Quote:
Originally Posted by Pergamum  How strongly do we have to hold to the confessions? Can you explain strict or loose subscriptionism?
For instance, I am not sure if the Pope is THE Antichrist, though he certainly fits that category...I don't think Scripture is clear enough for any confession to speak with authority on that subject. A "well...maybe" is about all I think can be affirmed on that subject on the personal identity of Antichrist. How would I be classified, though I love the 1689 and use it as a good reference to what I believe.
Also, can "Confessionalism" be an attitude as well? I.e. the problems of the church can be solved if we just get more Confessional, etc. |
You are to be commended for carefully considering your confession!
Remember, you are taking a vow before God, witnessed by men as to what you believe and God does not take vows lightly. Being an officer doesn't only mean you have come to tell people what you believe but that you have carefully considered what the Confession teaches, and its Scriptural basis and that you understand its context within the Confession as a whole.
A "Confession" is said to summarize doctrine contained in Scripture. A "Confession" is not infallible and is suboordinate to Scripture- that is why a "Confession" can be amended. Amendment is intentionally a careful and deliberative process with a high level of agreement required, but it is possible. The idea from "semper reformanda" (always reforming to conform with the authority of Scripture) is that the church looks at her doctrine and practice every generation to make sure it is conforming with Scripture (not with the world system, its culture or the ideas of men).
In the PCA, we have what some call "good faith" subscription. In my understanding of its application in the denomination it means that an
officer must subscribe to every proposition and statement contained in the Confession unless an "exception" is granted by a Presbytery. Those "exceptions" must be:
1) stated publically
2) put on the record
3) voted on by a peer group of teaching elders (presbytery) and either granted or not granted
It is my understanding in our denomination at the present time, presbyteries also decide whether the exception can be taught or not.
Exceptions granted are subject to review at the denomination-wide level through a records committee and potentially through church courts, perhaps in other ways as well. While we are still working through some relatively new procedure on this, this seems to be serving its purpose of preserving the peace and purity of the church. It has helped presbyteries to be very very careful in granting exceptions.
So, does this mean that candidates are "mixing and matching" their doctrines and "seeing what they can get by with"? Not at all, from what I can tell. It's a serious and fearsome thing to take an exception at all. Very few are taken but where they are, the candidate has done his research and is well persuaded of his position, within the context of other Scripture and within the context of the rest of the Confession.
Although this has often been a major issue for discussion within the church, "scruples" were historically permitted if not disruptive to the system and everything else about the candidate confirmed his qualification and fitness for high church office.
Understand, of course, members of the church do not have to understand, far less agree to every statement of doctrine in the Confession. They do not take a vow of agreement with the doctrine summarized in the Confession. Members do vow to learn the church's doctrine (as contained in the Confession, suboordinate to the Scriptures) and submit to the church's authority and discipline.