. What then? Do we declare this the animus imponentis of the church and make it acceptable? That is what many (though not Dr. Fesko) would like to do. But when you possess no ecclesial declaration of animus imponentis then determining what the animus imponentis is becomes impossible. Fesko mocks Hall for counting the noses of the Assembly on the issue of the creation days, when this deed is far less challenging than determining the undeclared animus imponentis of hundreds of founding ministers and elders!
Indeed, there are two insuperable problems with Fesko's approach. First, it makes the meaning of the Confession a moving target by discounting the importance of the anchor of original intent. Second, it relies on a principle that twentieth century presbyterian communions like the PCA and OPC have less to go on than any of our presbyterian forbears. If you'd asked about the animus imponentis of the Free Church of 1843 or the Church of Scotland of 1647, you could have been handed a document that would sort that out. But the OPC and PCA adopting acts don't supply much if any help on the matters we've discussed above.

Hence, an appeal to an unspecified and unspecifiable animus imponentis (especially when combined with a discounting on original intent) makes the Confession into a wax nose to be molded by a fifty percent plus one majority of the court under the control of the spirit of the age. Bad idea. It opens up a Pandora's box of problems, and though it may seem to help in the relatively minor matter of the creation days, it hurts in precisely the areas of Dr. Fesko's own illustrations.

J. Ligon Duncan III, PhD
Minister, First Presbyterian Church
Adjunct Professor, Reformed Theological Seminary
Editorial Director, Reformed Academic Press
1390 North State Street
Jackson, MS 39202
[/b:0ea2f58f6e]

Any thoughts?

 

[fredtgreco]

Exactly! Lig Duncan's argument is my own.

 

[wsw201]

I found these two points most interesting:

"When the Church of Scotland adopted the Westminster Confession it specified two areas in which it disagreed with the Confession: (1) presbyterian polity [the Presbyterians of Scotland went on record as saying that the Confession's failure to articulate a full-blown jure divino Presbyterianism was not to be taken as an indication that the Church of Scotland was not fully committed to such] and (2) the civil magistrate's right to call an Assembly [the Confession had granted to the magistrate the right to call ecclesiastical assemblies, as it had the Westminister Assembly (!), but the Scots said this applied only to "unsettled kirks' -- in other words, it was okay for the English to do this, once, because they didn't have their act together, but this will never be allowed here in Scotland where we have an honest-to-goodness Reformed Kirk and nation].

So, in this case, via the Adopting Act, we can say definitively what the animus imponentis of the Scottish church was when it embraced the Confession. No member of that body ever need "take exception" to the specified clauses or chapters. Further, in these two instances, the animus imponentis is indeed contradictory of original intent. Indeed the animus imponentis stands the Confession on its head at these two points! As for the rest of it, the Scottish Kirk demanded that the "whole doctrine" of the Confession be embraced simpliciter."

I was not aware that the Church of Scotland had not accepted these two points of the WCF.

PS: Fred, I noticed the comment above your avatar. When they hang the "T" on you do not forget "from whence you came!". I know many a "T" who look at "R's" as obstacles to "their" ministry.

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

It is a very good argument, and clear.

He said:
isn't the humble thing to do to say "we got this wrong, we'll allow a certain latitude on this, but we recognize that the original intent is clear and did not have in view such diversity."

OH MY! Would it be that everyone who looks at the intent of historical documents would own up to things like this! To miss THEIR intent is to miss the document(s) as a whole! Things become relative awfully quick.

 

[fredtgreco]

[quote:23e140a848][i:23e140a848]Originally posted by wsw201[/i:23e140a848]
PS: Fred, I noticed the comment above your avatar. When they hang the "T" on you do not forget "from whence you came!". I know many a "T" who look at "R's" as obstacles to "their" ministry. [/quote:23e140a848]

Wayne,

Thanks. I have no intention to. I think (D.v.) I will be my Session's greatest cheerleader and horror -- I will expect of them the same level of commitment I have as an RE. Now if only I could get the PCA to recognize that they shouldn't "re-ordain" me, that would be something!!

 

[TomVols]

As a Baptist, I am in favor of some form of subscriptionism, though that puts me in a distinct minority among most of my SBC brethren. But we need to be careful not to make our tests of fellowship too strigent. To allow that something is a Biblical teaching and should not be taught because it may not line up with the confession or standards says something about whether or not the Bible is truly our plumbline or a human document given as an interpretative aid. BCF and WCF maintains they are subservient to the Bible. They should remain so. I know this only adds more questions than it answers, but the stew wasn't stirred up quite enough yet :roll:

 

[wsw201]

TomVols,

The Confession can be (and has been) changed and amended if it is shown to be out of accord with Scripture.

 

[fredtgreco]

[quote:ae4f368899][i:ae4f368899]Originally posted by TomVols[/i:ae4f368899]
As a Baptist, I am in favor of some form of subscriptionism, though that puts me in a distinct minority among most of my SBC brethren. But we need to be careful not to make our tests of fellowship too strigent. To allow that something is a Biblical teaching and should not be taught because it may not line up with the confession or standards says something about whether or not the Bible is truly our plumbline or a human document given as an interpretative aid. BCF and WCF maintains they are subservient to the Bible. They should remain so. I know this only adds more questions than it answers, but the stew wasn't stirred up quite enough yet :roll: [/quote:ae4f368899]

Tim,

As Wayne has pointed out, this simply does not follow. It is a false dilemma. Those who desire to avoid confessions (and I don't mean you hear Tom, but others who purport to be Presbyterian teachers) constantly bring up the false case that to require anything more than a vague, undefinable, and quite frankly, worthless subscription requires an unamendable, "Scripture-like" confession.

