|
Documents of Synod: Study Papers and Actions of the
Reformed Presbyterian Church, Evangelical Synod--1965 to 1982
| 149th GS MINUTES, MAY
14, 1971, pp. 63-72. |
ORDINATION VOWS COMMITTEE:
The Rev. George
Miladin gave the report.
|
SPECIAL COMMITTEE REPORT
ON THE SECOND ORDINATION VOW
|
I. THE PROBLEM STATED
To declare the intent and meaning of ordination vow No. 2, removing the
ambiguities therein. Question two reads: Do you sincerely receive and
adopt the doctrinal standards of this church, the Westminster Confession
of Faith and Catechisms, Larger and Shorter, as embodying the system of
doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures, to the maintenance of which this
church is bound before God by solemn obligation? The problem emerges
more clearly in the following two questions: 1) What is the antecedent
to the last clause, "to the maintenance of which . . . is bound by
solemn obligation?" Is the antecedent a) the Doctrinal Standards;
b) the System of Doctrine; or c) the Holy Scriptures? 2) In what way does
the phrase "system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures"
modify the words, "the Confession of Faith and Catechisms,"
if indeed there is modification at all? Are certain statements in the
Standards to be viewed as lying outside the system of doctrine taught
in Scripture, or are the Standards in their entirety co-extensive with
the system of doctrine? If the former, which articles are considered essential
and necessary (cf. Church Polity by Charles Hodge pp. 338-340);
if the latter, then, is not the subscriber bound to every word, phrase
and expression in the standards?
II. THE APPROACH TO THE PROBLEM
The grammatical-historical method will be applied in hope of arriving
at a sound answer to the above questions. This basically involves two
questions: 1) What is the plain meaning of the words, grammatically and
lexically? 2) What is, and has been, the mind of the church (animus imponentis)
on the meaning of the words.
III. THE METHOD APPLIED
A. Problem No. 1. Method is the antecedent to the last clause,
"to the maintenance of which this church is bound before God by solemn
obligation?
1. Grammatically, it is admissible for
each of the three phrases in question to serve as the antecedent,
all things being equal, the nearest antecedent having the edge.
(However, as it will be shown, the nearest antecedent -- the Holy
Scriptures -- in this case is the most unacceptable of the three
possibilities.)
|
2. The Mind of the Church has not
had many years to reflect upon this particular question since the
phrase in question is of recent history. For a recent exhibition
of the mind of the church, refer to the discussion on this question
by the Joint Fraternal Relations Committees of the RPCES - OPC contained
in the paper sent to ministers of the two denominations dated December
31, 1969. The concluding remarks are most pertinent: It was suggested
that the answer to this problem is a) the form of subscription in
the Form of Government of the RPCES is the same in substance as
the form of substance as the form subscription of the OPC in that
both forms require the sincere receiving and adopting of the Westminster
Confession of Faith and Catechisms, and b) that in both forms of
Government the subscription is qualified by a reference to
"the system of doctrine contained in Holy Scripture."
The nature of that qualification will be discussed (under problem
two). At this point your committee agrees with the above conclusion,
rejecting the Holy Scriptures as the antecedent on the ground
that such a subscription would vitiate the intent and force of the
entire question which is designed to set forth the relationship
of the subscriber to the subordinate standards rather than to the
Holy Scriptures. To state that the church is bound to the Holy Scriptures
is to affirm no more than what has already been affirmed in ordination
question No. 1. The net effect of this interpretation would be to
remove us from being a creedal church.
|
B. Problem No. 2 In what way does the phrase "system
of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures" modify the words, "Do
you sincerely receive and adopt the doctrinal standards of this church?"
(This is the weighty consideration, having occupied the attention of Presbyterian
and Reformed theologians for many years!)
1. Grammatically (in its context). Ordination
question No. 2 says these things: a) that the man who gives an affirmative
answer receives and adopts something sincerely (with the understanding,
in full persuasion, and without any mental reservation). b) that
which he adopts is not the Reformed Faith broadly defined,
or some essentials of Christianity, but rather, the Westminster
standards themselves! No other meaning of the words is permissible.
c) He adopts these standards with an important modification, i.e.,
"as embodying or containing the system of doctrine taught in
the Holy Scriptures." This affirmation has a positive as well
as a negative implication. Positively, the Westminster Standards
do, as a matter of fact, embody (contain) will be further enlarged
upon in the following point.
|
2. The Mind of the Church on the
modifying clause, "embody (contain) the system of doctrine
taught in the Holy Scriptures."
