A Poll on Confession Subscription

[Mushroom]

Maybe I missed the importance of the "We subscribe" as opposed to "I subscribe" in the OP. As the Church, we hold the confession to be biblical and to define what it is that we believe. As an individual, I place no great trust in my own ability to understand fully either the scriptures or the confession, but by the grace of God I know the scriptures to be infallibly true. The Holy Spirit has not granted me the same certitude of the infallibility of the confession.

So corporately perhaps we are a part of the #1 group, but individually I will still have to say I am a part of the #2 group, even if in the strict subscription subgroup, based only on the mistrust I have of my own faculties. Maybe the point being made is that individual views are immaterial to the question?

Edit: To further muddy the waters, now I notice that the OP said "We subscribe", while the poll said "I subscribe". What might that portend?

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

I wanted to select the first question, but the fact that the confession I subscribe to is a man made document caused me to select the second question. btw I do believe the 1689 LBC is biblical.

I agree with Bill. But I hit number 1.

 

[Mushroom]

Something the Pastor of our mother Church stated really stuck with me because he was talking about this idea when he recounted a conversation with another man in Presbytery. The minister was telling him that he believed the Scriptures taught X and that the rest of the Presbytery was wrong on this issue. Doug gently rebuked him and stated: "No, we confess the Scriptures together. If we disagree on something then we need to labor together to resolve this."

Rich, the last time I attended Doug Kitteridge's Church, it was an independent reformed congregation. I know they have joined the PCA since then. Was this confessionalism he now holds a progressive realization, or was he confessional back when they were independent?

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

In other words, it is increasingly the case that ministers are content (or may even see in it the design of the Word itself!) that each person settle what the Word says for himself/herself and so the "I agree with the Confession because I believe that's what the Word says" means that the Church is nothing more than a confederation of people who individually agree on what the Word teaches.

I don't know if we'll ever be able to put the modernism genie back in the bottle but I think this lays at the heart of the matter. The idea that we are to be led to the Truth and the unity thereof by Pastors and Elders (Eph 6) is lost on most people who see Truth as emanating from the center of their mind outwardly. This is compounded by the fact that ministers increasingly agree, fundamentally, with this approach because they're willing to stand in complete isolation from the Church at large and teach what the rest of the Body believes is un-Biblical and still insist they are part of the same corporate Body. It's not done with tears that the Body is being ripped asunder but, often, with disdain for the lack of academic or cultural sophistication exhibited by their hayseed contemporaries who are stuck in the past.

It breaks my heart and I don't know precisely how to fix it. I want to labor for the Body of Christ and strive for Her peace and purity but I often find myself trying to figure out what the Church really Confesses and what She's really abandoned with her Confession and allowed for any variety of views.

I just listened to Fesko discuss his latest book on Justification by Faith alone on a Covenant Radio Broadcast. During the Broadcast he made me full aware that the Church ever since the beginning of time has struggled against legalism and disbelief. That was one of the major reasons the Book of Romans and Galatians was written by Paul. From the beginning of Genesis we are told of the Messiah and His work. But we are now born dead and can't seem to understand something that has proceeded to us from outside of us. Therefore we start off with wrong thinking and need to be brought back to what is right from something that isn't in us naturally. It is an age old problem that only God fixes.

I love the part that I boldened above Rich. It reminds me of the often quoted saying that we are on a Journey and we just need to discover our path.

Truth comes from outside of us. Not from within. Lining up with it is very hard since we are not naturally inclined toward it. I love Romans 7.

 

[Osage Bluestem]

Let me clarify some things because it seems some people are misunderstanding my question.

Group #1 isn't meant to pit the Confession against Scripture. Group #1 is the position that one believes his Confession is Biblical (i.e., it is an accurate summary of Biblical doctrine). As such, I subscribe to it en toto because it is Biblical. For example, if a confession has 30 articles, I accept all 30 articles without reservation and will teach as such. If there is a consensus that one (or more) of the articles is not in line with Scripture, rather than allow people to take exceptions, the move is to make the Confession come in line with SCripture so that is remains Biblical (e.g., the American version of the WCF ca. 1789).

Group #2 isn't meant to mean anyone can take any exception they please to the confession, but that if there is an exception is goes through a review process and the exception is either allowed or denied. Within this group there are various levels of subscription: Strict (which I believe is very close to group #1); System and Substance. System subscription allows exceptions as long as the system of doctrine is not challenged. According to Dr. Clark, Charles Hodge was an early advocate of this position, and if I'm not mistaken (I don't have the book in front of me) the system he had in mind was that expounded in the Canons of Dort. Substance subscription is the weakest of the three and has led to such things as the WCF simply stating the historic reformed doctrine (i.e., not necessarily to be adhered to today). This would be the position of the PCUSA and other mainline denominations.