This is either simply foolish or underhanded argumentation. The truth is simple - any officer may, in the context of church courts try and persuade the court to modify the confession. In fact, an officer has the DUTY to do so. The court may not agree, but that does not provide the individual with an excuse to teach herterodoxy to unsuspecting sheep.

 

[Roldan]

Subscriptionism will be the major factor in a split in the PCA in the next few years.

It is ridiculous, and another atempt of the enemy to creep in and destroy.

Like Pipa said: "I suggest that in reality without full subscription you have no subscription."

 

[raderag]

Hi, I am currently in the PCA. Anyway, what are the rules right now? Is it left totally up to the Session and the Presbytery?

While, I see susbscriptionism as optimal, perhaps it should be something that we grow into as a denomination? The PCA churches around here are made up mostly people that are not traditionally reformed. In fact, most of our elders have been baptist or non-denominational at one time. In other words,, many are still reforming, me included.

I guess my question is on implementation. Furthermore, since there is such a contraversy on some of the WCF articles, would it be prudent or even possible to have some sort of reformed council to revisit these issues (such as the Lord's day)?

 

[dkicklig]

I think you're on to something

I have been involved in the PCA just for the last 2+ years and the 2 churches we have been in are composed of an amalgamation of backgrounds; Baptist, Nazarene, Lutheran, Apostolic, you name it we got it; and alot of those folks are rising up as leaders. The PCA presbyteries and elders need to realize this and really take eldership more seriously than I have seen.

For example one church did a 4 week "walk through the WCF & BCO" while the other spent 9 months studying them. I'll give you one guess as to which church is having problems with subscription.

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

In the last PCA church we were in, the elders were "crying" about the fact that they are required to read the WCF and study it. The pastor there has his hands full in helping those men become grounded, if they are willing at all.

 

[fredtgreco]

Can't we all just be "gospel driven" instead???

 

[wsw201]

[quote:5c126a6cc6][i:5c126a6cc6]Originally posted by fredtgreco[/i:5c126a6cc6]
Can't we all just be "gospel driven" instead???

[/quote:5c126a6cc6]

Fred are you going PPLN on us :wink1:

 

[wsw201]

[quote:7db335d0b9][i:7db335d0b9]Originally posted by raderag[/i:7db335d0b9]
Hi, I am currently in the PCA. Anyway, what are the rules right now? Is it left totally up to the Session and the Presbytery?

While, I see susbscriptionism as optimal, perhaps it should be something that we grow into as a denomination? The PCA churches around here are made up mostly people that are not traditionally reformed. In fact, most of our elders have been baptist or non-denominational at one time. In other words,, many are still reforming, me included.

I guess my question is on implementation. Furthermore, since there is such a contraversy on some of the WCF articles, would it be prudent or even possible to have some sort of reformed council to revisit these issues (such as the Lord's day)? [/quote:7db335d0b9]

The Presbyterian Church has always been a Confessional Church going back to Scotland. And Christ's Church has always been a Confessional Church in one form or another since the Garden. The fact that people are coming into the PCA from differing backgrounds should not mean that we should lower our standards. Instead we should bring them up to the standards of the PCA and teach them what the Westminster Standards are all about.

The office of Elder is not for everyone. But I believe that the backbone of the Presbyterian form of government is the Session, this is where the rubber meets the road. Unfortunately, as a general rule, many Sessions are made up of Ruling Elders, which are the majority on a Session, who are basically novices when it come to handling the Word of God much less the Westminster Standards or the BCO. Because of this they defer to the Teaching Elder too much when it comes to doctrinal issues. (They went to Seminary so they have to be smarter!)

There are procedures in the BCO for changing the Westminster Standards. It's not easy but it can be done. Of course the easiest way is to change the subscription vows. That's what the PCUSA did.

 

[raderag]

[quote:ed6e643401][i:ed6e643401]Originally posted by wsw201[/i:ed6e643401]
[quote:ed6e643401][i:ed6e643401]Originally posted by raderag[/i:ed6e643401]
Hi, I am currently in the PCA. Anyway, what are the rules right now? Is it left totally up to the Session and the Presbytery?

While, I see susbscriptionism as optimal, perhaps it should be something that we grow into as a denomination? The PCA churches around here are made up mostly people that are not traditionally reformed. In fact, most of our elders have been baptist or non-denominational at one time. In other words,, many are still reforming, me included.

I guess my question is on implementation. Furthermore, since there is such a contraversy on some of the WCF articles, would it be prudent or even possible to have some sort of reformed council to revisit these issues (such as the Lord's day)? [/quote:ed6e643401]

The Presbyterian Church has always been a Confessional Church going back to Scotland. And Christ's Church has always been a Confessional Church in one form or another since the Garden. The fact that people are coming into the PCA from differing backgrounds should not mean that we should lower our standards. Instead we should bring them up to the standards of the PCA and teach them what the Westminster Standards are all about.

The office of Elder is not for everyone. But I believe that the backbone of the Presbyterian form of government is the Session, this is where the rubber meets the road. Unfortunately, as a general rule, many Sessions are made up of Ruling Elders, which are the majority on a Session, who are basically novices when it come to handling the Word of God much less the Westminster Standards or the BCO. Because of this they defer to the Teaching Elder too much when it comes to doctrinal issues. (They went to Seminary so they have to be smarter!)

There are procedures in the BCO for changing the Westminster Standards. It's not easy but it can be done. Of course the easiest way is to change the subscription vows. That's what the PCUSA did. [/quote:ed6e643401]

I realize that, and I wasn't suggesting that. My question was on how do deal with the current realities. I was trying to ask how to implement it.

[Edited on 3-3-2004 by raderag]