Thanks for writing this out, Derek. I appreciated our conversation on these matters, and I hope to pick it up again.
A few points in defense of the position of us 2/2.5'ers. :)
First, I appreciate that you're using the categories of the PCA 1982 Study Report; however, I think it's important to note that, contrary to your conclusions, the PCA Study Report argued that the 2nd view (not the 3rd view) was the historic view of the PCA:
Second, Bryan Chapell articulated the goals of the move to Good Faith Subscription in his article, "Perspective on the Presbyterian Church in America's Subscription Standards" (Presbyterion 27/2 Fall 2001). In that, he explicitly stated that, "A presbytery should exercise its right to determine its membership by judging whether the man’s declared difference with our Standards is an allowable exception, and ***whether the presbytery will in any way limit the teaching of that exception***” (p. 67).
While he did argue that, in his view, good faith subscription would be contrary to prohibiting ALL teaching of exceptions, he acknowledged that some imposition of teaching restrictions would be permissible when, in the presbytery's determination, "the 'peace and purity of the church' are clearly threatened" (p. 93). (On these two paragraphs, I'm copying pretty much directly from the RPR Minority Report of during the 48th GA, M48GA, p. 631, of which I was a co-author. I still believe that report was an important statement on this subject.)
These demonstrate that, even if one believes that some teaching of exceptions is permissible, I think you have overclaimed the latitude that even the architects of GFA imagined when it was first rolled out.
Finally, it should be noted that while the GFA amendments did permit elders to hold other views, the BCO was not amended to permit elders to teach views contrary to the "standard expositions of the teachings of Scripture in relation to both faith and practice," as outlined in the BCO and WCF/Cs (BCO 39-3).
Ultimately, I think there are a lot of tensions that remain here, no matter which position you're coming from. We'll have to keep discussing things. I'll see you at GA, Lord willing.
I agree that the 1982 PCA Study Report argued that View 2 is the historic PCA view. I linked to that report because I think it is an important perspective when considering the history of the PCA. In my view, the report made some fairly glaring mistakes in its claims, one of which I mention in the footnote in regard to how the authors read Charles Hodge and the Adopting Act. That misstep on a crucial moment in the history of subscription led me to be have some doubt about the fairness of that report.
But aside from that, I agree that View 2 has been present in the PCA from the beginning. Chapell says so as well. However, in my view, the first 30 years of the PCA leading up to the adoption of GFS in 2002 shows that View 3 was already the functional view of the denomination, and since its codification, we've spent an additional 20 years consciously practicing that approach to subscription.
That said, I agree there are tensions, especially regarding the right of a presbytery to restrict a man from teaching his exceptions. I'll go and read the RPR minority report you authored, and I look forward to speaking in person again soon. I appreciate your writing ministry. Keep up the good work.
Thanks for writing this out, Derek. I appreciated our conversation on these matters, and I hope to pick it up again.
A few points in defense of the position of us 2/2.5'ers. :)
First, I appreciate that you're using the categories of the PCA 1982 Study Report; however, I think it's important to note that, contrary to your conclusions, the PCA Study Report argued that the 2nd view (not the 3rd view) was the historic view of the PCA:
https://www.pcahistory.org/documents/subscription/1982paper.html
Second, Bryan Chapell articulated the goals of the move to Good Faith Subscription in his article, "Perspective on the Presbyterian Church in America's Subscription Standards" (Presbyterion 27/2 Fall 2001). In that, he explicitly stated that, "A presbytery should exercise its right to determine its membership by judging whether the man’s declared difference with our Standards is an allowable exception, and ***whether the presbytery will in any way limit the teaching of that exception***” (p. 67).
While he did argue that, in his view, good faith subscription would be contrary to prohibiting ALL teaching of exceptions, he acknowledged that some imposition of teaching restrictions would be permissible when, in the presbytery's determination, "the 'peace and purity of the church' are clearly threatened" (p. 93). (On these two paragraphs, I'm copying pretty much directly from the RPR Minority Report of during the 48th GA, M48GA, p. 631, of which I was a co-author. I still believe that report was an important statement on this subject.)
These demonstrate that, even if one believes that some teaching of exceptions is permissible, I think you have overclaimed the latitude that even the architects of GFA imagined when it was first rolled out.
Finally, it should be noted that while the GFA amendments did permit elders to hold other views, the BCO was not amended to permit elders to teach views contrary to the "standard expositions of the teachings of Scripture in relation to both faith and practice," as outlined in the BCO and WCF/Cs (BCO 39-3).
Ultimately, I think there are a lot of tensions that remain here, no matter which position you're coming from. We'll have to keep discussing things. I'll see you at GA, Lord willing.
Thanks for the reply, Jacob.
I agree that the 1982 PCA Study Report argued that View 2 is the historic PCA view. I linked to that report because I think it is an important perspective when considering the history of the PCA. In my view, the report made some fairly glaring mistakes in its claims, one of which I mention in the footnote in regard to how the authors read Charles Hodge and the Adopting Act. That misstep on a crucial moment in the history of subscription led me to be have some doubt about the fairness of that report.
But aside from that, I agree that View 2 has been present in the PCA from the beginning. Chapell says so as well. However, in my view, the first 30 years of the PCA leading up to the adoption of GFS in 2002 shows that View 3 was already the functional view of the denomination, and since its codification, we've spent an additional 20 years consciously practicing that approach to subscription.
That said, I agree there are tensions, especially regarding the right of a presbytery to restrict a man from teaching his exceptions. I'll go and read the RPR minority report you authored, and I look forward to speaking in person again soon. I appreciate your writing ministry. Keep up the good work.