Ok that makes sense. I believe I am firmly stuck in group one until someone proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that any part of the Westminster Confession is unbiblical. I think it is the best summary of what scripture says that man has written down.

 

[puritanpilgrim]

It's a trap...it's a trap.

 

[ColdSilverMoon]

Choice #1 for me.

 

[Pergamum]

There is some confusion of categories in the OP. James Bannerman's Church of Christ and Hall's Practice of Confessional Subscription would be useful places to start thinking about this subject. The first point to be distinguished is the church's adopting and the officer's subscribing a confession. The church adopts because it is biblical, and it is ultra vires to alter that confession. The church is its confession (WCF 25:2, 5). If the church alters its confession it alters itself. Given this understanding, it is not a matter of "the Confession says it, that settles it;" rather, "the church has said that what the Confession says is biblical, and that settles it on an ecclesiastical level." Obviously the church has ministerial power to declare the sense in which it adopts the confession; but in whatever sense the church adopts its confession, it does so because it is deemed to be biblical, i.e., the sense which the Holy Spirit teaches in holy Scripture.

On officer subscription, it is the process by which individuals are given ministerial authority to teach and implement the church's confession. On this understanding, there can only be strict subscription. Strict subscription therefore belongs in the first option -- we subscribe the Confession because it is biblical. Here it must be noted that some churches relax the bonds of office, no doubt because they have explained the sense in which they receive the confession to such an extent that it does not identify with the sense of the confession any more. In such a situation it would be more honest to repudiate the confession and draw up a bond of union which more candidly reflects the church's confession of faith.

If I could unpack this a little, I think I understand what you are driving at but I want to see if you agree with a concern I have or not.

My increasing concern is that we all tend to treat the Scriptures from the standpoint that we don't need any external authority to guide us or bound us in that process. As I read the Word, I am increasingly struck by the fact that God gave His Word to His people. He didn't hand it over to each person individually but, corporately, He gave His Word to the Church. The thing that struck me about studying Gen-Joshua last year was how the Word actually constituted the people of God. God created His Church by His Word. I could probably tighten that up a little bit but I hope that makes sense so far.

Something the Pastor of our mother Church stated really stuck with me because he was talking about this idea when he recounted a conversation with another man in Presbytery. The minister was telling him that he believed the Scriptures taught X and that the rest of the Presbytery was wrong on this issue. Doug gently rebuked him and stated: "No, we confess the Scriptures together. If we disagree on something then we need to labor together to resolve this."

In other words, it is increasingly the case that ministers are content (or may even see in it the design of the Word itself!) that each person settle what the Word says for himself/herself and so the "I agree with the Confession because I believe that's what the Word says" means that the Church is nothing more than a confederation of people who individually agree on what the Word teaches.

I don't know if we'll ever be able to put the modernism genie back in the bottle but I think this lays at the heart of the matter. The idea that we are to be led to the Truth and the unity thereof by Pastors and Elders (Eph 6) is lost on most people who see Truth as emanating from the center of their mind outwardly. This is compounded by the fact that ministers increasingly agree, fundamentally, with this approach because they're willing to stand in complete isolation from the Church at large and teach what the rest of the Body believes is un-Biblical and still insist they are part of the same corporate Body. It's not done with tears that the Body is being ripped asunder but, often, with disdain for the lack of academic or cultural sophistication exhibited by their hayseed contemporaries who are stuck in the past.

It breaks my heart and I don't know precisely how to fix it. I want to labor for the Body of Christ and strive for Her peace and purity but I often find myself trying to figure out what the Church really Confesses and what She's really abandoned with her Confession and allowed for any variety of views.

I very much agree that the Scripture was given to God's People and that we confess the Scriptures together. This is all the more reason for the Church always to examine its confessions (respectfully examine, but examine nonetheless).



Baptismal regeneration seemed to be a majority position of the early church fathers, and the same with Premillenialism.

Also, the independants and credobaptists have been around in large numbers for awhile and now probably surpass the numbers of Presbyterians worldwide.


We as God's global people are laboring together to know the Scriptures, and there is a wide diversity of views still yet, and some of the oldest and longest held views are not necessarily the correct ones.

