What type of system does an ordained man vow to adopt in their vows of ordination? The phrase has had many interpretations. It has become a key part of American Presbyterianism since the adopting act in 1729, which states,

“And do therefore agree, that all the Ministers of this Synod, or that shall hereafter be admitted into this Synod, shall declare their agreement in and approbation of the Confession of Faith with the Larger and Shorter Catechisms of the assembly of Divines at Westminster, as being in all the essential and necessary articles, good forms of sound words and systems of Christian doctrine; and do also adopt the said Confession and Catechisms as the confession of our faith.”

The Adopting Acts passed unanimously, yet what follows in the minutes in future years is questions of what the adopting act was, morning and afternoon sessions, or only the morning? What was the relationship between the Confession and the Presbyterian Church? Along with many questions of what the words meant when they adopted the adopting act. One man argued that being suspended from ministry for holding Arminian doctrines violated the adopting act.[1] This article is not a historical research project seeking to understand the term system; that would be a PhD dissertation. This article seeks to present various views of the word system of doctrine. Clearly, humans do not fit into five distinct categories, and the implications of these views might look different when applied across settings.

Christian System

The Westminster Standards are viewed as a broadly Christian summary of biblical teaching, capturing the essentials of orthodoxy rather than a tightly defined theological structure.

Another term for this category would be a creedal system. That seeks to see the standards as an explanation of ancient creeds such as the Apostles’ Creed or the Nicaea-Constantinople Creed. Although I do not believe this view has been presented in our denomination, it has been the understanding of other denominations that might still have the Westminster Standards in their church documents. This view looks to the lowest common denominator, which seeks to stay true to historical faith, but also seeks to have some standard that sets them apart from another system.

Under this view, the Westminster Standards function more as a theological commentary on basic Christian orthodoxy than as a comprehensive doctrinal system with internal necessity.

Evangelical System

The Westminster Standards are read as an evangelical framework emphasizing gospel essentials (grace, faith, Scripture), with latitude on secondary or culturally sensitive doctrines.

This view would be a step up from the previous one stated. This might be more than an agreement with historical creeds, which are often shorter and more akin to brief articles of religion that are somewhat non-controversial. The example would be the ten statements of faith that you can find on many evangelical non-denominational church websites. These categories are one or two sentences that cover Scripture, God, Creation, Fall, Christ, Salvation, Incarnation, Resurrection, Church, and the Last Day. The beauty of such a statement is that many people would be able to agree on what is written down in the statement, but they do not go in depth. Again, I am not sure how many people in the PCA argue this position of the system, but I do believe this can become how we talk about what is important, and that other doctrines become secondary. I agree, however, what often can be said is that secondary is where division or disagreement come and therefore, you can still be ordained in the PCA.

While this approach rightly seeks peace and cooperation, it risks allowing contemporary evangelical priorities to determine what the confession may mean.

Calvinistic/Reformed System

The Westminster Standards articulate a distinctly Reformed system rooted in the doctrines of grace and covenant theology, with other doctrines flowing from those central commitments.

This view seeks to see the Standards as a Reformed document articulating the key Reformed teachings found in the five Solas and the five pillars of the Doctrines of Grace. Like the evangelical system, but with additional articles or statements added. You could say this is the evangelical system with an additional soteriological category. Like the evangelical view, the system becomes about a select few essential chapters. This view might even be able to be broken into two separate views, one that focuses on the Calvinistic System (Soteriology) and a broader system of the Reformed System, which might include (Worship, Sabbath).

In practice, this view often treats the confession as a soteriological core with ecclesiological and ethical appendices, rather than as a unified doctrinal architecture.

Organic System

The Westminster Standards present an integrated, organic system in which doctrines mutually inform and support one another, requiring careful attention to both explicit statements and necessary implications.

