» Site Navigation | | | |  | 
02-03-2008, 03:45 PM
|  | Puritanboard Freshman | | Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Georgia
Posts: 254
Thanks: 22
Thanked 23 Times in 15 Posts
| | | What to do about "loose subscription"? I am particularly interested in hearing what our resident elders/pastors have to say on this, but by all means let the laymen be heard as well.
In a recent board poll, Do you view your respective confession as functionally infallible?, members here expressed their various positions on the confessions they hold to. How do our church leaders here feel about "loose subscription?" And if you hold a "strict subscription" position, what advice do you have for members (or potential members) who struggle with a point or more of your congregation's confession? | 
02-03-2008, 03:55 PM
|  | Lanesterator Minimus | | Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Hague, North Dakota
Posts: 1,234
Thanks: 282
Thanked 649 Times in 300 Posts
| | | Loose subscription is the way to lose a denomination in liberalism. Of course, that is not what "good faith" subscription is in the PCA, contrary to FV sympathizers. Here are the various terms, and what they mean. Strict subscription means that no exceptions are allowed. Good faith subscription means that all exceptions must be declared, and then the Presbytery trusts the candidate that there are no other exceptions. Loose subscription means that there is a confession within the confession ("as long as someone holds to the basic system within the confession, that's okay"). Now, do remember that in most Reformed churches, the members are not required to hold to the doctrinal standards. For instance, if someone believed in credobaptism, that would not necessarily be a bar to membership in a church which I was pastoring. It would be a bar to holding office, however. If someone were struggling with such a doctrine, they should examine the confession closely to see exactly what it says. Then they should ransack Scripture to see what Scripture says. Lastly, they should see what other godly men might have to say about it. They should struggle with their understanding, and especially talk with the pastor. | | The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to greenbaggins For This Useful Post: | | 
02-03-2008, 06:07 PM
|  | Puritanboard Sophomore | | Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Milwaukee, Wi
Posts: 594
Thanks: 234
Thanked 48 Times in 42 Posts
| | | Loose Subscription? Then why subscribe at all? Its similar to being lukewarm i guess.
__________________
Brian E
Attending Christ Reformed Baptist Church
Milwaukee, WI
| 
02-03-2008, 07:27 PM
|  | Puritanboard Junior | | Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Winston-Salem, NC
Posts: 1,465
Thanks: 228
Thanked 41 Times in 30 Posts
| | | Is "good faith" used in the same sense as the legal term? I don't have any legal training, but they seem different.
Doesn't good faith subscription reduce to loose subscription? Presbytery is still deciding which exceptions strike at the system of doctrine contained in the Standards and which ones don't. | 
02-03-2008, 07:46 PM
|  | Administrator | | Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 7,213
Thanks: 757
Thanked 640 Times in 395 Posts
| | | Is there is a requirement to record and report exceptions in the PCA at presbytery exams? i.e. review and control over all exceptions being made at presbytery level?
__________________
Chris Coldwell
Lakewood Presbyterian Church (PCA), Member Naphtali Press: Presbyterian & Reformed Books The Confessional Presbyterian, A Journal for Discussion of Presbyterian Doctrine & Practice The Blue Banner Archive When heresy rises in an evangelical body, it is never frank and open. It always begins by skulking, and assuming a disguise. Its advocates, when together, boast of great improvements, and congratulate one another on having gone greatly beyond the old dead orthodoxy, and on having left behind many of its antiquated errors: but when taxed with deviations from the received faith, they complain of the unreasonableness of their accusers, as they differ from it only in words. This has been the standing course of errorists ever since the apostolic age. Samuel Miller, Introductory essay, The Articles of the Synod of Dort (1841).
Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions? | 
02-03-2008, 07:46 PM
|  | Moderator | | Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Tacoma, WA
Posts: 3,362
Thanks: 98
Thanked 592 Times in 352 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by SRoper Is "good faith" used in the same sense as the legal term? I don't have any legal training, but they seem different.
Doesn't good faith subscription reduce to loose subscription? Presbytery is still deciding which exceptions strike at the system of doctrine contained in the Standards and which ones don't. | Good faith, as a legal term, simply means without duplicitous intent. It gives the idea that you intend to honor the spirit of the law or the contract involved, without looking for loopholes or other ways out.
A loose interpretation, on the other hand, could include such loopholes, etc., especially if you do not have good faith.
As a stupidly extreme example, suppose a contract says of one party: "he shall pay $__ by the end of each month."
The good faith person would simply make the payment: he'd arrange his affairs so it will happen. If circumstances occur later that prevents the payment, he still entered into the contract in good faith and would be honest about either fulfilling the contract or honest about accepting the consequences of breaching it.
The "loose" contractor might say, "well, end of the month, the beginning of the next month, whatever, I'll pay when I have the money." If the other party tolerates that, the contract has become much looser and the person to whom money is owed has a harder time later enforcing timely payment.
And the "bad faith" contractor may say, "well, the contract says 'he' shall pay. I'll just have a sex change operation and become a 'she' so I won't be bound by it."
