In light of recent discussions
about the Form of Subscription, Reformed Fellowship
offers this republication of the first of two articles by Dr.
Louis Praamsma originally published in the October 1963 issue
of Torch and Trumpet The Character of the
Church's Creeds (I)
WHAT IS the character of the standards of a Reformed church,
a church which aims at being a confessing church in the world by
proclaiming the truth of God's Word? This question demands a composite
answer. Such an answer has been provided by the late Prof. P. Biesterveld
in his Schets Van de Symboliek. He defines a doctrinal standard
as "a writing wherein a church or group of churches pronounces what
it holds to be the truth according to God's Word."1 He pursues this
subject by delineating the six characteristic purposes of these
doctrinal statements:
a. to present a correct and
authentic summary of the doctrine maintained;
b. to witness to this truth
in the world;
c. to preserve the unity of
the faith among the several churches;
d. to maintain the purity
of the faith and oppose all heresy;
e. to transmit this pure doctrine
to posterity; and
f. to demonstrate what
the churches have always held to be the truth.
Our aim in these articles is not to elaborate on these several
confessional aspects outlined by Prof. Biesterveld. Rather will
it be the underscoring of one of these, namely, the communal responsibility of preserving the true faith among the several churches.
This communal aspect, let it be said at once has juridical implications,
because the community of believers is characterized by a common
order. This order in turn manifests itself in the specific rules
which such believers are to obey in the spirit of love.
Freedom and the Creeds
Within the church there exists, indeed, Christian liberty. Such
liberty presupposes that differences of opinion may exist within
the church. What may not be presupposed, however, is that such liberty
renders lawful the free and uncontrolled blowing of every wind of
doctrine within the house of the Lord. God is the God of order;
therefore His house "is builded as a city that is compact together"
(Psa. 122:3). It may not be divided against itself. To express
the unity of faith, this doctrinal unity of believers who with one
accord praise the name of their God and Savior in the words of their
confession, has always been one of the aims of creedal statements.
Therefore these confessions have a juridical aspect. By the term
juridical
we do not mean to affirm that confessions are laws imposed by a
government, even at times against the will of some of the people.
Rather a confession, accepted without constraint by members and
officebearers of the church, is a communal possession and heritage, subject to common rules. Thus it is never "my own
business" whether I deviate from the confession. If I disagree with
some part thereof, I should follow a prescribed path. This path
is carefully outlined in the order of the churches. Nor is the liberty
of the church such that it may claim to have a confession and yet
refuse to preserve it. The church must ever be watchful to keep
its standards high and pure.
A Well-Defined Place
It may seem strange to emphasize the above in the community of
Reformed churches. The reasons for doing so will be pointed out
later. Here we only affirm that from the beginning the confessions
as mutual doctrinal agreements have had their fixed place within
the Reformed churches. Calvin stressed the necessity of such a confession
immediately after his coming to Geneva. He required subscription
to such a doctrinal statement from every citizen and urged that
in this matter the members of the City Council set a good example.
Upon his return in 1541 an ecclesiastical constitution was adopted,
which demanded of every future minister the declaration "that he
would receive and keep the approved doctrine of the church."2
In the constitution of the Reformed churches of the Netherlands
subscription to the creeds played a significant role. The earliest
synods already required of all officebearers an expression of their
agreement with the Belgic Confession. On this matter the first synod,
held at Emden, reported, "To demonstrate the doctrinal agreement
among the Dutch churches the brothers consented in the subscription
of the Confession of Faith of the Dutch churches."3 To this was
added, "Also the officebearers who are not here present will be
admonished to consent to this subscription; the same shall be asked
of all others who shall be called to the ministry, before they enter
upon their duties" (art. 4).