Has the American Presbyterian Church in its history taken the modifying
clause to mean that the standards do in fact contain statements
that are outside the system of doctrine taught in Scripture? (That
is, in the sense of non-essential and unimportant doctrines.) If
it has, then the church's usage of the word "contain"
is analogous to the current UPUSA usage of the word "contain"
in the 2nd Catechism answer -- "The Word of the God which is
contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments is the
only rule how we may glorify and enjoy Him." "Contain"
in the UPUSA context means "enclose" or "include"
(cf. Webster's New World Dictionary), and thus, there are things
extraneous to the Word of God in the Holy Scriptures. On
the other hand, is there evidence to show that American Presbyterians
historically have been in favor of an equivalent meaning
of the word "contain" as it appears in ordination question
No. 2. [?] (There is no doubt as to the equivalence meaning being
the correct one in Catechism Question 2.) This committee believes
that the evidence is clearly in the direction of the equivalence
meaning which would make the Standards in some sense co-extensive
with the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures.
|
THE EVIDENCE (This, and subsequent material
is taken by permission from an OPC paper, "Does Subscription
to the Standards Require Acceptance of What They Teach Regarding
the Sabbath?" Authors: George Knight, George Marston and John
Mitchell. All emphases added.)
|
a. Adopting Act of 1729
On the afternoon of the same day all ministers of this Synod
now present, except one. . .after proposing all the scruples
that any of them had to make against any articles and
expressions in the Confession of Faith and Larger and Shorter
Catechisms. . . have unanimously agreed in the solution of those
scruples, and in declaring the said Confession and Catechisms
to be the Confession of their faith, excepting only some
clauses in the twentieth and twenty-third chapters, concerning
which clauses the Synod do unanimously declare that they
do not receive those articles in any such sense as to suppose
the civil magistrate hath a controlling power over Synods with
respect to the exercise of their ministerial authority. . .
The Digest (1930) p. 94.
|
b. Explanator Resolution of Synod of 1734
Overtured, that the Synod do now declare that they understand
these clauses that respect the admission of intrants or candidates
in such a sense as to oblige them to receive and adopt the
Confession and Catechisms at their admission in the same
manner and as fully as the members of Synod did that were
then present. Which overture was unanimously agree to by the
Synod. The Digest (1930) p. 98.
|
c. Explanation of the Adopting Act, Synod
of 1736
That the Synod do declare that, in as much as we understand
that many persons of our persuasion, both more lately and formerly,
have been offended with some expressions or distinctions
in the first or the preliminary act of our Synod. . . the Synod
doth declare that the Synod have adopted and still do adhere
to the Westminster Confession, Catechism and Directory without
the least variation, or alteration, and without any regard to
said distinctions. And we do further declare that this was our
meaning and true intent in our first adopting of said Confession.
. . Digest (1930) p. 126.
|
d. Hodge's Affirmation
There can be no doubt, therefore that the adopting act, as understood
and intended by its authors, bound every new member to receive
the Confession of Faith and Catechisms, in all their parts,
excepting certain specified clauses in chapters twentieth and
twenty-third. Charles Hodge in 1839. (Taken from the Constitutional
History of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. p. 155ff.)
This excerpt is not included in the OPC paper.
|
e. Plan of Union -- Synods of New York and
Philadelphia -- 1758
vi. that no presbytery shall license or ordain to the work of
the ministry, any candidate until he declare his acceptance
of the Westminster Confession and Catechisms as the Confession
of his faith. . . (Records of the Presbyterian Church in the
U.S.A. Philadelphia 1904 quoted in the paper "Creed Subscription
in the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A." John Murray.)
|
f. Constitution Ratified and Adopted, Synod
of 1788
. . . And the Synod order that the said Directory and Catechisms
be printed and bound up in the same volume with the Confession
of Faith . . ., and that the whole be considered as the standard
of our doctrine, government, discipline, and worship. Digest
(1930) p. 547 drawn up and adopted: "Do you sincerely receive
and adopt the confession of faith of this church as containing
the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures?"
|
g. Explanation of Significance of Standards:
Assembly of 1824
"That though the Confession of Faith and standards of our
church, are of no original authority, independent of the Scriptures,
yet we regard them as a summary of those divine truths which
are suffused throughout the sacred volume. They, as a system
of doctrine, therefore, cannot be abandoned in our opinion
without an abandonment of the Word of God. (Minutes of the
General Assembly from 1821-1835 inclusive. Philadelphia, n.d.,
p. 114 as quoted in Professor Murray's paper.)
|
h. Sense in Which Standards Adopted, Assembly
(Old School) of 1848
(In answer to the following question . . .) Are such ministers
and officers (ordained in the Presbyterian Church) to be understood
as embracing and assenting to the doctrines, principles, precepts,
and statements contained in the Larger and Shorter Catechisms
in the same unqualified sense in which they are understood to
embrace and assent to the doctrines, principles, precepts and
statements contained in other parts of the Confessions of Faith?
