LEGACY OF OLD SCHOOL CONFESSION SUBSCRIPTION IN THE OPC, THE

I. INTRODUCTION

Theological debate within the Reformed community is like the proverbial gnat on a hot summer day. No matter how many times one swats at the gnat, the winged creature refuses to surrender his pestiferous activity. This is certainly true concerning the debate surrounding confession subscription, or the manner in which an officer accepts the confessional standards of his denomination. The debate regarding confession subscription is as old as the church itself and has especially pestered the Presbyterian Church for its entire existence. The debate like the ebb and flow of the tide is currently at the high water mark in both the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) and in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC) as evidenced by the recent actions of the General Assemblies of both denominations. 1 On either side of the debate there are advocates for two major positions: strict / full subscription, most notably from the pens of Morton Smith and George Knight, and loose / system subscription, most notably from the pen of William Barker.2

In the course of this long running debate both Smith and Knight have argued that loose / system subscription was advocated by the New School within the Presbyterian Church, which led to liberalism and the demise of the church. In contradistinction to the New School approach they both argue that they set forth the historic Old School position of full subscription, which is the only way that liberalism can be held at bay.3 This essay will challenge this claim with an emphasis upon how the OPC has historically understood confession subscription. This essay will argue that the Smith / Knight (S/K) version of full subscription is not the historic Old School position on the subject. The essay will demonstrate that historic Old School confession subscription is different than the version that Smith and Knight set forth. The argument will first set forth the definitions and parameters of the S/K version of subscription. Second, we will compare the S/K version of subscription with Old School theoretical statements on the subject by an examination of a representative cross-section of well-known Old School theologians, and we will also examine the ecclesiastical practices of these theologians to see how theory works out in practice. Third, we will then examine the actions of representative OPC theologians to demonstrate how they have carried on the legacy of historic Old School Presbyterian confession subscription. Fourth, we will examine the implications of the contrast between the S/K and Old School positions. Last, we will conclude with some remarks not only about the debate but also about confession subscription in general.

II. SUBSCRIPTION ACCORDING TO SMITH AND KNIGHT

In order to distinguish the Smith and Knight version of subscription from historic Old School subscription we must first set forth the parameters of full subscription according to Smith and Knight. Smith defines full subscription in the following manner: "Strict or full subscription . . . holds that the ordinand is subscribing to nothing more or less than the entirety of the Confession and Catechisms as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Scriptures. In other words, the system of doctrine to which we subscribe is that which is contained in the Westminster Confession and Catechisms."4 In addition to this definition Smith is careful to delineate several factors concerning full subscription: (1) not all teachings in the standards are of equal importance but that the ordinand must confess all of the teachings of the Standards because they are all a part of the system of doctrine contained therein; (2) full subscription does not require the adoption of every word but the ordinand must adopt every teaching; and (3) he is careful to recognize that the Standards are subordinate to Scripture.5 Likewise, Knight observes that the ordinand must subscribe to every teaching of the Standards because the system of doctrine "is the whole body of truth contained in the Confession and Catechism" and it "must not be reduced to a number of 'fundamentals' no matter how basic, evangelical, and Scriptural."6

With these statements of definition and description in mind, it is helpful if we demarcate the specific parameters of full subscription according to Smith and Knight:

1. The system of doctrine is not a list of basic evangelical fundamentals but is the whole body of the Standards-every single teaching.

2. An ordinand may take exception to the wording of the Standards, note though that this is an exception regarding the form of expression and not the substance.

3. The underlying presupposition behind these parameters is that the "doctrines of the confession are to be regarded as 'the very doctrines of the Word'" and this is why every teaching must be received.7

These parameters are best comprehended by the illustrations that both Smith and Knight provide. Smith writes:

The full subscriptionist believes that he is committed to every doctrinal position set forth in the Confession and Catechisms. He is thus committed to the view of marriage and divorce set forth in the Confession. If a member of his church desired to marry a Roman Catholic, which is specifically spoken against in the Confession, the full subscriptionist would not feel that he had the liberty to perform such a marriage, but rather must warn his parishioner against such a marriage.8