What can be meant by “receiving and adopting the Confession of Faith of this Church, as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures”?

This question of subscription rises at the time of ordination of teaching elders and ruling elders. The first ordination vow reads, “Do you believe the Scripture of the Old and New Testaments, as originally given, to be the Word of God, the only infallible rule of faith and practice?”.

The second ordination vow poses the question: “Do you sincerely receive and adopt the Confession of Faith of this Church, as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures ...”.

The PC(USA) adopted the following corollary questions: “Do you accept the scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be, by the Holy Spirit, the unique and authoritative witness to Jesus Christ on the church universal, and God’s word to you?” “Will you be instructed by the Confessions of our church, and led by them as you lead the people of God?” “Will you be in obedience to Jesus Christ, under the authority of Scripture, and continually guided by our Confessions?”

There are at least three primary positions of assent to the Westminster Confession of Faith. The first position, “full” (sometimes called “strict”), is principally articulated by Rev. Morton H. Smith, former Stated Clerk of the General Assembly of the P.C.A. and current Dean of Faculty at Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary. The second position is termed as “system” (also known as “honest” or “loose”) subscription. This view is proposed by Dr. William S. Barker, former President of Covenant Seminary and currently a professor at Westminster Seminary. The third position might be known as the “guidance” position (loosey-goosey). This view is the position maintained by the Presbyterian Church (USA) in their Worshipbook (p. 91). .

1. The Full Subscription view spans all Reformed denominations who maintain the Westminster Confession of Faith as their secondary standard. The full subscriptionist “maintains that he subscribes to the Confession and Catechisms because they contain the doctrines of the Bible ... (he) holds that the reason we make the Confession and Catechisms the confession of our faith is because we believe that what they say are true to the Bible. . . . the Church has settled doctrinal positions on all the doctrines addressed by the Confessions and Catechisms.(empasis mine)”[5] The strength of this position centers around the following:
   • a simple, straight forward understanding of the ordination questions, and
   • an objective stronghold against doctrinal error.
2. The System Subscription position as described by Dr. Barker intends to “maintain the priority of the Scriptures as the only infallible rule of faith and practice.”[6] He goes on to explain that “honest” subscription is “an adopting the Westminster confession and Catechisms by every teaching and ruling elder as what our church believes contains the system of doctrine. This entails each such ordained officer declaring to the appropriate court of the church, presbytery, or session, any exception that he takes to our doctrinal standards so that the court can decide if it is a contradiction or not.”[7] The forceful arguments for system/honest subscription are:
   • it seeks to maintain the priority of Scripture as the final judge of all controversies of religion and to keep the subordinate standard subordinate, and
   • would apparently encourage more study and honesty regarding the Confession.
3. The Guidance approach uses the Confession as a basis of unity subject to personal interpretation, and cooperation. It fails as a basis for unity because, in the first question, God’s Word has lost it’s infallible and inerrant quality. The “Word” has been changed to “word to you.” In the second and third questions, the terms “instructed” and “guided” sound nice but are weak — neither instruction nor guidance is necessarily binding. Here we find a strange complex of semantics. I know what I would mean if I were to make those vows, but when placed alongside of the vows they replace the lack of substance becomes glaring.

What should be meant by “receiving and adopting the Confession of Faith of this Church, as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures?”

My opinion regarding Full Subscription (as defined by Dr. Morton Smith) is that it fails as a consistent position for the following reasons:

• it effectively places the subordinate standard above the Holy Scriptures as the final arbiter of all religious controversies covered by the standard. COF 31:3 states that “all synods or councils since the apostle’s time, whether general or particular may err, and many have erred; therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith or practice, but to be used as a help in both.” The COF refuses to be placed where full subscriptionists would place it.[8]
• it nullifies the provisions for amendment; i.e., if a presbyter must fully/totally subscribe to the confessional standards, there is no possibility of any amendment without violation of ordination vows.
• it contradicts the history of the Westminster Assembly and the Confession itself. Dr. Warfield in his The Westminster Assembly and Its Work, includes a section, “The Making of the Confession,” that chronicles the many reports, adjustments, debates that took place.[9] It becomes clear that the Westminster Confession is an extensive document forged from the heat of long debate by some of the finest theological minds since the apostles. However it is still a compromise--one cannot say that all was equally or fully agreed upon or that differences were not held by the commisioners at the Assembly. Let me make this point: the original version of the Westminster Confession of Faith and its catechisms clearly represent an amillenial position. Isn’t that the reason our synod amended them? However, at the Assembly, the Prolocutor, Dr. Twisse along with other “chief divines” are quoted by Dr. Baillie in Peter’s The Theocratic Kingdom, as being pre-millennial.[10] What we’re saying is that the moderator of the Westminster Assembly could not have been a full/strict subscriptionist or he could not have signed his assent. How do you get full/strict subscription out of that? It doesn’t even fit through the cracks!
• the phrase regarding “system of doctrine” appears redundant as interpreted by the full subscriptionist. If the Westminster divines intended full subscription it seems to me that the ordination question would have been cleaner without the phrase. The inclusion of the phrase leads me to speculate that it is intended as a qualifier.