The Synod of Dort (1618-19) adopted the Form of Subscription
still used by many Reformed churches today. Hereby the officebearers
declare "that they heartily believe and are persuaded that all the
articles and points of doctrine, contained in the confession and
catechism of the Reformed churches, together with the explanation
of some points of the aforesaid doctrine, made by the National Synod
of Dort 1618-19, do fully agree with the Word of God. We promise
therefore diligently to teach and faithfully to defend the aforesaid
doctrine, without either directly or indirectly contradicting the
same by our public preaching or writing." The expression "do fully
agree" reads in the Latin text "peromnia consentire" (agree in
all parts).4
The same rule obtained in the Swiss churches at that time. In
a letter of the Genevan delegates to the Synod of Dort we read,
"In our churches no one is admitted to the ministry or to an office,
however learned or gifted he may be, unless he binds himself by
oath to the Swiss Confession (Confessio Helvetica), promising that
he will teach in accordance with it and will propose, spread or
propagate nothing strange to it either publicly or secretly, before he proposed it and received the right to it in
a major assembly or synod."5
Allegiance to Creeds Restored
During the nineteenth century those in the Netherlands who remained
true to the Reformed faith again stressed this position. The synod
of the Dutch Reformed Church had so altered the Form of Subscription
that it became possible to assent to the doctrine expounded in the
ecclesiastical standards not because (quia) but in so far as (quatenus)
they agreed with God's Word. As a result doctrines of all kinds
were proclaimed from the pulpits and heresies were disseminated
throughout the congregations. One of the first acts of the first
synod of the Secessionists, held in 1836, was the subscription to
a fraternal agreement, which essentially reproduced the venerable
Form of Subscription adopted by the Synod of Dort (1618-19). The
same was true in the days of the Doleantie. A conference of officebearers
was held in the city of Amsterdam in 1883. This paved the way for
the second secession from the old Dutch Reformed Church. All members
signed a register under the following declaration, "in placing their
names on this roll the undersigned declare that they cordially agree
with the three Forms of Unity as the agreement of ecclesiastical
communion, not in so far as but because they agree with the Word
of God."
The same requirement prevails in the Christian Reformed Church.
Upon examination a candidate for the ministry signs the Form of
Subscription. According to article 53 of the Church Order all ministers
and professors of theology must subscribe to the Three Forms of
Unity. "And the ministers of the Word who refuse to do so shall
de facto be suspended from their office by the Consistory or Classis
until they shall have given a full statement, and if they obstinately
persist in refusing, they shall be deposed from their office."
What Subscription Involves
Two matters are involved in this act of subscription. The first
is the solemn declaration that the confessions contain the doctrine
of God's Word; that they are -- to use the language of the Reformed
fathers -- a repetition
of that Word of God and are always and in all parts subject to that
Word of God. The second is the sincere promise to teach and defend
this doctrine, not contradicting it in any way and following the
prescribed rules of the church, should any doubts or objections
to any part of this doctrine arise. Likewise these rules pledge
everyone to refrain from spreading such doubts and objections, while
subjecting them in accordance with this promise to the judgment
of the consistory or one of the major assemblies.
To this promise it is possible to raise an objection. Does not
this conflict with that libertas prophetandi which we seek to honor
particularly in the Protestant climate wherein we proclaim the sole authority
of God's Word? We would reply that by definition (per definitionem)
this "freedom of prophecy" is by no means an unrestricted and individual
freedom. It is limited by the fact that not every prophet is a true
prophet; not every prophecy a true prophecy. The Bible itself admonishes,
"Prove the spirits whether they are of God" (1John 4:1). It urges
especially the elders to "take heed...to all the flock" since "grievous
wolves" shall enter the church and not spare Christ's flock (Act.
20:28,29). Yet this authoritative, binding character of the creeds
upon all officebearers has throughout the years been denied by many.
The arguments employed and the direction taken by those who object
have been masterfully set forth by Prof. A.D.R. Polman in the
first chapter of his large work on the Belgic Confession.6 Today
we are confronted in this respect especially with the views championed
by Adolf von Harnack and Karl Barth.
Harnack and the Creeds
During the winter of 1899-1900 von Harnack delivered his famous
lectures on What Is Christianity? These embodied the thinking of
the liberal theology of his day. In his lectures he stressed the
ethical (moral) aspects of Christianity to the exclusion of the
doctrinal. In his opinion the gospel is the message of human brotherhood.
Such doctrines as the trinity and the two natures of Christ do not
belong to its original message. These are but products of passing
historical influences wherein the Hellenistic mind of the ancient
church expressed itself.
