Was Justice Done? II
Introduction
In
the first installment in this series of articles, we learned of the changes made
by our Synods in 1980 and 1983 to questions in the Forms for Baptism and Public
Profession of Faith. The questions, before the changes, asked:
Do you
acknowledge the doctrine which is contained in the Old and the New Testament,
and in the articles of the Christian faith, and which is taught here in this
Christian Church, to be the true and complete doctrine of salvation?
After the
changes the questions read:
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?
When some members of the churches as
well as several churches challenged this change on historical, linguistic, and
church polity grounds, subsequent synods in 1986, 1989 and 1992 maintained that
the changes were only a linguistic revision and that the meaning had not been
changed because “the questions asked never excluded the allegiance to all the
confessions which are maintained by the Canadian Reformed Churches.”
The Promises of Church Members or the
Promises of God?
Here it is that the synods went wrong.
The questions in the forms prior to 1980 did not ask for “allegiance to the
confessions.” With the Heidelberg Catechism in Lord’s Day 7, we confess that
Christians must believe “all that is promised in the gospel, which the
articles of our catholic and undoubted Christian faith teach us in a summary. There
is a crucial link between the promises of the gospel and the Apostles’ Creed.
This ancient creed summarizes what the promises of God are, as do the Forms
for Baptism. The language of the catechism in Lord’s Day 7 underlines and
accents the covenantal context of baptism. The parents of a child being
presented for baptism, or the adult candidate desiring baptism, or the young
members of the church professing their faith, were asked prior to 1980, “Do you
acknowledge the promises of the covenant.” That is what the catechism says. We must
believe: “All that is promised us in the gospel!” Those promises
are “the doctrine of the Old and New Testament.”
The new rendition of the questions breaks
the link between the questions in the forms and the promises of the triune God
signed and sealed in baptism as explained in the forms and summarized in the
Apostles’ Creed. The synods instead linked the questions to our promises.
The assertion that we now are “promising allegiance” to the confessions turns
the whole matter upside down. This was not updating the language (as per the
original mandate) but a fundamental change in meaning. No longer are the
parents of infants, nor the adult baptizand, nor the coming of age youth, asked
if they acknowledge (or assent to) the promises of God; rather, now (according to
our synods) they are asked if they promise allegiance to the
confessions. How is this essentially different from Baptist theology?
Reformed theology (for 400 years) placed the sure promises of God at the heart
of Covenant theology. Baptism is a sign and seal of the promises of God. This new
interpretation (for 40 years) placed the promise and the faith of the members at
the center. Baptism and church membership now are to be based on the allegiance
of fickle people. This ought not to be!
Zacharias Ursinus, the principal author
of the Heidelberg Catechism, was aware of the importance of this kind of distinction.
In his work, Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, Ursinus elaborates
on the content of Lord’s Day 7 and states,
Having
spoken of faith, it now follows next in order that we speak of the object of faith
or enquire what is the sum of those things which we are to believe. Faith, in
general, embraces the entire Word of God, and assents most fully to it, as is
evident from the definition which we have given of it. Justifying faith,
however, has particular respect to the promises of the gospel, or the preaching
of grace through Christ. The gospel is, therefore, properly the object of
justifying faith.
Further, he goes on to explain,
Human
traditions, the ordinances of popes, and the decrees of councils are therefore
excluded from being the object of faith, for faith cannot rely upon anything
but the Word of God, as an immovable foundation. The decrees of men, however,
are uncertain, inasmuch as every man is deceitful and false. God alone is true,
and his word is truth. As it is, therefore, not proper for Christians to frame
or construct for themselves the matter or contents of faith, so it is not
proper for them to embrace what has been conceived and delivered by others.
Christians must receive and believe the gospel alone, as it is said: “Repent
and believe the gospel.” “That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of
men, but in the power of God.” (Mark 1:15; 1 Cor. 2:5) The sum and substance of
the gospel, or of those things which are to be believed, is the Apostles’
Creed, which we here subjoin.
From his
commentary, it is clear that Christians are to believe the promises of the
Gospel which the Apostles’ Creed summarizes. Christians do not give allegiance
to the confessions, not even to the Apostles’ Creed, but embrace the promises
of God, signed and sealed in baptism.
Sleight of Hand
We note,
however the “sleight of hand” in the 1986 Acts, where the Synod—implying a
quote from the new version of the forms—presented its case defending the changes.
The synods argued that the changed formulation was valid.
The 1986 Synod did acknowledge that it was historically correct that the
formulation “the Articles of the Christian Faith” had been used. However,
the Synod contended that the appellants removed this phrase from its context. They
had thus, supposedly, overlooked that the questions asked never excluded the
allegiance to all the confessions which are maintained by the Canadian Reformed
Churches. The Synod claimed that the statement “... as is taught here in this
Christian Church” means one gives allegiance to all the confessions of the
church. This Synod argued that the previous Synod (1983) had already judged
that the formulation, “the Creeds as taught here in this Christian Church,”
means “the confessions as they are taught here in this Christian Church.”
The 1986 Synod
also dismissed the argument that the change was more than a linguistic change.
It acknowledged that the appellants were correct in stating that
the Committee for Liturgical Forms was given the mandate by the General Synod
of 1977 to “update the language” and therefore the General Synod of 1983 had no
right to change the meaning of the forms. But then the Synod stated that it is
evident that the meaning of the forms was not changed by the linguistic
revision which was made because (as stated in their previous argument), “the
Creeds as taught here in this Christian Church,” means “the confessions as they
are taught here in this Christian Church.”
