Numerous theological debates continue to swirl within Reformed circles. Proponents for each side ardently insist that this or that particular issue must be defended at all costs in order to prevent further erosion of our Reformed heritage. Notable issues currently to the forefront in various Reformed denominations are the days of creation, the regulative principle of worship, and the ordination of women. There is, however, one recurring feature in all these issues: the role of confessions. The authority of the church's confession bears directly on one's approach to each of the above issues. But a debate continues, particularly in American Presbyterianism, over the exact role of confessions, specifically the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Larger and Shorter Catechisms.

What exactly does it mean for a candidate for the ministry to vow that he 'receives and adopts' the Westminster Standards? What constitutes taking an exception to the Standards and what limitations, if any, should the church place on a man who takes an exception? The Student Association of Westminster Theological Seminary in California hosted a debate on confessional subscription to examine these questions on 17-18 September 1999. Dr William Barker, Professor of Church History at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, spoke in defence of 'system' (or loose) subscription and Dr Morton Smith, Professor of Biblical and Systematic Theology at Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary, defended 'full' (or strict) subscription. Dr Robert Godfrey, President and Professor of Church History at Westminster in California, spoke on the development and role of creeds and confessions in church history up to and including the Reformation, and Dr Michael Horton, Professor of Historical Theology at Westminster in California, addressed the church's need for creeds and confessions in postmodern America.

Dr Godfrey reviewed the precedent for creeds in the New Testament and the ancient church. Drawing implications from the 1619 Form of Subscription to the Synod of Dordt, he said that the church must not treat confessions as out-of-date museum pieces, but rather, she must actively conform to them and willingly amend them wherever necessary. Doing so was essential for preserving the sole authority of the Bible. Confessions are not, however, mere compendiums of systematic theology from which we can pick and choose at leisure. They are not simply one man's theology; they are the corporate church's theology. As such, they should be embraced not only by her officers, but also by her members. This approach contrasted with that of A. A. Hodge who said that the church ought not make anything a condition of membership which Christ did not make a condition for salvation. Dr Horton emphasized that confessions are necessary for the church in postmodern America as she fights against individualism, pragmatism, and sectarianism. Put positively, confessions help keep succeeding generations in the covenant and they give the church an identity in missions. Confessions also allow us to be more ecumenical in the face of sects whose rapid growth promotes schism.

American Presbyterianism⤒🔗

Drs Barker and Smith, both ruling elders in the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), focused on the particular issues in American Presbyterianism. Both have written extensively on this subject and engaged in similar forums over the past 20 years. Both men agree that 'strict' and 'loose' subscription do not accurately describe their positions and that while 'full' and 'system' are not perfect, they are better. Neither says that every phrase and proposition in the standards must be received and adopted. There is no evidence of anyone in the history of American Presbyterianism who held such a position. Both sides acknowledge that particular phrases and words could be sharpened without compromising any doctrine. Full subscription says that every doctrine in the Westminster Standards is 'essential and necessary' and exception should not be taken to any of them by any ordained officer. System subscription says that a minister need not receive and adopt every doctrine but only those which are 'essential and necessary' to the system of doctrine contained in Scripture. If one remarks at this point that these two definitions only force the question of what constitutes a 'doctrine' as opposed to an 'essential and necessary doctrine', he is right on track for following the rest of the debate!

The Adopting Act of 1729←⤒🔗

There are differences in interpreting the Adopting Act of 1729 in which the General Synod of the Presbyterian Church in colonial America adopted the Westminster Confession and Catechisms. Each speaker presented a detailed analysis of the actions taken by that Synod (19 September 1729) and the precedents which those actions set.

On that day, two different acts were adopted, the Preliminary Act in the morning and the Adopting Act in the afternoon. Much of the discussion that day had to do with portions of Chapters 20 and 23 regarding the civil magistrate. Since many took exception to these portions, the Preliminary Act made reference to 'all the essential and necessary articles' of the Standards. The Adopting Act in the afternoon specifically identified these exceptions as pertaining only to the civil magistrate and therefore no reference was made to 'all the essential and necessary articles'.

Smith and full subscriptionists hold that the Adopting Act definitively interprets the intent of the Preliminary Act, determining that the portions regarding the civil magistrate and no others were exceptions to the Standards.

Barker and system subscriptionists hold that these two Acts must be viewed together. Instead of the Adopting Act definitively interpreting the Preliminary Act, it must be seen as setting an example for subsequent church courts. Later courts must in turn determine for themselves whether a particular doctrine is 'essential and necessary' to the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures in the same manner followed by this first court. Armed with his own interpretation of the Adopting Act, each speaker cited the same church court cases and the massive writings of Charles Hodge to support his position.

By the end it became evident that the issue turns on one pivotal question. Neither speaker could offer a definitive criterion to distinguish between a 'doctrine' and an 'essential and necessary' doctrine. The real question is whether a man should be allowed to teach something which the church courts hold to be out of accord with its standards.

Barker submitted that the church has no right to bind a man's conscience and limit what he teaches. If a man believes something which the courts determine to be contrary to its standards, it can either decide that the issue is not an essential and necessary doctrine and therefore choose to ordain him with no limitations placed on his teaching, or decide that the issue is an essential and necessary doctrine and not ordain him. Barker was quick to point out that every minister has the responsibility to protect the peace and unity of the church and so must exercise extreme sensitivity as he teaches and preaches on such topics. He believed that to ordain a man and then tell him that he cannot teach something because it is contrary to the church's standards is unbiblical because it binds his conscience to something other than the Word of God and thus elevates the standards to the authority of Scripture.

Smith submitted that there is biblical warrant for insisting on full subscription and that the church must prohibit any teaching contrary to the standards in order to preserve orthodoxy. The Westminster Standards teach 'nothing more nor less than the very doctrines of the Word'. If exceptions may be taught, then ruin is inevitable. Smith cited the demise of the Northern Church in the Old School/New School controversy of the nineteenth century as an example of what happens when system subscription is tolerated. Barker objected to the claim that the Westminster Standards teach 'nothing more nor less than the very doctrines of the Word'. According to him, this is de facto elevation to an authority equal with that of Scripture. Smith defended himself against the charge of elevating the Westminster Standards to an authority equal with that of Scripture by appealing to language within the Confession itself which teaches that the Scripture is our sole rule for faith and life. If the Confession says this so clearly, then strict subscriptionists cannot be charged with holding a position which the Confession itself denies.

Summary←⤒🔗

These two leading authorities on confessional subscription agreed that the debate boils down to one crucial question. Is it biblical for the church to forbid a man to teach a doctrine which it determines to be an exception to its own standards? Smith said 'Yes', because it is necessary to preserve the orthodoxy of the church. Barker said 'No', because it unbiblically binds the man's conscience and elevates the standard to an authority equal with that of Scripture. Throughout the debate, both men conducted themselves in a true spirit of humility and mutual respect. The Church of Christ needs more leaders who will set such a godly example of humble conduct in the midst of significant differences among brothers. At the conclusion of the debate, both men remarked that their continued dialogue in forums such as this has helped narrow their differences and increase their appreciation for the vast similarities in their positions.