It was Harnack's conviction that "no historical form of Christianity
must be absolutized or regarded as normative or authoritative. Instead,
we must recognize that, though we cannot be christians except through
the medium of concrete historical traditions, it is not these traditions
but their ultimate historical source that can be the fountain of
Christian faith and life, namely the gospel of Jesus Christ. Where
the gospel, as Jesus proclaimed it, is believed, there is Christianity;
and the gospel does not require a normative, historical form (in
doctrine, dogma, liturgy, church polity, etc.) in order to produce
belief." His conclusion is that "Christians must live by the gospel,
for which they must find free and unauthoritarian forms in their
common life according to the exigencies of ever-changing historical
situations."7
The intriguing point in von Harnack's exposition is that he appeals
to the gospel for the sake of a free Christian attitude independent
of historical circumstances and opinions. Yet this gospel is his
own gospel -- a historical, very liberal, and intensely personal
Harnackian gospel including a severely critical attitude towards
the inspired words of the gospel itself!
Barth and His Influence
Karl Barth has upon more than one occasion expressed his hearty
appreciation of the confessions. Their voice should be accepted
and embraced as the voice of our fathers and brethren in the faith.
It has ecclesiastical authority. But this authority is a spiritual,
never a canonical authority. Everyone should read the confession
as a first commentary on Holy Scripture and thereafter make his
own decision. The confession is to function as a kind of horizon
for our thinking and speaking. Of this horizon we should never lose
sight. Yet within its confines we may feel free either to accept
its terms and ideas or to contradict them. In this way Barth pleads
for what he deems an actual and critical decision.8
In the Netherlands, Barthian influences had played a significant
role in the construction of the new Church Order of the "Nederlandse
Hervormde" church. In this document the dynamic character of the
act of confessing is stressed in such a way that, according to the
famous tenth article, the church's communion with the confessing
fathers does not exclude criticism of their confessions.
Discussions and Deviations
Discussions on the character and binding authority of the creeds
began in the "Gereformeerde" churches of that land during the thirties
of this century. At a ministers' conference in 1940 Prof Dr. F.W. Grosheide lectured on the theme "Living with the Creeds." Questions
were raised at that time about Paul's authorship of the epistle to the Hebrews (Belg.Conf, art. 4) and the validity of
the Catechism's interpretation of Christ's descent into hell (Heidel.
Cat., 44). Of greater import were problems raised in connection
with the terminology which the creeds employ. Such questions were
asked as: Should we discover influences of Greek philosophy (Aristotle)
in the terms and distinctions employed by the creeds; is it permissible
to criticize these terms or explain them in a sense which we deem
to be more biblical?9
Since 1940 much has happened within those churches. In 1944 the
"Liberated Reformed Churches" separated from that body. One of the
issues concerned itself with the character of the creeds, specifically
with the right of synod to explain its creeds and to make such an
explanation binding on all officebearers. Those who objected to
this procedure spoke of "super-scriptural bindings." In 1946 these
doctrinal pronouncements were retracted.
After this in the interest of possible union with the "Hervormde"
church, some leaders in the "Gereformeerde" churches began to speak
about a "reduction" of the creeds. How far this should go, no one
defined precisely. Without a doubt this trend must be linked up
with the old distinction between "fundamental" and "non-fundamental"
articles of faith. Meanwhile a new feeling of confessional freedom
seems to pervade these churches. In the "Liberated" churches a minister
wrote a book dealing with what happens to man after death.10
In his views he deviated from the Heidelberg Catechism. Yet he did
not submit his position to the judgment of the ecclesiastical assemblies. To
this novel approach both his consistory and classis seemed to assent.
Likewise the president of the youth organizations defended the position
that images may be tolerated in the churches. He also failed to
appear before the proper ecclesiastical assemblies with a gravamen
(official protest) against the position set forth in the ninety-eighth
question and answer of the Catechism.
Criticism of the Creeds
To show how strong this new and free attitude towards the creeds
is becoming we would refer to the recent book of the Rev. H. Volten
entitled Around the Confession of the Church. On the Canons of Dort
he remarks "that the question begins to press whether a gravamen
should not be brought in, although this is almost impossible." According
to him the Canons reason much too deductively from God's eternal
decree and fail to demonstrate with sufficient clarity the relation
of election to Christ. As to the Belgic Confession "the relation
between general and special revelation is poorly, if not wrongly,
expressed in article 2." The concluding words of article 5 "are
at least disputable, because the truth of God's Word can never be
perceived without faith." There are "shortcomings in articles 3
through 7, articles 27 through 30, and article 36." In article 16
the author discovers too much deductive reasoning from two virtues of God (his mercy and justice), "as if these two have
nothing to do with each other."