This view understands that the foundation of the Confession and Catechisms is not found merely in a single phrase or sentence; rather, the system of doctrine is interconnected because of the scriptural foundation for the Confession and Catechisms. One of the most used and quoted portions of our Confession is found in the Liberty of Conscience (Chapter 20). This is not a stand-alone chapter but is interictally connected to other portions of the Confession and Catechism. The chapter builds on other doctrines such as Scripture, God, Christ’s salvation, the moral law, the fall, death, resurrection, sanctification, faith, and others. Not to mention the impact this chapter has on religious worship, oaths and vows, and the limits of authority of the Church and Civil Magistrates.

Personally, this approach does not deny doctrinal hierarchy (Primary/Secondary) but insists that hierarchy must arise from the confession itself rather than from external theological instincts. The secondary doctrines are often implications of primary doctrines.

Rigid System

The Westminster Standards are treated as a fixed, exhaustive code, with minimal tolerance for exceptions regardless of their scope or implications.

This view sees the Standards as subordinate to Scripture but unbreakable. The rigid System might be used as a polemical argument, but I believe it is rarely believed in the PCA. Other denominations that hold to a stricter subscription to the Standards might hold this position.

This view often arises as a reaction to confessional erosion rather than as a primary theological conviction.

The system view all depends on what individuals believe is essential and necessary to the system of doctrine. The varying views can lead to different practices, some helpful and others less so. Each of these views then requires identifying the essential and necessary parts of each system, which would show the various views within each system.

Case Study: Recreation

I will seek to limit myself in this portion to not give a whole discourse on the Sabbath. However, I hope that I might help elders who have a candidate before them to ask good questions to understand the candidates’ views of the system of doctrine they are adopting, but also help see that not all cases are the same.

The “Recreation Clause” is a common difference stated by a candidate. However, not all stated differences are the same, which is why the candidate needs to present them in their own words. In the first two views Creedal/Christian and Evangelical these views anything other than the few article of faith is ‘adiaphora.’ The rigid view might allow as scruple on this point, but normally for semantic reasons.

Depending on how one views the Calvinistic or Reformed system, one’s vote in this instance might depend on how one might vote; the Calvinist system might say that recreation is peripheral to soteriology, and therefore does not affect the system. The Reformed system might see the view of the Sabbath as a key doctrine found in the Reformation documents, and therefore an exception may be granted in a few instances.

The organic view would seek to understand the man’s perspective more than just a single word, and to consider whether the view is a man articulating that what might be called a recreational activity is in fact an act of necessity or mercy. Or is the man not only stating a difference with the term recreation, but disagrees with the following statement, “the whole time [the Sabbath] is to be taken up, in the public and private exercises of His worship, and in the duties of necessity and mercy.” If the whole day is not to be set apart for Public and Private worship (as understood by the Scriptures, summarized in the Confession and Catechism) or for works of necessity and mercy, then this starts to unravel the intricate parts of the Standards. The more extreme is that the man might hold that the fourth commandment is fulfilled in Christ, and therefore, there is no moral obligation to mankind today. Which not only looks to their view of the sabbath, worship, but also the moral law, Christ’s fulfillment of the law, and many other portions of the Standards.

The danger of some of the views of the system is that we often see the system as a small portion of the confession and catechisms; you can take a Sharpie and redact the confession down to the lowest common denominator. However, if the system is more organic, like an immune system or an operating system, even the smallest virus can have drastic effects.

Conclusion

This article is not exhaustive. I do believe this is an important question for elders to discuss and apply as candidates express their stated differences. Courts need to then ask probing questions of the candidate to understand their objection and disagreement. Some candidates need to articulate their position more precisely; others need to be told that their position undermines and therefore strikes at the vitals of religion and is hostile to the system.[2]

Ordination vows are promises made before God and His Church to uphold a system of doctrine. The difficulty facing the PCA is not a lack of good faith, but a lack of shared definition. Until presbyteries clarify what they mean by “system,” debates over exceptions will continue to speak past one another.

[1] Charles Hodge, The Church and Its Polity (London: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1879), 329.

[2] Hostile to the system refers to a doctrinal position or stated difference that does not merely diverge from an isolated point within the Westminster Standards, but undermines or contradicts the internal coherence, theological logic, or necessary implications of the system of doctrine as a whole.