Finally, the most current and most globally representative major documents that resemble "Creeds" or "Confessions" were done by either baptists or an international community representing folks from all over the world (and not just western Europe), the Lausanne Covenant. The Southern Baptist Abstract of Principles was also a document endorsed by a large number of God's people. While only a few of these historical documents are listed on the PB and discussed when the topic of confessionalism comes up, this does not mean that everyone else is out to "do their own thing." Many adhere to newer documents which were formed out of knowledge of the old. And most of the members even on the PB seem to hold to a revised version of the Original WCF (the OPC and PCA hold to revised versions of the WCF, right, and not the original?).

Probably the most representative of the newer confessions would by the Lausanne Covenant, which was composed by an international representation of the Global Church and not merely Western Europeans. It can be found here: [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lausanne_Covenant]Lausanne Covenant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame].



Should we say that the Church has spoken through the Lausanne Covenant?




If a church is its confession, then the church HAS, indeed, altered itself multiple times both before and after the original WCF, sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse.



Yes, God gave His Word to the Church entire. A man might disagree with the original Westminster Confession, for instance, on issues that tend towards theocracy and still be MORE representative of the "Church's Beliefs" than the one who adheres strictly to the original Confession. That is why we have revisions, and that is why new documents are written.


I would say that no one on this poll could answer #1 unless they held to the Original Westminster in its un-altered forms.

 

[jawyman]

Officers in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church take a vow to "sincerely receive and adopt" these confessional documents "as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures."

So do members who aren't officers technically "subscribe" to anything? (in the context of the OPC)

Casey, technically members should (and most do) subscribe to the Westminster Confession. When someone becomes a member they are now under the authority of the Session and the Session is responsible to make sure covenant children as well as adult members are catechize properly. This would include studying, understanding, and subscribing to the Confession of the Church.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Something the Pastor of our mother Church stated really stuck with me because he was talking about this idea when he recounted a conversation with another man in Presbytery. The minister was telling him that he believed the Scriptures taught X and that the rest of the Presbytery was wrong on this issue. Doug gently rebuked him and stated: "No, we confess the Scriptures together. If we disagree on something then we need to labor together to resolve this."

Rich, the last time I attended Doug Kitteridge's Church, it was an independent reformed congregation. I know they have joined the PCA since then. Was this confessionalism he now holds a progressive realization, or was he confessional back when they were independent?

Doug has definitely grown in his Confessional subscription. To his credit and humility he realized that a Church that has no real Confessional moorings is rife with problems. It cost him a great deal personally when the Church moved into the PCA about 12 years ago.

 

[MW]

"No, we confess the Scriptures together. If we disagree on something then we need to labor together to resolve this."

Rich, this is a major solution to a major problem today. Brotherly responsibility and missional integrity mean we cannot simply agree to disagree but must patiently work with each other to come to the unity of the faith so that we can strive together for the faith of the gospel.

 

[Casey]

Officers in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church take a vow to "sincerely receive and adopt" these confessional documents "as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures."

So do members who aren't officers technically "subscribe" to anything? (in the context of the OPC)

Casey, technically members should (and most do) subscribe to the Westminster Confession. When someone becomes a member they are now under the authority of the Session and the Session is responsible to make sure covenant children as well as adult members are catechize properly. This would include studying, understanding, and subscribing to the Confession of the Church.

Sorry, my question was not clear -- and I didn't intend to direct it solely at you. Is "subscription" merely a personal decision (non-officers)? Or does "subscription" mean something more, namely, a public vow (officers)? Or can it mean both?

 

[Scott1]

CaseyBessette
Sorry, my question was not clear -- and I didn't intend to direct it solely at you. Is "subscription" merely a personal decision (non-officers)? Or does "subscription" mean something more, namely, a public vow (officers)? Or can it mean both?

My understanding is basically that:

1) officers vow they understand and agree with it completely and therefore "receive" it in good faith as faithful summary of what scripture teaches
2) members vow they will submit to the government and discipline of the church (doctrines somewhat reflected in the confession) and study the church's doctrine peaceably

This seems to me reasonable and protecting of the vital interests.

New Christians who become members cannot be expected to immediately understand, far less vow they agree with every aspect of the profound doctrine contained in their church's confession.

I just can't see setting that a high a bar in Scripture- to require all that before a church recognizes something God has done- redeemed a sinner, adopted him into His Body, and by His providence, placed him in a local body of believers and appointed leaders to oversee and govern that.

