I'm interested in hearing your feedback on this:

Does strict subscription to the WCF require that one adhere to the interpretation of all the verses used as scripture references in the confession. Thus, if one affirms the statement in the confession, but interprets the verse which the confession footnotes differently and would not apply that verse as the Westminster divines did (thus affirming the confessional statement because of other places in scripture), can this person still say, in good conscience, that they subscribe the confession?

(i.e. Does confessional subscription apply to the application of scripture references, or just the the body text itself?)

Feedback.

__________________
Paul Korte
OPC
Flint, MI

They who perceive in themselves discoveries of the divine goodness, so full and absolutely perfect, and who make them the subject of earnest meditation, will never embrace new doctrines, by which the very grace they feel so powerfully in themselves is thrown into the shade. --John Calvin

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

I can't answer for the WCF, but your question is one of the reasons why I hold to full subscription to the LBC as opposed to strict subscription.

__________________
Bill Brown
Elder
Reformed Baptist
Maryland

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?
Visit my BLOG Theology for the Rest of Us

If you're going to subscribe to a document, you should believe it's Scriptural. That's kind of basic.

The prooftexts are not a material aspect of the Standards, and are adduced as specific Scriptural warrant for the confessional statements. They aren't "constitutional" in that sense, since not a word of them can be changed (depending on your translation, of course). It may be different in one church or another, but in the OPC, the prooftexts--while they have been approved by the GA--are not of a piece with the constitution. And our OPC pt's are not exactly the same as the original ones. We actually have more, and a few different ones.

As for whether or not the pt's in fact support the doctrine or not, it might help to follow the old divines' logic, and see if they might have seen something you missed. Of course, they could be wrong, but then perhaps not.

__________________
Rev. Bruce G. Buchanan
ChainOLakes Presbyterian Church, CentralLake, MI


When posting friends, kindly bear those words of earthly wisdom in mind:
Oh, that God the gift would give us
To see ourselves as others see us.
--Robert Burns, 1786 (modernized) ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions? --

Bill, pardon my ignorance, but what is the difference between a full and strict subscription?

And Rev. Buchanan, thank you for giving the OPC's answer.

For example, could one disagree with question 6 of the Shorter Catechism, since it has 1 John 5:7 as a proof text for the Trinity, which is not apart of the cannon?

__________________
Richard Kairelis
Westminster Reformed Presbyterian Church, RPCNA (Prarie View, IL)
Chicago, IL

Paul,

See the latter part of THIS thread.