IN THE FIRST article I attempted to demonstrate, by an appeal
to various decisions and documents, that the creeds have always
occupied a clearly defined position within a confessional Reformed
church which takes seriously her task of confessing in the world.
It was further noted that recent discussions within several of these
churches demonstrate the presence of problems in this connection.
Specific words and phrases are under fire.
It is therefore not amiss that once again I raise the question:
What is the character of the standards of the church? Perhaps I
do not express myself too strongly, when I contend that this is
a basic, a burning question within the fellowship of the Reformed
churches today.
It is an ecumenical question. During the past summer the Reformed
Ecumenical Synod again convened. Its avowed basis is the Holy Scripture
of the Old and New Testaments as interpreted by the Reformed confessions.
All members of such a synod must give public testimony that they
adhere to these confessions.1
It is also a pastoral question. it may well be asked what will
happen when one unites with a congregation of likeminded, confessing believers with a determination
to maintain distinctions between "essentials and non-essentials,"
between "affirmation and representation" of the truth confessed.
What are the rights of the congregation, when such is openly done?
What may the congregations expect of pastors who champion such distinctions?
Who gives the pastors the right to appeal from the creeds to the
Gospel, when these men preach to God's people who are by no means
always in a position to follow the intricate evolutions of recent
theological thought?
It is fully as much an ethical question. What does creedal subscription
really mean? If such subscription implies a subjection to the substance
but not the words of the creeds, is not thereby the door thrown
wide open to an unethical and unallowable reservatio mentalis? Well
may everyone who subscribes ask himself the pertinent question:
To which creed am I subscribing -- my own or that of the church?
And should I be subscribing to my own creed, even in the most sincere
way possible because therein I hear Christ's voice, what guarantee
is there that I am not disagreeing with the confessing church which
has legally called me to be its pastor?
A Lesson From History
Several Dutch Reformed theologians at this point speak of the
intent of the confessions. They fail. however, to answer the pressing
and prior question: Is it always evident that there exists such
an intent of the confession apart from the specific words which
have been adopted? Is riot the door flung wide open in such cases
to individualism and subjectivism, to a degree of latitude in doctrine,
perhaps even to a devaluation of Scripture when this idea of the
vox humana (the relative historical context and content of human
words) comes to be applied to the written Word of God?
We never live in a climate of reinkultur, a climate of experimenting
which would leave our experience unchanged. Our problems--and this
deserves to be remembered-- are the problems with which former generations
also wrestled.
Here history can teach a much-needed lesson. Sometime during the
previous century the father of Dutch Modernism wrote his justly
famous and significant work on systematics, The Doctrine of the Reformed Church. This man Scholten was an honorable fellow. In
harmony with the so-called results of the Biblical sciences of his
day he developed a liberal theology. But in all sincerity he called
his systematics Reformed! This is apparent from his introduction
"One can conclude from my inquiry how a Reformed minister,
faithful to his subscription, can adhere to the doctrine which,
in its nature and spirit, is essentially and chiefly the Reformed
confession, except for the free development of science; and that
it makes quite a difference scrupulously to honor the letter of the creeds or heartily to
consent to the spirit and principles of the Reformed Church and
to continue building on the evangelical foundation of our fathers."2
Scholten wanted to be Reformed, Biblical, and confessional. His
pupils, as one after another they filled the pulpits of the land,
corrupted the Reformation, the Bible and the church confessions.
Creeds Subjected to the Scriptures
All this makes the question most pertinent: What is the character
of church confessions? Let us look at one of the oldest creedal
statements of the Reformed Churches, the Scottish Confession of
1560. In its preface we read this statement: "If any man will note
in this our Confession any article or sentence repugnant to God's
Holy Word, that it would please him of his gentleness and for Christian
charity's sake to admonish us of the same in writing; and we upon
our honors and fidelity to God's grace do promise unto him satisfaction
from the mouth of God, that is from His Holy Scriptures, or else
reformation of that which shall prove to be amiss."3
Here the view is plainly stated that a confession should echo
God's Word. A creed therefore is changeable; in fact, it should
be changed if anyone can demonstrate that the Gospel is not clearly
sounded therein. Such a change must even be called a reformation!
The Arminians in the Netherlands, who deviated in their doctrine
of predestination from the Belgic Confession, strongly opposed the
binding character of creeds. Their arguments were refuted by the church historian, Trigland, in the
following manner: "In which sense should one subscribe to the creeds?
Because they agree with the common opinion of all Reformed churches.