(The Assembly answered in the affirmative) Digest, p. 18.
|
i. Relation of Standards to Scripture, Definition
of Essential and Necessary Articles: Assembly of 1896
. . . This Christian Church requires its standards of doctrine
and government to contain as essential and necessary articles
only those things which are "either expressly set down
in Scriptures, or by good and necessary consequences may be
deduced from Scripture" (cf. Ch. 1, Sec. 6). In matters
which are non-essential, and which may be "ordered
by the light of nature and Christian prudence, it is the law
of the church that in their ordering the general rules of the
Word are always to be observed. (cf. Ch. 1, Sec. 6) . . . This
admission of liability to error, however, is not to be used
as if it lessened the authority of the doctrinal and
governmental standards of the Church over those who have
voluntarily accepted them. Far otherwise! It is simply the declaration
by the Church of its dependence upon the divine Author of the
interpretation of his Word and in the formulation and application
of its Standards.
Resolved, 2. that this Assembly draw the attention of the
Judicatories and members of the Church to the declaration of
the Standards above quoted which set forth in explicit
terms the belief of the Church, that all the standards
are founded upon and in accordance with the Holy Scriptures.
Digest (1930) p. 168ff.+
|
j. Definition of Essential and Necessary Articles of Faith:
Assembly of 1910
"It is to be noted that the adopting act in 1729 recognizes
the holding by a candidate of 'scruples' about articles not
essential and necessary in doctrine . . ., but at the same time
the act calls upon the candidate 'to declare his sentiments
to the Presbytery of Synod,' and likewise calls upon the Judicatory
to decide as to what is essential and necessary.
II. Accordingly the General Assembly does also make a declaration
with regard to certain essential and necessary Articles of Faith,
to wit: (The five fundamentals are then given. The Assembly
of 1923 adopted a similar series of "essential doctrines")
Digest (1930) p. 297ff. Also Minutes of the General Assembly,
1927, pp. 78-82.
|
IV. ANALYSIS
Attention is called to the significant change in the definition necessary
articles as indicated by the General Assembly in 1896 and that of 1910.
According to the former assembly such articles were defined as only those
things which are "either expressly set down in Scriptures, or by
good and necessary consequences may be deduced from Scripture." (cf.
Ch. 1, Sec. 6) "In matters which are non-essential, and which may
be 'ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, it is the law
of the church that in their ordering the general rules of the Word are
always to be observed' " (letter i, p. 5). However, according to
the latter assembly (1910), while a declaration was made concerning certain
necessary and essential doctrines (the five fundamentals) it is obvious
that what was considered to be necessary and essential was something less
than what was considered to be necessary and essential was something less
than before. So far as the evidence goes, there seems to have been no
effort made to distinguish the contents of the subordinate standards as
to "essential" and "non-essential" until the declaration
on the "fundamentals" in 1910 . . . It must also be noted that
the 1910 declaration in its reference to the idea "scruples"
and "essential and necessary" articles refers there to what
it calls the "Adopting Act" of 1729. This is an error of fact.
These terms were not in the "Adopting Act" proper, but were
in the Preliminary Act. The "Adopting Act" proper, and all the
explanatory declarations that were approved in following years, made fully
plain the fact that Synod did not allow for any "scruples" beyond
one in respect -- not to a doctrine -- but to an interpretation that might
have been put upon certain words and phrases having to do with the civil
magistrate. All that was allowed was an objection to one of several possible
interpretations. This was the state of affairs, so far as pronouncements
of Assembly indicate, until 1910.
However, as far back as 1867 Charles Hodge wrote an article on the "meaning
of the Second Ordination Vow" which first appeared in the Princeton
Theological Review and is also to be found in his book, The Church
and Its Polity. The article may well be regarded as the crack in the
wall or the initial hole in the dyke. It has been maintained that Hodge
plainly and bluntly marked the distinction between essential and non-essential
doctrines. Thus it is said that in his view, the essential doctrines were
those of "Basic Christianity" and those of the consensus of
Reformed opinion, all other doctrines in the Confession, including the
Sabbath, were deemed by him to be non-essential. But that he made
this distinction is unclear from his won words; in fact the opposite seems
to be the case (see Church Polity, pp. 338-340; also Hodge's Commentary
on the Confession of Faith is prefaced by Dr. Charles Hodge's article
on "The Meaning of the Second Ordination Vow." It is to be noted
that the section in which the "Sabbath" is mentioned contains
this statement, "concerning which there is no difference of opinion
among Presbyterians." Evidently at this point the Sabbath had not
yet been eroded by the Continental view, and relegated to the status of
a non-essential doctrine.)
