An unscriptural commitment
Throughout the history of the Canadian Reformed Churches, members who wished to participate in the celebration of the Lord’s Supper have had to first make public profession of their faith. The requirement for this public profession of faith dates back to the Church Order that was adopted by the Synod of Dort 1618-1619. The Synod of Dort worded this requirement as follows:
Nobody shall be admitted to the Lord’s Supper except those who according to the custom of the church to which they belong, have made profession of the Reformed religion, at the same time as having testimony of a pious walk, without which even those who come from other churches shall not be admitted (Article 61, Church Order of Dort).
Although the language has been updated, the version of Article 61 of the Church Order that is currently in force in the Canadian Reformed Churches is not significantly different. Those who make public profession of their faith must pledge adherence to the doctrine of the Word of God that is taught in the church. As indicated in the first question of the Form for the Public Profession of Faith, all confessing members of the church have agreed to be bound to the “doctrine of the Word of God, summarized in the confessions and taught here in this Christian church.”
This question was not always worded in this way. General Synod 1983 (Acts, Article 145) changed the formulation of the first question in the Form for the Public Profession of Faith, and the formulation of the second question in the Form for Baptism from “the articles of the Christian faith” to “summarized in the confessions.” General Synod 1983 considered that the phrase “taught here in this Christian church” means that one gives allegiance to all the confessions of the church.
This formulation was appealed at three successive General Synods, in 1986, 1989 and in 1992. Some appellants argued that Synod 1983 had changed the meaning of the Form. These appellants objected to being bound to the Three Forms of Unity. Other appellants argued that the doctrinal binding that was present in the original Form referred only to the Apostles Creed.
However in response to these appeals Synods 1986, 1989 and 1992 concluded that the churches and their members were not committing themselves to anything new, but simply continue in the historic Reformed practice. The change was only a linguistic change that did not change the meaning of the question (see “General Synod decisions in defense of confessional membership“ elsewhere on the www.calltoreform.com website).
There is no evidence to suggest that this practice has now changed. Today these Forms state the same as they did over 25 years ago. So what is the problem?
A foundational shift
In my previous editorial “An unscriptural binding” I pointed out that recent General Synods of the Canadian Reformed Churches have made decisions to establish ecclesiastical fellowship with a number of federations that either do not have or do not consistently maintain the Three Forms of Unity.
As a result the Canadian Reformed Churches now have pulpit exchanges with ministers from these federations, admit as guests each other’s members to the Lord’s Supper celebrations, and permit the free movement of members among the federations involved. If these churches consistently professed and maintained the Three Forms of Unity this would not be a problem. However, as discussed in my previous editorial, these decisions officially permit the teaching of unscriptural doctrines, contrary to the Three Forms of Unity, in the Canadian Reformed Churches.
I noted in this previous editorial that the Presbyterian churches (the OPC, PCK and FCS) do not have the Three Forms of Unity since they profess to adhere to the Westminster Standards. In addition the others (the URC, RCUS, RCNZ and ERQ) do not bind their members to adhere to the Three Forms of Unity, but permit teachings that are similar in content to the above Presbyterian churches.
I also discussed four “doctrinal divergencies” that have been swept aside as “matters that can be discussed within the framework of ecclesiastical fellowship.” The doctrinal divergencies that were discussed concern the covenant of grace, the assurance of faith, the visible and invisible church, and the pluriformity of the church. In the haste to establish relationships of ecclesiastical fellowship with the above federations, these unscriptural doctrines have been glossed over and permitted to be taught in these federations and also, by extension, in the Canadian Reformed Churches as well."
The permission of the above doctrinal divergencies has profound implications for the meaning of the phrase “taught here in this Christian church” as used in the Form for the Public Profession of Faith. Not only have these unscriptural doctrines been ignored, but the Scriptural requirements for confessional membership and supervision of the Lord’s Supper, set forth in Article 61 of the Church Order as discussed above, have also been swept aside.
1) Regarding confessional membership
Already at Synod 1998 the Canadian Reformed Churches were alerted to this problem. They were confronted with the statement by the OPC that: “We (OPC) affirm what you (CanRC) reject - that the church is competent to determine as valid and credible a confession of the Christian faith for communicant membership that is not also in full accord with the church’s confession.” (see Acts, Article 130, consideration C.3).
The degree of doctrinal commitment in the URC is also questionable, as is evident by the use of two alternative Forms for the Public Profession of Faith. In Form #2, which has its origins in the Christian Reformed Church in 1976, and taken over by the URC, there is clearly no binding to the confessions. This lack of uniformity became evident at the 2007 URC Synod Schererville (Acts, Article 27) where the URC agreed to give further study to the level of doctrinal commitment that is required for communicant membership.
