I've been reading our very own R. Scott Clark's wonderful book on Reclaiming the Reformed Confession. In one of the chapters, Dr. Clark talks about the history of subscription to the confessions (whether they be 3FU or WCF). He breaks down the levels of subscription into two basic camps: We subscribe to the Confession because it is Biblical We subscribe to the Confession insofar as it's Biblical The first group of people would be of the sort that the "Confession says it, that settles it" because they believe the Confession is Biblical. If there is any doubt regarding an article in the Confession, the proper response is to convene a committee to look into altering the confession (my guess this is analogous to the amendment process for the U.S. Constitution). Within the second group there are three sub-categories (strict subscription, system subscription and substance subscription). Each one of these sub-categories allow (and even expect) ministry candidates to have exceptions to the confessions. Rather than alter the Confession, the exceptions are noted and the candidate is either accepted or rejected. I was just wondering which camp you all fall into (I'm going to try to add a poll to this post).