Bible and Confession 3
Matt Morgan weighs in. The entire post is excellent but I particularly appreciated these two paragraphs, for this is indeed the heart of the matter:
Old Princeton system subscription took seriously the notion that “All synods or councils, since the apostles’ times, whether general or particular, may err; and many have erred. Therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith, or practice; but to be used as a help in both.” (WCF 31.4). Machen might well have resonated with the Belgic Confession on this point: “Therefore we must not consider human writings– no matter how holy their authors may have been– equal to the divine writings; nor may we put custom, nor the majority, nor age, nor the passage of time or persons, nor councils, decrees, or official decisions above the truth of God, for truth is above everything else” (Article 7).
It seems to me that a Presbyterian’s 2nd ordination vow (i.e. where we subscribe to “the system of doctrine as contained in the Westminster Standards”) takes these Confessional qualifications cited here in Westminster and Belgic more seriously. That is, we want our subscription practice to reflect the Confession’s view of Scripture to the degree that we want to make absolutely clear the difference between our primary and secondary standards.
Those who reject system-subscription in favor of strict subscription are not truly Reformed or Confessional, since they have a non-Reformed and a non-Confessional view of the Reformed tradition and the Reformed Confessions.
I also feel compelled to reiterate Matt’s challenge regarding the Belgic Confession’s assertion of Pauline authorship of Hebrews. How can Clark claim that the confession IS the system of doctrine, and then turn right around and permit scruples on this or any other minor point? I honestly don’t get it.