It took me a long time to "unwind" the tenets of dispensationalism that were assumed by past Bible teachers and preachers. I'm not sure I could have articulated all the questions- let alone the answers starting as a member new to the reformed faith.

But more than the practical effect, it does not Scripture does not require all that extensive examination of members- for officers, deacons, elders, ministers- yes. The men God calls to those offices are qualified by calling, gifts, doctrinal knowledge and joyous receipt of it, and an exemplary life. These are specifically set out in I Timothy 3 and Titus 1 and by analogy in Acts 6 and other places and established by other principles- but this is not the common requirement for members.

 

[Kevin]

I would not call exceptions taken to the Sabbath and 6/24 creation as "minor".

Since the WCF does not teach 6/24 creation, then to disagree would not be an exception...

 

[Scott1]

I would not call exceptions taken to the Sabbath and 6/24 creation as "minor".

Since the WCF does not teach 6/24 creation, then to disagree would not be an exception...

Yes, I would have to say it does.

Chapter IV
Of Creation

I. It pleased God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,[1] for the manifestation of the glory of His eternal power, wisdom, and goodness,[2] in the beginning, to create, or make of nothing, the world, and all things therein whether visible or invisible, in the space of six days; and all very good.[3]

Someone not holding to it likely would need to request an exception. Incidentally, there are some presbyteries in our denomination that automatically will not grant that as an exception.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Actually it does (which I say having looked at the sources, harrumph, harrumph). I raise your contention with another.
Moderator If someone wants to discuss original intent of the Westminster Assembly on this, start another thread or search for older ones.

I would not call exceptions taken to the Sabbath and 6/24 creation as "minor".

Since the WCF does not teach 6/24 creation, then to disagree would not be an exception...

 

[Kevin]

Hey I agree. I was just trying to point out that for a great many people "what I believe" to be an interpretation, they take to be a "plain reading".

I thought about using psalmody as an example but I thought that it would get the thread off track too soon...

 

[NaphtaliPress]

... and moved to a moderated forum.

I thought about using psalmody as an example but I thought that it would get the thread off track too soon...

 

[Brian Withnell]

Those churches state, at least in the theoretical sense, that on principle, the confession does not define the church, but the scriptures do, and the church then defines the confession from the scriptures.

If this were true it would mean they do not understand what a church is according to Christ's own definition in Matthew 16.

They might disagree with how you define it. While I am sure the churches are very reluctant to redefine the confession, they have done so in the past. They may do so in the future if they find things they believe are contradictory to the scripture within the confession.

The confession itself states the ultimate and only final authority is the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scriptures.

That doesn't negate the secondary authority of the Confession. Why are you appealing to the Confession for this belief and not to the words of Scripture? That would be because you accept the secondary authority of the Confession.

While I believe that the church has the right to amend the confession in principle, the secondary documents of the constitution are amendable. That I would appeal to an authority greater than my own meager abilities to argue would be that while I tend to believe them not pure, I find them more nearly pure than the bulk of what I see anywhere else. Are they infallible? No. Do I believe they are correct in nearly all of they say? Yes.

So the only ultra vires document to the church is the Scripture.

That's an odd use of the Latin phrase.

It's been 36 years since I took Latin, what do you expect?

The only document beyond the authority/power of the church is the scripture. It alone defines the church.

Well, given your appeal to the Confession in the preceding paragraph it is clear that at least that part of the confession is also beyond the power of men to alter.

No, just that I believe it to be true.

I for one am glad that B. H. Obama is not the one to call church councils for the purpose of correcting the doctrines taught in our pulpits!

That doesn't appear to me to be a well thought out statement. By law your church is protected in its ownership of a pulpit simply because your civil government has adopted a Christian view of property instead of tribal concepts.

The confession states otherwise, at least in the original 1647 version.

yet he hath authority, and it is his duty to take order, that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire, that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed, all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed, and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administered, and observed

 

[NRB]

I subscribe to the Westminster Standards because it is biblical.

Oh, HELLO all....new here. Great board!!!

 

[Pergamum]

I subscribe to the Westminster Standards because it is biblical.

Ah, but I see that you are PCA - so your denomination does not even subscribe to the original Westminster, but one that was revised in 1788 I think, because deficiencies were found in it.