In practice, both the OPC and the URC Forms for the Public Profession of Faith allow Baptists to become members of the church and to be admitted to the Lord’s Supper without repentance from their doctrinal errors. For example, already in 1998 Baptists were allowed to participate in the Lord’s Supper in the URC (see United Reformed News Service, by Darrell Todd Maurina, October 1998 edition). I also refer to recent articles in Christian Renewal entitled “On Baptists and URC Membership” by Neal Hegeman (January 27, 2010 issue, pages 14-15) and “Baptists and the URC” by Mark Brooks (April 14, 2010 issue, pages 5 and 7).
As it is written by Rev. Van Dellen and Prof. Monsma in their book The Church Order Commentary (3rd edition, page 251), “It should be plain however that a Church, if its members are admitted without confessing the Reformed fundamentals, cannot remain Reformed. After all the individual members, and not the clergy and the eldership, constitute the Church. And the confessional standards of a Church can only be Forms of Unity when the membership confesses these standards. If the members of a Church do not confess its standards to be Biblical the Church loses its power and also its raison d’etre [reason for being]. A Church which does not require of its members that they agree with its doctrinal tenets opens the doors to those who advocate false doctrines; heresy is bound to enter in, and eventually modernism may even predominate.”
This failure to maintain confessional membership also affects all Canadian Reformed Churches, as attestations are accepted from these churches in ecclesiastical fellowship without further investigation. Canadian Reformed consistories have no assurance that members from these churches who place themselves under their supervision and request admission to the Lord’s Supper are in fact sound in doctrine and godly in conduct.
2) Regarding the supervision of the Lord’s Supper
Article 61 of the Church Order clearly states that, “The consistory shall admit to the Lord’s supper only those who have made public profession of the Reformed faith and lead a godly life.” The reference to the “Reformed faith” is nothing less than a reference to the doctrine of the Word of God, summarized in the Three Forms of Unity (the Belgic Confession, the Heidelberg Catechism and the Canons of Dort).
The above churches do not properly supervise the Lord’s Supper since both members and guests may be admitted who have not professed the Reformed faith, do not adhere to the confessional standards of the church and about whom nothing is known regarding their doctrine and conduct.
This failure to properly supervise the Lord’s Supper also extends to the Canadian Reformed Churches, since they now admit to the Lord’s Supper, without a credible attestation of their doctrine and life, members of churches that have confessions that are not in agreement with the Three Forms of Unity. They also admit to the Lord’s Supper those whose profession of faith may not be in accord with the confessional standards of the Canadian Reformed Churches.
The consequences of this foundational shift
The permission of the teaching of the above unscriptural doctrines in these churches, together with the lack of confessional commitment in the Forms for Profession of Faith, places the members’ profession of the Reformed faith into question.
By admitting members of the above churches to the Lord’s Supper in the Canadian Reformed Churches, the unity of faith Christ requires at the Lord’s Supper is also placed in jeopardy. The acceptance of attestations from these churches, while turning a blind eye to the unscriptural doctrines taught in these churches, is in conflict with Article 61 of the Church Order. When the binding to the Reformed confessions continues to be required from members who make profession of their faith in accordance with the Form used in the Canadian Reformed Churches, the acceptance of attestations from such churches imposes a double standard. Such double standards are also not fitting in the house of the Lord (see also “Double Standards” by P. deBoer in Reformed Polemics, Volume 1, Number 7, January 7, 1995 issue and Spiritual Order for the Church by Rev. C. Bouwman, page 151).
However there is more.
The most important consequence of the unscriptural doctrines and practices described above is the impact on the preaching of the Word. Ministers from the above federations may proclaim their divergent doctrines in the Canadian Reformed Churches on the basis that general synods have judged them not to be impediments. Permission is given for doctrine to be taught in the Canadian Reformed Churches that need not be fully in accord with the Three Forms of Unity. This has serious implications for all those who desire to make profession of faith or bring their children to the baptismal font in the Canadian Reformed Churches.
The first question of the Form for the Public Profession of Faith reads as follows:
First, do you wholehearted believe the doctrine of the Word of God, summarized in the confessions and taught here in this Christian church? Do you promise by the grace of God steadfastly to continue in this doctrine in life and death, rejecting all heresies and errors conflicting with God’s Word?
The member cannot, with integrity, give a positive answer to this question. The General Synod decisions officially permit the above unscriptural doctrines to be taught here in this Canadian Reformed Church. These doctrines do not agree with the Word of God and the confessions of the church. No one is able, with integrity, to give assent to doctrine that is in conflict with the Word of God (see also “Church Pluriformity versus Confessional Unity” by Rev. P.K.A. deBoer in Clarion, pages 619-621, in the 1994 year end issue).
The second question of the Form for the Baptism of Infants reads as follows:
Second, do you confess that the doctrine of the Old and New Testament, summarized in the confessions and taught here in this Christian church, is the true and complete doctrine of salvation?