But suppose your deviating opinion is indeed true and agrees with
the Word of God? In that case you are right in this respect and
the church is wrong. But in the mean-time you cannot be a minister
of that church, because it does not recognize as long as it has
that confession any other ministers as its own than those who accept
its Confession as being in accord with Scripture. If the Reformed
churches would change their Confession for another, the situation
would be different. But this is not yet the case, because they know
that their Confession agrees with the Word of God. If we do not
speak in this vein, everything in our churches is unsettled, and
all things are rendered free and uncertain."4
Trigland's position is illuminating. He stresses that God's Word
alone has final authority. It is possible, too, that the creeds
in one or more parts must be changed. Yet so long as this is not
done, the church confesses in and through its specific creeds the
truth of God's Word. No one may claim for himself the right to change
the words of these creeds or deviate from their evident meaning.
Those within the Reformed community today who wrestle with problems
presented to them by the language, expressions or texts quoted in
the creeds usually overlook another equally significant problem:
that of the community of faith within the church, of the mutual
agreement of all members be they scholars or unlearned men, men who are competent to read Kittel's Theological Dictionary
or unable to do so, trained ministers or ordinary housewives. For
all without exception the rule stands: our Forms of Unity are standards
of the church. They are our common treasure. It is, therefore, an
evil thing to speak of their intent apart from the meaning commonly
attached to the words which they employ.
Real and Imaginary Problems
Are there, then, no real problems left at this point? Is it not
a kind of confessionalism to adhere slavishly to the words and expressions
of these venerable documents as these stand and are evidently meant?
Should anyone defend the thesis that our creeds are sacrosanct,
that in them once-for-all every aspect of the truth of God's Word
has been summarized adequately, I would not hesitate to call him
a confessionalist.
On the other hand, if there are real problems--and I read so much
about this in today's theological literature--these must be presented
and discussed arid resolved in the assemblies of the church. This
procedure alone does justice to both the church and those who have
real difficulties.
Here I believe we should concern ourselves only with real difficulties.
There are also imaginary difficulties. Among these must be reckoned
objections raised against the language, style and syntax employed
in the sixteenth century; to the quantity and quality of the texts
quoted in the creeds; to the incompleteness of the creeds resulting
from the fact that they do not meet all the needs and fail to challenge all the errors of our day.
Who would not heartily agree with men who speak of the desirability
of a new creed which could profess the name of our Lord in the language
of and according to the needs of our time? How greatly the churches
would benefit, if such a creed were framed and adopted.
Real objections are those registered against the evident meaning
of words and expressions employed by the creeds. These are inspired
by the tension between such words and the Gospel as we have come
to understand it.
Should such difficulties arise, the only proper road to follow
is that prescribed by the Form of Subscription, "We promise that
we will neither publicly nor privately propose, teach, or defend
the same, until we have first revealed such sentiments to the Consistory,
Classis or Synod."
The Way of the Spirit
Here the task of the confessing church, which is also communion
of the saints, begins. Such a true church is not a court of law.
Neither are its assemblies a place for endless dialogue. Rather,
the true church is the house of prayer where we may confidently
expect and experience the presence of the Holy Spirit who leads
us into all truth. Asking for the Spirit's light, the church will
find the way which leads into all truth.
At this point several distinct possibilities open up, when these
difficulties are properly registered and processed with the ecclesiastical
assemblies. The possibility is very real that by means of brotherly
discussion the objections will be removed.
A second possibility which emerges is the possibility of changing
the creeds. In such instances advice should be asked of all Reformed
churches who hold these confessions in common with us. They are
not the private property of one denomination!
A third possibility is that the church will deem it wise to elucidate
an expression in her confession by means of an explanatory note.
It may be--and this is a fourth possibility--that the church cannot
feel free to change her confession and the objector cannot feel
free to change his opinion in the matter, but that synod nevertheless
declares that the deviating view, under certain conditions, can
be tolerated within the church's fellowship.
A fifth possibility is that to the church's mind the objections
raised betray such a heretical character, that the person who presented
them and persists in them must be disciplined not only because he
patently contradicts the confession but because he is at this point
disobedient to God's Word. This is the way of the well-organized
church. By following this road the church will enjoy the blessing
of true fellowship in the common faith so strikingly set firth by St. Paul, "that
we no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with
every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men, by their craftiness
in deceitful wiles. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to
grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ" (Eph.
4:14,15).
Endnotes
1. Rules and Standing Orders of the Reformed Ecumenical Synods, II and IV.
2. J.H. Scholten: De Leer der Hervormde Kerk, 1861; p. vii.
3. Philip Schaff: Creeds of Evangelical Protestant Churches, p.
437.
4. J. Trigland: Kerkelijcke Geschiedenissen, p. 439.
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.