It should also be noted that the subscription vow (question) is not
what some have maintained Hodge says it is, namely, a subscription
simply to a system of doctrine. This would be a misinterpretation
of the vow. What one vows is to "receive and adopt the Confession,"
not some otherwise undefined system of doctrine. He adopts the Confession,
not just so far as it happens to contain the system of doctrine taught
in Scripture, he adopts it and understands it to contain that system of
doctrine, i.e., he adopts the Confession as his own because he recognizes
it to be a faithful summary of scriptural doctrine.
V. RESULTS
Hodge's position or that maintained to be his, was never officially adopted
by any General Assembly. Indeed, the action taken by the General Assembly
in 1896 was in effect a repudiation of his alleged position. However it
is quite possible that Hodge's article influenced the General Assembly
in 1910 and the subsequent assemblies to take positions which went far
beyond Hodge's alleged position in their limiting the meaning of the second
ordination vow. These actions taken by the 1910 General Assembly officially
opened Pandora's box with rapid doctrinal retrogression following.
In 1903, in the interest of union with the Cumberland Presbyterians, the
Presbyterian Church of the United States of America altered three chapters
in the Confession of Faith, reducing its Calvinism thus indicating that
the distinctive doctrines of the Reformed Faith were no longer regarded
as necessary and essential doctrines.
In 1918-20 a plan for organic union with other Protestant bodies, passed
by some 100 presbyteries, indicated the willingness of many in the church
to compromise on the "generally Christian" doctrines. It is
evident from the "Auburn Affirmation" that by 1923-24, some
1300 ministers in the Presbyterian Church USA no longer regarded the five
fundamentals as necessary and essential doctrines. It was the aforementioned
principles adopted by the 1910 General Assembly which, under the impetus
of modernism, gave rise to the Confession of 1967 and a new ordination
vow which requires no allegiance to that interpretation of Holy Scripture
set forth in the Westminster Standards.
VI. THE PROPOSED SOLUTION
We must reject this eroding principle of a "loose" subscription,
lest it destroy the R.P.C.E.S. even as it did the Presbyterian Church
from which part of us withdrew in 1936. (Even at this present time there
are ministers in our denomination who deny portions of our subordinate
standards on the ground that these portions lie outside the system of
doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures.) To reject this eroding principle
requires that we reject the view that the second ordination vow requires
only the acceptance of those doctrines in our secondary standards which
are essential and necessary to the system of doctrine set forth in those
standards. Positively, we must return to the original meaning of this
vow which called for a recognition of the Westminster Standards (in all
their several parts) as setting forth the system of doctrine contained
in Holy Scripture.
A. A COMMON OBJECTION
Will not the proposed solution bind the subscriber to an every word (ipsissima
verba) interpretation, thereby elevating the Standards to the same plane
as Scripture? The answer to this question is a categorical no!
The subscriber's affirmative answer to ordination question No. 1 precludes
any such elevating of the subordinate standards. He has just affirmed
his belief that the Confession and Catechisms are not infallible
rules, are not perfect in every word, phrase, or even every proposition,
and that the Scriptures alone are the "only rule of faith
and practice." Also in question No. 2 an affirmative answer means
that the subscriptionist has adopted the clear qualifications made by
the Confession itself, recognizing its own limitations, fallibility, and
place of subordination to the Word. It submits itself to the "supreme
Judge . . . the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture." (Ch. I, Sec.
X).
B. PRESBYTERIAL AND SESSIONAL GUIDELINES
The Committee believes that guidelines must be established to be applied
by Presbyteries and Sessions in evaluating the positions of men who inform
the Judicatory to which they come for examination as teaching or ruling
elders, or the Judicatory to which they already belong, that they differ
with our secondary standards at a certain point or points. (It is suggested
that in the interest of doctrinal purity and also future doctrinal formulation,
these differences be submitted in writing.) Pursuant to the above it is
suggested that the following two principles be adopted: 1) We do not insist
that one must accept every minute detail but rather that no chapter of
the Confession of Faith, or Catechism Question and Answer may be rejected
in its entirety or in respect to its main features. 2) This still leaves
to be faced the importance of exceptions which an individual might hold
within the limitations stated in the previous section. Concerning this
matter, if any teaching or ruling elder judges that an exception is important,
then in accord with his sixth ordination vow, he must proceed to reject
an applicant or to take disciplinary action against anyone who is already
holding office.
