Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie  Quote:
Originally Posted by HaigLaw When I was ordained a PCA elder in 1978, I had no exceptions, and when I was installed again in a different PCA church in 2007, I had none; but with a keener understanding from reading the debates on PB, perhaps I should amend my views and let my session know, and let them decide whether any exceptions are essential. | Your last sentence pretty much sums up why I would not dare take church office. About 5 years ago I would have said I agreed with every jot and title of the Westminster Standards, now I prefer to say that I show a teachable spirit, as I do not have the learning to make such a bold assertion. |
It seems to me that the issue here is that the WCF may well
over-define the reformed faith (as I've said on another thread). That is, we must recognize a legitimate domain of beliefs that believers are free to disagree on and perhaps the WCF comes down on some issues where reformed believers are free to differ. The effect of this is to exclude people who shouldn't be excluded.
Strict subscription positively makes the boundaries of belief clear. Negatively it excludes many good people who (I suspect) should not be excluded.
The "system of doctrine" subscription negatively leads to a vague definition of the boundaries of belief. Positively, it allows for good people to be elders who couldn't be in according to strict subscription.
The WCF is perhaps the greatest confession ever written. However, I wonder if it isn't time to update the WCF. It's been done before. Update the WCF well would mean we could combine (i) strict subscription to make the boundaries crystal clear,
as well as (ii) keeping all sorts of good people in the denomination who are godly and orthodox but in conscience can't agree with certain minor points of the WCF (like the Pope being
the Antichrist).
Blessings.