A homely example, no doubt, but I think the same thing goes for confessions too. | | The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to victorbravo For This Useful Post: | | 
02-03-2008, 08:14 PM
|  | Puritanboard Junior | | Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Winston-Salem, NC
Posts: 1,465
Thanks: 228
Thanked 41 Times in 30 Posts
| | | OK, so I had the legal definition correct. What I don't get is why it's called "good faith subscription." Is it because the candidate with exceptions says, in effect, "here are my exceptions to the Standards, and I accept any consequences that might come from my exceptions"? | 
02-03-2008, 10:34 PM
|  | Puritanboard Doctor | | Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Mandeville, LA
Posts: 6,383
Thanks: 1,253
Thanked 634 Times in 454 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by SRoper OK, so I had the legal definition correct. What I don't get is why it's called "good faith subscription." Is it because the candidate with exceptions says, in effect, "here are my exceptions to the Standards, and I accept any consequences that might come from my exceptions"? | I think that is basically how it is supposed to work, and it is up to the Presbytery to decide whether or not the candidate indeed subscribes to the system of doctrine found in the standards or if his exceptions are such that they are inimical to the system of doctrine.
__________________
Chris Poe--Attending Grace Community Baptist Church, Mandeville, LA "There never was a man in the world without a creed. What is a creed? A creed is what you believe. What is a confession? It is a declaration of what you believe. That declaration may be oral or it may be committed to writing, but the creed is there either expressed or implied."B.H. Carroll | 
02-03-2008, 10:39 PM
|  | Puritanboard Sophomore | | Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 546
Thanks: 71
Thanked 160 Times in 90 Posts
| | | "Good faith subscription" sounds like what we've generally termed "system subscription" (ie: we subscribe to the system of doctrine contained in the confession, though we might have some disagreements with particular points). | 
02-03-2008, 10:42 PM
|  | Puritanboard Junior | | Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Cordova, TN
Posts: 1,269
Thanks: 81
Thanked 280 Times in 193 Posts
| | | Hmmm. I know my church has a fellow officer who doesn't hold to paedo-baptism, but then others who "do", in that they simply don't care. I'd rather have the credo-baptist on board with me, promising not to make an issue out of it, than 5 folks that are just luke-warm and aquiescent on all issues.
__________________ Andrew DeShazo, Deacon, Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church, Memphis, TN "All of us stumble in many ways, but if anyone is never at fault in what he says, then he is mature, able to control his whole body."(James 3:2) | 
02-04-2008, 11:35 AM
| | Puritanboard Doctor | | Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Saintfield, Co. Down, Northern Ireland
Posts: 6,568
Thanks: 2,062
Thanked 1,124 Times in 740 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by Zenas Hmmm. I know my church has a fellow officer who doesn't hold to paedo-baptism, but then others who "do", in that they simply don't care. I'd rather have the credo-baptist on board with me, promising not to make an issue out of it, than 5 folks that are just luke-warm and aquiescent on all issues. |  That raises an interesting question: should deacons be required to fully-subscribe to the standards since they are not in a teaching or ruling position? I do not see how someone being a Baptist, for instance, would be a hindrance to him carrying out the duties of a Deacon in a Presbyterian church. 
__________________
Daniel Ritchie
Saintfield, Northern Ireland - Queen's University, Belfast:History/Politics
Member of Dromara Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland (Covenanter)
| 
02-04-2008, 11:44 AM
|  | Lanesterator Minimus | | Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Hague, North Dakota
Posts: 1,234
Thanks: 282
Thanked 649 Times in 300 Posts
| | | To answer Raekwon, good faith subscription is not the same as system subscription, which is actually the same as loose subscription.
To answer Chris, an amendment was just passed last GA requiring all presbyteries to judge all differences as to whether they were exceptions or merely verbal differences. | 
02-04-2008, 12:20 PM
|  | Puritanboard Sophomore | | Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 546
Thanks: 71
Thanked 160 Times in 90 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by greenbaggins To answer Raekwon, good faith subscription is not the same as system subscription, which is actually the same as loose subscription. | Sounds like I've heard a different definition of system subscription, then. Are these somehow "official" definitions? | 
02-04-2008, 02:09 PM
|  | Lanesterator Minimus | | Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Hague, North Dakota
Posts: 1,234
Thanks: 282
Thanked 649 Times in 300 Posts
| | | There's a lot of confusion out there, with some people using "system" to mean "loose," while others use it to mean "good-faith." I take it to mean that a person is subscribing to the system of the WCF, without detailing what is important about it and what isn't. In other words, a loose subscription. I don't there is any official description of system subscription anywhere, but the good faith subscription is definitely there in the minutes of GA, if you want to go scrounging around for it! ;-) | 
02-04-2008, 04:14 PM
| | Puritanboard Freshman | | Join Date: May 2007 Location: Edmonton, AB
Posts: 96
Thanks: 15
Thanked 40 Times in 20 Posts
| | Charles Hodge addressed this issue from an old-school perspective. An article entitled What is the System of Doctrine? consists of Hodge's opinions from his book Church Polity edited by Machen and published in The Presbyterian Guardian in 1936. | | The Following User Says Thank You to JTDyck For This Useful Post: | |  | | Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes | Linear Mode |
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts HTML code is Off | | | |