 

[Brian Withnell]

My increasing concern is that we all tend to treat the Scriptures from the standpoint that we don't need any external authority to guide us or bound us in that process. As I read the Word, I am increasingly struck by the fact that God gave His Word to His people. He didn't hand it over to each person individually but, corporately, He gave His Word to the Church. The thing that struck me about studying Gen-Joshua last year was how the Word actually constituted the people of God. God created His Church by His Word. I could probably tighten that up a little bit but I hope that makes sense so far.

...

I don't know if we'll ever be able to put the modernism genie back in the bottle but I think this lays at the heart of the matter. The idea that we are to be led to the Truth and the unity thereof by Pastors and Elders (Eph 6) is lost on most people who see Truth as emanating from the center of their mind outwardly. This is compounded by the fact that ministers increasingly agree, fundamentally, with this approach because they're willing to stand in complete isolation from the Church at large and teach what the rest of the Body believes is un-Biblical and still insist they are part of the same corporate Body. It's not done with tears that the Body is being ripped asunder but, often, with disdain for the lack of academic or cultural sophistication exhibited by their hayseed contemporaries who are stuck in the past.

It breaks my heart and I don't know precisely how to fix it. I want to labor for the Body of Christ and strive for Her peace and purity but I often find myself trying to figure out what the Church really Confesses and what She's really abandoned with her Confession and allowed for any variety of views.

This is of course what the Roman church stated as its main objection to the reformation and having the scriptures translated to the native tongue. In a sense, they were right. Every man with the ability to read does in fact read the scriptures for themselves, and from that either agrees or disagrees with the church in which he finds himself.

I would disagree that the church is now just a confederation. We still give authority to the church, but we reserve the right to stand before councils and declare "Unless I am convinced by Scripture and by plain reason and not by Popes and councils who have so often contradicted themselves, my conscience is captive to the word of God. To go against conscience is neither right nor safe. I cannot and I will not recant. Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me."

We have "let the genie out of the bottle" and it is impossible to put it back. I'm not sure it ought to be put back.

 

[MW]

They might disagree with how you define it. While I am sure the churches are very reluctant to redefine the confession, they have done so in the past. They may do so in the future if they find things they believe are contradictory to the scripture within the confession.

Jesus said the church is built on the rock of its confession. If the confession changes it ipso facto becomes a different church. No doubt the church should have the integrity to repudiate past errors, but in doing so it repudiates itself for teaching those past errors, for binding its teachers and overseers to assert, maintain, and defend them, and for imposing them as articles of faith to be believed. Yet rarely do revisionists approach the work of revision with a sense of the enormity of their past transgressions. The failure to understand these things indicates that the confession of faith is not functioning as a confession of faith but as a mere text of historical theology.

The only document beyond the authority/power of the church is the scripture. It alone defines the church.

"Scripture" can be claimed by heretics. It is the truth of Scripture, what it teaches, which defines the church. The church is built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner-stone. No man can lay any other foundation than Jesus Christ.

The confession states otherwise, at least in the original 1647 version.

yet he hath authority, and it is his duty to take order, that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire, that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed, all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed, and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administered, and observed

Yes, that is what the Long Parliament was doing when it called the Assembly of divines which produced the Westminster Confession of Faith.

 

[NRB]

I subscribe to the Westminster Standards because it is biblical.

Ah, but I see that you are PCA - so your denomination does not even subscribe to the original Westminster, but one that was revised in 1788 I think, because deficiencies were found in it.

As far as I know you are correct, but I do not know for sure. I'm a recent convert to the denomination (coming from SBC).
I just know whatever version that is in my catechism book for new members is the only version that I've read.

 

[Kevin]

I subscribe to the Westminster Standards because it is biblical.

Ah, but I see that you are PCA - so your denomination does not even subscribe to the original Westminster, but one that was revised in 1788 I think, because deficiencies were found in it.

As far as I know you are correct, but I do not know for sure. I'm a recent convert to the denomination (coming from SBC).
I just know whatever version that is in my catechism book for new members is the only version that I've read.

Welcome to the board.

 

[Michael]

Oh, HELLO all....new here. Great board!!!

Welcome!

 

[Pergamum]

I subscribe to the Westminster Standards because it is biblical.

Ah, but I see that you are PCA - so your denomination does not even subscribe to the original Westminster, but one that was revised in 1788 I think, because deficiencies were found in it.

As far as I know you are correct, but I do not know for sure. I'm a recent convert to the denomination (coming from SBC).
I just know whatever version that is in my catechism book for new members is the only version that I've read.

Ha, sorry for jumping right on you with your 3 posts on the PB.

