Tag Archives: Confessional Subscription

Lutheran Confessional Subscription

Francis Pieper wrote this about confessional subscription in the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod (LCMS) of his day:

This same truth — that the Lutheran Church does not set up in its Symbols a second norm alongside of Scripture — is evidenced by its insistence on the quia form of subscription.   It binds its teachers to the doctrine contained in the Confessions not because it is the doctrine of the Confessions, but because it is the doctrine of Scripture. (Christian Dogmatics, Vol. 1, 354)

You’ll recall that quia is the Latin word for “because.”  We subscribe the Confessions because they are biblical, not insofar as (quatenus) they are biblical.

From this beautiful volume entitled Concordia: the Lutheran Confessions, we find that the LCMS still apparently holds to this position:

Needless to say, confessional subscription in the nature of the case is binding and unconditional.  A subscription with qualifications or reservations is a contradiction in terms and dishonest. (Concordia, xxix)

Now what strikes me is the sheer volume of the Lutheran confessional writings.  Concordia is a big book!  Lutheran pastors subscribe a lot more content than Reformed pastors do.

I raise that because sometimes it’s said (and I’ve said it too) that Presbyterians have to take a different approach to subscription of their confessions because they’re much more bulky and detailed.  You can’t expect a Presbyterian to hold to every single detail of the Westminster Standards.  So, we find things like “good faith” and “system” subscription.  I find it interesting that Concordia is probably ten times bigger than the Westminster Standards and yet the LCMS apparently holds to full, quia subscription.


Does the Belgic Confession Undermine Confessional Subscription?

“Reflection on confessional subscription often makes use of BC art. 7.  At times the article is used to undermine having confessions (cf. 2.5.2.5).  However, the scope of this article does not cover what it is then implied to cover.  The point in the article is that human documents will never equal the authority of divine Scripture and God’s truth.  The article does not state that, within the confines of divine Scripture and God’s truth, human documents are to be rejected as binding.”

By This Our Subscription, R.C. Janssen, 398.


Scripture and Confession

Some good insights here:

“In Dutch Reformed circles, relinquishing the sola Scriptura of the Great Reformation was one of the key reasons why the confessions came to be under attack during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.  The course of history has made clear that those who challenge the position of the confession may well be seeking an escape from the assertions of Holy and Divine Scriptures itself [sic].  In short, a vague notion of divine revelation has as a direct consequence the weakening of the authority of ecclesiastical confessional documents.”

R.C. Janssen, “By This Our Subscription,” 279.


1883 Form of Subscription

One of the notable things about “By This Our Subscription”  is the primary source material, much of which I believe is appearing in English for the first time.  Some of it is shocking.  For example, here is the Form of Subscription adopted by the Nederlansche Hervormde Kerk (Dutch Reformed Church) in 1883:

We, the undersigned, admitted by the provincial board of …, (or by the Committee for the Walloon Churches) to the ministry of the Gospel in the Nederlansche Hervormde Kerk, herewith promise, that we, in agreement with our calling, shall labour therein with diligence and faithfulness, and will in as far as we are able further the interests of God’s Kingdom and in agreement herewith those of the Nederlansche Hervormde Kerk in keeping with her ordinances. (151)

There is no reference at all to the Three Forms of Unity.  This is a big part of why the Doleantie (1886) took place.


What are Confessions?

In the 1860s, several different views of confessions were found amongst people claiming to be Reformed in the Netherlands:

Modernists considered confessions to be articulations of reality based on scientific endeavours that could be overthrown at any moment.

Apologists considered confessions articulations of reality based on historically reliable sources.

Calvinists considered confessions articulations of reality based on divine, infallible revelation.

Ethicals considered confessions articulations of experience based on the work of the one Spirit.

Evangelicals (Groningers) considered confessions articulations of personal experience that could vary drastically from individual to individual.

From “By This Our Subscription,” R.C. Janssen, 139.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 36 other followers