Nor does the Catechism escape Volten's criticism. "The relation
between God's justice and mercy in Lord's Days 4 and 5 has not been
stated quite correctly." He uncovers "scholasticism" in the Lord's
Days 5 and 6. The definition of faith in Lord's Day 7 he believes
is productive of misunderstanding. The answer to question 41 is
primitive and incomplete. Lord's Days 25 through 27 are not clear;
28 through 30 are too difficult and verbose. Others he criticizes
as being too brief. Lord's Days 34 through 44 all betray defects;
"they are not effective for our day." Small wonder that Volten concludes,
"It is impossible to fix a literal binding; a distinction between
form and content is inescapable, and it is useful to assume an essence
and main points in the confessions."11 Volten's criticism is no
isolated phenomenon.
When a "Hervormde" pastoral letter criticized the following statement
of the Canons: "That some receive the gift of faith from God, and
others do not receive it, proceeds from God's eternal decree" (I,6),
Prof. Polman agreed. He regards this expression as a logical conclusion
not substantiated by Scriptural proof He argues, however, that no
real confessional question is at stake here "because it is clear,
that a critical attitude towards some formulas and pronouncements of the confessions and the use of
others does not imply an attack on the gospel of God."12
And with this also Prof. G.C. Berkouwer fully agrees. Berkouwer
speaks in this connection of an interesting analogy found in present-day
Roman Catholic discussions of the creeds of that church. There the
distinction is made between affirmation of the truth, which is unchangeable,
and representation of the specific truth, which is affected by time
and circumstances. On these grounds Roman Catholic theologians seem
to be able to criticize the very words of the decrees of Trent,
while insisting in the same breath that they are not criticizing
the truth of these words.13
In essence Berkouwer agrees with such or a similar distinction.
According to him, and this is his main thrust, faithfulness to the
gospel may involve a critical attitude to the form in which the
confessions speak. "It is not an indication of relativism when we
speak of the problem of affirmation and representation, but it may
mean -- this all depends! -- faithfulness to the gospel, namely, when
we have recognized the faithfulness of the church to the gospel
in its historical struggle, in all kinds of frameworks and formulae,
and in that way integrally accept the confession."14
Thus he speaks of the possibility that "we learn to understand
the confession in its human and defective character, and in that
way try to understand what is the real doctrine of the church."15
Against this background of the historic position of the Reformed churches on the character and binding
authority of its church confessions and of present-day discussions,
I shall attempt in the next article to show what is at stake. Only
then will it be possible to ask and answer the question whether
there is a way out for a confessional church which truly wants to
be confessing church in the world today.
Louis Praamsma (1910–1984) was professor of Church History at Calvin Theological
Seminary, Grand Rapids, MI, from 1962 to 1963, and minister in the Christian
Reformed Church in Canada. He was the author of Abraham Kuyper als Kerkhistoricus, Calvijn, Het dwaze
Gods, De Belijdenis in de Crisis, and
Kerkenordening en Geschiedenis,
and Let Christ Be King: Reflections on the Life and Times of Abraham
Kuyper
Endnotes
1 Outline of Symbolics; Kampen, 1912; p. 1.
2 Cf B.J. Kidd: Documents
Illustrative of the Continental Reformation, 1941; p. 591.
3 F.L. Rutgers: Acta van de Nederlandsche Synoden der l6de
Eeuw, 1899; p. 56.
4 H.H. Kuyper: De Tost-Acta,
1899; p. 187.
5 Ibid.,p. 513.
6 A.D.R. Polman: Onze
Nederlandse Geloofsbelijdenis; alg. inleiding.
7 W. Pauck: "Adolf von Harnack's
Interpretation of Church History" in The Heritage of the Reformation,
1961 sec. ed.; pp. 345, 346.
8 Polman, op. cit.,
pp. 27,28.
9 G.T.T., 1940, VI.
10 B. Telder: Sterven en daarna.
11 H. Volten: Random de Belijdenis, 1962;
pp. 107-141.
12 Gereformeerd Weekblad,
13 Juli, 1962.
13 G. C. Berkouwer: Vragen
random de belijdenis; G. T. T., Feb. 1963; pp.4, 39.
14 Ibid., p. 23.
15 Ibid., p. 26.