WELCOME BROTHER! Great to have you here.


The point I am trying to make is that any altered form of the Westminster besides the original would make #2 in the poll above to be the logical choice. And the PCA and OPC I think hold to revised versions.

Again, welcome, God bless and enjoy the banter!

 

[NRB]

Ah, but I see that you are PCA - so your denomination does not even subscribe to the original Westminster, but one that was revised in 1788 I think, because deficiencies were found in it.

As far as I know you are correct, but I do not know for sure. I'm a recent convert to the denomination (coming from SBC).
I just know whatever version that is in my catechism book for new members is the only version that I've read.

Ha, sorry for jumping right on you with your 3 posts on the PB.

WELCOME BROTHER! Great to have you here.


The point I am trying to make is that any altered form of the Westminster besides the original would make #2 in the poll above to be the logical choice. And the PCA and OPC I think hold to revised versions.

Again, welcome, God bless and enjoy the banter!

Thankyou.

I am still trying to work out in my mind the two poll choices now that we've had a give and take about this actually.
Interesting thread.

 

[Pergamum]

As far as I know you are correct, but I do not know for sure. I'm a recent convert to the denomination (coming from SBC).
I just know whatever version that is in my catechism book for new members is the only version that I've read.

Ha, sorry for jumping right on you with your 3 posts on the PB.

WELCOME BROTHER! Great to have you here.


The point I am trying to make is that any altered form of the Westminster besides the original would make #2 in the poll above to be the logical choice. And the PCA and OPC I think hold to revised versions.

Again, welcome, God bless and enjoy the banter!

Thankyou.

I am still trying to work out in my mind the two poll choices now that we've had a give and take about this actually.
Interesting thread.

Related questions might be:

Do we consider the Confessions to be functionally infallible?

and,

Who is in charge and submits to whom, the Church or the Confession (which, after all, was written by the Church)....

 

[NRB]

As far as I know you are correct, but I do not know for sure. I'm a recent convert to the denomination (coming from SBC).
I just know whatever version that is in my catechism book for new members is the only version that I've read.

Ha, sorry for jumping right on you with your 3 posts on the PB.

WELCOME BROTHER! Great to have you here.


The point I am trying to make is that any altered form of the Westminster besides the original would make #2 in the poll above to be the logical choice. And the PCA and OPC I think hold to revised versions.

Again, welcome, God bless and enjoy the banter!

Thankyou.

I am still trying to work out in my mind the two poll choices now that we've had a give and take about this actually.
Interesting thread.

Here's an update for you my brother. The quote is from the PCA website concerning the WCF.....

The First General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America, meeting at the Briarwood Presbyterian Church, Birmingham, Alabama, December 4-7, 1973, adopted the Confession of Faith, the Larger Catechism and the Shorter Catechism as the doctrinal standards of the Church.

The Presbyterian Church in America received the same Confession and Catechisms as those that were adopted by the first American Presbyterian Assembly of 1789, with two minor exceptions, namely, the deletion of strictures against marrying one's wife's kindred (XXIV,4), and the reference to the Pope as the antichrist (XXV,6).

Other than these changes, and the American amendments of Chapter XXIII on the civil magistrate (adopted in 1789), this is the Confession and Catechisms as agreed upon by the Assembly of Divines at Westminster which met from 1643-1647. The Caruthers edition of the Confession and Catechisms, which is based upon the original manuscript written by Cornelius Burgess is the Edition presented to and adopted by the First General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America

-----Added 11/11/2009 at 10:57:43 EST-----

Ha, sorry for jumping right on you with your 3 posts on the PB.

WELCOME BROTHER! Great to have you here.


The point I am trying to make is that any altered form of the Westminster besides the original would make #2 in the poll above to be the logical choice. And the PCA and OPC I think hold to revised versions.

Again, welcome, God bless and enjoy the banter!

Thankyou.

I am still trying to work out in my mind the two poll choices now that we've had a give and take about this actually.
Interesting thread.

Related questions might be:

Do we consider the Confessions to be functionally infallible?

and,

Who is in charge and submits to whom, the Church or the Confession (which, after all, was written by the Church)....

Excellent question.

I don't like to label anything written by man as "infallible" so I must think a bit on the functionally part.

The Church is in charge with Christ as it's head as far as I am concerned. If the Confession was in charge then the church AND all laypersons must submit to it....and as far as I know in the PCA, no lay-person at all needs to profess adherance to the WCF in any of it's forms.