But the forms don’t say this, even with
the changes! The question is whether the respondent confesses “that the
doctrine of the Old and New Testament (or Word of God), summarized in the
confessions and taught here in this Christian church, is the true
and complete doctrine of salvation. The two following clauses “and summarized in
the confessions” as well as “and taught here in this Christian Church” are meant
to modify “the doctrine”. The questions do not ask, “Do you confess the
doctrine of the Word of God, summarized in the confessions as
taught here in this Christian church…? In this (misquoted!) version, “as taught
here…” no longer modifies the first clause, referring to “the doctrine”, but to
the second clause, ”as summarized in the confessions.”
Have the Questions Always Referred to the
Reformed Confessions?
Dr. N. Gootjes addressed this claim in several articles he published in Clarion
in 1999.[1]
Dr Gootjes disagreed with Rev. Peter DeBoer, who had written articles defending
the changes. Rev. DeBoer argued that history showed that “only parents who held
to the Reformed Confessions of the church of which they were members could have
their children baptized." Dr. Gootjes points out however that in this
context the Reformed churches did not use the plural "Reformed
Confessions." Rather, they spoke of the "Reformed confession" in
the singular. The Reformed fathers were not referring to specific confessional
documents, but in general to the doctrinal conviction of the Reformed, versus that
of the Lutherans and the Roman Catholics.
It is noteworthy that Dr. Gootjes did not comment on the subtle changes
that DeBoer inserted into the questions from the forms. At one point, DeBoer misquoted
the forms. He suggested that the questions say, “[as summarized in the confessions]
which are taught here in this Christian church.” This phrase, according
to DeBoer, “refers to how the Apostles' Creed was upheld by the adopted
confessions. In other words, this expression refers to the Belgic Confession,
the Heidelberg Catechism and the Canons of Dort.” DeBoer defended his position by
quoting the 1986 Synod. "'[summarized in the confessions]...as
taught here in this Christian Church' means one gives allegiance to all the
confessions of the church." But as we have noted, the revised forms do not
say (as misquoted by the Synods) “summarized in the confessions as taught
here…” Neither do the revised forms say (as misquoted by DeBoer) “summarized in
the confessions which are taught here….”
This then shapes the perspective of
many with respect to so-called “confessional membership.” This is the claim:
When members presented themselves for public profession of faith, or presented
their children for baptism, they promised allegiance to the doctrine of the
Word of God, summarized in the confessions as taught here in
this Christian church. The synods argued that “as taught here in this Christian
church,” always has meant “as taught in the Reformed confessions”. Therefore,
the synods claimed, the members have always pledged allegiance to the Reformed
Confessions.
Dr. Gootjes demonstrated from history that this could not be the case.
The Belgic Confession, written in 1561 a year before the Catechism, was not yet
known by the German and Dutch Reformed churches. It was at this time that Peter
Dathenus published the Forms for Baptism in his church book. And
the Synod of Dort would not draft and adopt the Canons for another 50
years. It is ahistorical to claim that “as taught here in this Christian church,”
always has meant “as taught in the Reformed confessions.”
As well, Dr. C. Trimp wrote in his book Forms and Prayers on the question
that has our attention:
This question contains an explicit reference to the doctrine of the
church, which is a very old element in the administration of baptism. In
Calvin's Geneva, the Apostles' Creed was read at this point as a summary
of the doctrine of the church and as an early Christian baptismal symbol.
Something similar used to take place in the Palatinate.[2]
Dr. Gootjes concluded “that the Reformed confessions were not
directly mentioned in the second question of the Form for baptism. The
confessions function in the background. They determine the preaching and the
teaching in the Reformed churches. The parents [of children presented for baptism]
however, had to state: that the doctrine
-
contained in Scripture
-
and in the Apostles'
Creed
-
and taught in this
Christian church
is the true and
complete doctrine of salvation.
To ask more would
certainly have been overburdening parents of the 16th century.”[3]
Internal Contradiction
We should also note that the reading defended by the Synods and by Rev. DeBoer
has an internal contradiction. How can a “summary of the doctrine” at the same
time be the “complete doctrine” of salvation? Obviously, the original phrase “and
taught here in this Christian church” modified the first clause about the doctrine
of the scriptures, and not the second about the Apostles’ Creed which is a
summary of the promises of God, and thus cannot be used to modify the 1983 version
“and summarized in the confessions.”
Conclusion
Therefore, those who espouse “confessional membership” are wrong on the doctrine
of the Covenant. In Reformed Theology, baptism and church membership are not predicated
on the promise of allegiance to the Reformed Confessions, but rather baptism
and the member's response to that baptism in their public profession of faith
are founded on and based upon the promises of the triune God: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Moreover, those who would use the interpretation of the questions presented
by the 1986 and 1989 Synods have to admit that there is an essential internal
contradiction at the heart of that interpretation. The summary of the doctrine
as found in the confessions cannot at the same time be the complete doctrine
of salvation.
They are also wrong in stating that the reference to the Apostles’ Creed
always has included the further explanation as found in the Reformed Confessions.
When the questions were first drafted, the Dutch and German churches were not
yet aware of the Belgic Confession, and these churches would not draft and adopt
the Canons of Dort for more than 50 years.
No comments:
Post a Comment