VII. SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
In order to remove the ambiguities surrounding the second
ordination vow bringing its meaning into closest conformity with the mind
of the church in that period when she had the highest regard for the truth,
the committee recommends:
1. That the 149th General Synod of the
Reformed Presbyterian Church, Evangelical Synod aver its conviction
that the second ordination vow binds the subscriber to the Confession
of Faith and Catechisms which he has vowed to receive and adopt
as his own confession; not just so far as they happen to contain
the system of doctrine taught in Scripture, but because he recognizes
them to be a faithful summary of scriptural doctrine.
|
2. That the 149th General Synod of the
Reformed Presbyterian Church, Evangelical Synod urge its Presbyteries
and Sessions to require candidates for the office of deacon and
elder (ruling and teaching) to submit in writing to the clerk of
the appropriate Judicatory, the points of doctrine at which they
diverge from the standards of the church.
|
3. That the 149th General Synod of the
Reformed Presbyterian Church, Evangelical Synod in the interest
of clarity of expression and closeness of subscription revise the
second ordination vow to read: Do you sincerely receive and adopt
the doctrinal standards of this church the Westminster Confession
of Faith, and Catechisms, Larger and Shorter, as your own confession
of faith, and as a faithful setting forth of the system of truth
taught in the Scriptures?
|
Respectfully submitted,
George C. Miladin (chairman)
Elmer Smick
David Winscott
|
Recommendation No. 1 of the Committee was moved and seconded.
It was moved, seconded and passed to amend by adding "Furthermore,
we do not bind our presbyteries by item VI, B, of the Committee report.
Recommendation No. 1 as amended passed. Dr. Harris asked and received
permission to have his negative vote and reasons for same recorded:
I object to the present action of the Synod
for two main reasons. First it attempts to change by mere Synodical
resolution the force of my ordination vow under which I have lived
for thirty-five years. I took this oath very solemnly and at some
cost. Now I could be forced to change it. I could continue to profess
to believe some details which I do not believe, but I do not feel
that this would be an honorable procedure. I regard the present
action as tantamount to an ex post facto law which is usually
thought to be an objectionable thing. I find the Synod's action
strange in the extreme.
Secondly, I cannot in good conscience receive the standards in the
detail which is now envisioned and I question how many other of
our ministers and ruling elders can. I feel sure that some men allow
only one scriptural ground for divorce. The standards specify two.
I carry in my pocket a picture of Jesus and see no harm in that.
But Question 109 of the Larger Catechism forbids all pictures or
images of any person of the deity. The adoption of this motion makes
my subscription suspect and I think that it affects many of us.
It is a pernicious departure from 100 years of Presbyterian history
and if the action is further strengthened, could wreak havoc in
our church and seriously affect our possible union with the Orthodox
Presbyterian Church which has no such ordination vow.
|
It was moved and seconded to adopt Recommendation No.
2.
It was moved and seconded that it be amended by adding
"as well as all present elders and deacons and trustees" after
"ruling and teaching."
It was moved and seconded and passed to receive the whole
report with thanks and take no further action on the recommendations,
and to refer the report to the presbyteries for their study. (However,
see below)
Synod adjourned this sederunt at 6:05, with prayer by
Dr. Franklin S. Dyrness.
|
FIFTH
SEDERUNT -- WEDNESDAY, 8:30 A.M.
|
Synod was called to order by the Moderator at 8:30 a.m.
After the singing of a hymn Synod was led in prayer by Dr. Will Barker.
The reading of the minutes of the Fourth Sederunt was deferred until they
could be reproduced.
It was moved and seconded that we approve the minutes of the 148th General
Synod, noting that due to a printer's error, pages 121 and 124 were transposed.
Motion was lost, inasmuch as minutes are approved sederunt by sederunt.
It was moved, seconded and passed to reconsider the question on referral
of the report of the Committee on the Second Ordination Vow
to presbyteries. It was moved, seconded and passed to rescind the action
on recommendation No. 1 and that the whole report be sent down to the
presbyteries for study.
There was no report from the Ordination Vow Committee.
Minutes of the 149th General Synod of the Reformed
Presbyterian Church, Evangelical Synod, held at Covenant College,
Lookout Mountain, Tennessee, May 14-20, 1971, pages 63-72.
[Documents of Synod, pages 314-323.]
Back to the Table of Contents
of Documents of Synod
©PCA Historical Center, 12330 Conway Road, St. Louis, MO,
2007. All Rights Reserved.
|