Further, the third question of the Form for the Baptism of Infants reads as follows:
Third, do you promise as father and mother to instruct your child in this doctrine as soon as he (she) is able to understand, and to have him (her) instructed therein to the utmost of your power?
The member cannot, with integrity, give a positive answer to either of these questions. The General Synod decisions officially permit the above unscriptural doctrines to be taught here in this Canadian Reformed Church. These doctrines do not agree with the Word of God and the confessions of the church. Therefore one is not able to have one’s child instructed in doctrine that does not agree with the Word of God or the confessions of the church either.
Now it may be that one never hears these doctrines taught in the church of which he is a member. In that instance one may suppose that these words do not apply in this situation. However it must be stressed that the operative word is permit. When the consistory has accepted these unscriptural general synod decisions, then the consistory has thereby indicated that not only may these doctrines be taught, but also people who hold to these unscriptural doctrines may be accepted as members and admitted to the Lord’s Supper. It is in this manner that heresy creeps into the Church of Christ.
Based on these unscriptural doctrines it is evident that the members of a church that has accepted and/or implemented the above General Synod decisions cannot, with integrity, commit themselves by giving a positive answer to the Forms for Public Profession of Faith and Baptism.
In this respect the situation in the Canadian Reformed Churches is different than it was in The Netherlands in 1944. At that time those who made public profession of their faith and who presented their children for baptism were explicitly bound to the unscriptural doctrine of presumptive regeneration (see for example Br. D. Bosveld in Free Reformed Pioneers, by G.J. Bosveld, chapter 3, pages 22-27).
But now those who make public profession of their faith and present their children for baptism in the Canadian Reformed Churches accept a more extensive unscriptural binding to doctrines that conflict with the Word of God and the Three Forms of Unity. It may be that these teachings are not directly taught in some of the local congregations, however the member’s affirmative answer to these questions is a commitment to wrong doctrine. When the local churches have accepted these other federations as true, that means they also accept the above mentioned doctrines as true. They accept these doctrines which are taught in these churches as permissible in their own congregations, even though in fact such doctrines are contrary to Scripture and the Reformed confessions.
Proof of this can be found, for example in a recent issue of Clarion. In an article written by Professors J. VanVliet and G.H. Visscher it is stated that “it is theoretically possible that some ministers preach an internal/external distinction within the covenant, and that this would be tolerated in the Canadian Reformed federation. But that is rare and when it happens, it is not because the Canadian Reformed seminary has taught them in that way” (Clarion, April 9, 2010 issue, page 208).
There are no “safe havens” in the Canadian Reformed Churches.
As Professor K. Deddens quotes from a Dutch Committee which wrote a brochure "For the Sake of True Ecumenicity":
“Any confessional standard, which is no longer always and everywhere dealt with in all seriousness, is by that very fact undermined and drained of its vitality and power of being a binding consensus.
It is for this reason that ecumenical fellowship is possible only when cooperating churches can honestly declare with regard to each other’s confessional standards, that they are in conformity to the Word of God. In no other way can form be given to the obedience to the first rule of ecumenicity, that it shall serve unity in truth.
There is, however more to be said here. The churches, cooperating in ecumenical fellowship, must also have the mutual confidence that they all sincerely maintain their standards and live up to them. In all these churches there must be an unreserved and reliable subscription to the standards. They have to make sure that in all these churches there is faithful doctrinal discipline, in order that the unity of faith be maintained against error and also that the flock of Christ be protected” (see Fulfil Your Ministry, by Professor K. Deddens, page 197).
It is true that no explicit reference is made to the general synod decisions establishing ecclesiastical fellowship when answering the questions in the Forms. However by accepting these general synod decisions consistories permit wrong doctrine to be taught in the churches under their care. The members are deceived into believing that the doctrine taught in the churches, to which they bind themselves and is the basis for admission to the Lord’s Supper, is the doctrine of the Word of God, summarized in the Three Forms of Unity, when in fact it is not.
We know that if pure water is mixed with contaminated water the entire admixture will become contaminated. After all, a little leaven leavens the whole lump (1 Corinthians 5:6). As Prof. K. Deddens writes, “Whenever the doctrine of the apostles is maintained, the doctrine of the Scriptures, there is the lawful continuation of the old apostolic church” (Response to Your Baptism, page 26 – see also the entire chapter 4 of this book).
Then it should be clear that an unscriptural commitment is being made at every public profession of faith, every baptism and at every Lord’s supper celebration in any church that does not maintain the doctrine of the Scriptures!
We pray that the Lord may grant liberation to those who have been deceived by these unscriptural general synod decisions, and that we all together may again “worship in spirit and in truth” (John 4:24).
J. Vantil