The System subscription position seems to have this problem: what is not essential to the system of doctrine? We cannot consider ourselves full/strict subscriptionists. Our synod amended our COF and LC #82-90 to reflect our premillenial conviction. But there are other areas to consider. What about COF XXIV, of Marriage and Divorce? Some of us maintain only one ground for divorce and remarriage; the COF mentions two. Others here may not hold so tightly to the six, literal, 24 hour day creation in LC #15 and SC #9. How about COF XXIX sec. 3-4 of the Lord’s Supper? It forbids a practice of most of our ministers ie. to bring Communion to our shut-ins in some manner. I challenge you to read the Confession carefully through again. You’ll not only be blessed and instructed, but you’ll likely find what A.A. Hodge calls “scruples” or differences in your belief or practice. System subscription places a lot of responsibility on the presbyteries. I ’m not sure we have always handled this reponsibility well. We as Teaching Elders must be thoroughly acquainted with our confession. If we’re system subscriptionists, we must know the system. More than that--we must love it. Further than that, we must use it in the training of our leaders and people.

Endnotes

1. Campbell, Alexander. A Debate Between Rev. A. Campbell and Rev. N. L. Rice. Lexington, Kentucky. A. T. Skillman & son, 1844.
2. Hodge, Archibald Alexander. Outlines of Theology. reprint of 1879 ed., London: Banner of Truth Trust, 1972. p.p. 112-114
3. Ibid. p.p. 114
4. Clark, Gordon H. What Do Presbyterians Believe?. Phillipsburg, New Jersey. Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1965. p.p. 283
5. Smith, Morton H. "Why We Should Be Full Subscriptionists." The Presbyterian Advocate, September - October 1992.
6. Barker, William S. "What Does Subscription to Our Confession Mean?" The Presbyterian Advocate, September - October 1992.
7. Ibid.
8. The Bible Presbyterian General Synod. The Constitution of the Bible Presbyterian Church. Edmonton, Alberta: 1989. p. 26.
9. Warfield, B. B. The Westminster Assembly and Its Work. Cherry Hill, New Jersey. Mack Publishing Company, 1972. p.p. 75-151.
10. Peters, George N H. The Theocratic Kingdom. 3 vols. New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1884; reprint ed., Grand Rapids, Michigan: Kregel Publications, 1978. I pp. 530-531, II pp. 220, III pp. 176.

Bibliography

1. Barker, William S. "What Does Subscription to Our Confession Mean?" The Presbyterian Advocate, September - October 1992.
2. Barker, William S. "Response to Dr. Morton H. Smith on: ‘Why We Should Be Full Subscriptionists.’" The Presbyterian Advocate, January/ February & March 1993.
3. Campbell, Alexander. A Debate Between Rev. A. Campbell and Rev. N. L. Rice. Lexington, Kentucky. A. T. Skillman & son, 1844.
4. Clark, Gordon H. What Do Presbyterians Believe?. Phillipsburg, New Jersey. Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1965.
5. Cummings, C. K. Which Faith Shall Presbyterians Confess? Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The Committee on Christian Education, The Orthodox Presbyterian Church.
6. Donaldson, James. The Westminster Confession of Faith and the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England: The legal, moral, and religious aspects of subscription to them. London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1905
7. Hodge, Archibald Alexander. Outlines of Theology. reprint of 1879 ed., London: Banner of Truth Trust, 1972.
8. Hodge, J. Aspinwall. What is Presbyterian Law: As Defined by the Church Courts?. Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Education, 1882.
9. Machen, J. Gresham. What Is Faith?. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1972.
10. Peters, George N H. The Theocratic Kingdom. 3 vols. New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1884; reprint ed., Grand Rapids, Michigan: Kregel Publications, 1978.
11. Philadelphia Baptist Association. The Philadelphia Confession of Faith: being the London Confession of Faith, 1742, with Scripture References and Keach’s catechism. 2nd ed. Sterling, Virginia: Grace Abounding Printers, 1981.
12. Slosser, Gaius Jackson. The History of the Westminster Assembly and Standards: Chronological Outline including Origins, Criticisms and Appreciations. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: monograph, 1943.
13. Smith, Morton H. "Why We Should Be Full Subscriptionists." The Presbyterian Advocate, September - October 1992.
14. Smith, Morton H. "Response to Dr. William S. Barker: on ‘What Does Subscription to Our Confession Mean?’." The Presbyterian Advocate, January/ February & March 1993.
15. The Bible Presbyterian General Synod. The Constitution of the Bible Presbyterian Church. Edmonton, Alberta: 1989.
16. The Presbyterian Church in America. The Book of Church Order of the Presbyterian Church in America. Decatur, Georgia: The Office of the Stated Clerk of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America.
17. Vine, W. E. Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words. Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1981.
18. Waldron, Samuel E. A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith. Durham, England: Evangelical Press, 1989.
19. Warfield, B. B. The Westminster Assembly and Its Work. Cherry Hill, New Jersey. Mack Publishing Company, 1972