‘Holy and canonical, perfect and complete’


The text of a lecture on the binding to the Confessions and the letting go of this in the Reformed Church in the Netherlands (GKv). *)

The church has one foundation. That is the Bible. God’s own Word. Besides this we also speak of the Three Forms of Unity as foundation of the Church. Sometimes a distinction can be made between the Scriptural foundation, the Bible, and the historical foundation, the Confessions that were adopted by the Church in the course of church history. One could also say: the foundation of the church is primarily formed by Scripture, and besides this, the Three Forms of Unity also as part of this powerful foundation.

This does not contradict each other. Because the Three Forms of Unity echo God’s Word, in a straightforward way. The things that we confess in the Belgic Confession, in the Heidelberg Catechism and in the Canons of Dort are very simple to find in God’s Word. The adopted Confessions echo what the LORD has said in His Word. Or, putting it differently, echoes the doctrine of the Bible.

Significance

Much can be said about the meaning and purpose of our reformed Confessions.
One of the purposes of the Confessions is to preserve the pure doctrine of the Church and to fence off all kinds of heresy. That is why office-bearers are asked to agree with these Confessions, as you know.
That consent can and may be asked. Because those Confessions indeed echo God’s Word. That can be seen on every page of the Confessions. They are, as it were, steeped with quotations from the Bible and numerous references to Scripture.
Therefore the Forms of Unity also have authority. Indeed, a derived authority, derived from the Bible, but that is precisely why it has authority. What the Church confesses in those writings is truth. That is what we believe. Deviations from this truth cannot and may not occur. That is reformed.
Putting it differently, one could say: the Reformed Confessions give expression to our binding, unconditionally, to God’s Word.
All those in the Church are bound to them, unless it is proved from God’s Word that an article does not echo that Word.

Two issues

However, currently something is going on with this Confession, also in the GKv . We can distinguish two issues.
The first issue is that the position of the Confessions - in their totality as Confession of the Church - as authoritative, are being done away with - are being put aside.
The second issue is that room has come in the Church to deviate on points of the Confession and to go directly against it.
These two issues have everything to do with each other.
The foundation of the Church, about which we are all so concerned, is being, and will be attacked and undermined in the developments in the GKv. And that has very serious consequences. This is what I would like to speak about with you this evening.

Doxology?

To make clear the deterioration of the historical foundation of the churches, I will take you back to 2006 and 2007. In those years Prof. B. Kamphuis held lectures and later wrote in De Reformatie about the ‘dealing with the Confessions in the Church’. (Earlier already, in 2000, he unfolded his ideas on dealing with the Confessions in a collection of articles Geloven in zekerheid). In his lecture he expresses his opinion that we must primarily view the Confessions as ‘doxology’, as the Church’s answers to God’s gospel. He believes that that is the first and most important function of the Confessions. We must view them in that light.
The response of the Church. That then is a human response. And yes, nobody shall deny that the Confessions were written by people. Well then, says Kamphuis, that then means that they have their limitations. They are indeed human responses. He emphasizes that human aspect very strongly. And they are written in a specific time in history, in a certain context, in a certain period of struggles. Against the background of that time and by the people of that time. When we look at the Confessions then we must keep in mind: doxology, human response, in a certain context. And thus restricted.
Don’t these words sound a bit familiar?
The conclusion may then be that the Three Forms of Unity must be used and explained in that way.

Context?

Do you perhaps think that this actually sounds quite good? That there isn’t too much wrong with this? That it is acceptable to explain and apply the Confessions against the background of in the knowledge, circumstances and intentions of the original authors? A product of its time? Such as, for example, professors at the Theological college in Kampen literally write?
Reformed ministers from the past have, throughout the centuries, always taught us otherwise. Of course it is good to know how the Confessions came about, in which period of church struggles and under which circumstances. If we know much about this, then we can understand the Confessions better. That context, however, is not determinative for the explanation and application of the content! The Confessions should be read and explained in the light of the Bible. In accordance with the doctrine of Scripture and which is echoed. Then we deal with the Confessions correctly and that is a very different approach.
To regard the Confession primarily as a human response to God’s gospel in a certain historical context, it gives room for all sorts of interpretations. Kamphuis then also argues that the Confessions are too restricted for our time. They no longer give the needed answers to our questions... But that doesn’t matter, according to Kamphuis’ reasoning, so we conclude, for they must, after all, primarily be seen as doxology and homage...
That many people in the churches still view it differently, that they see the Three Forms of Unity particularly as a summary of the doctrine of the Church and as rejection of heresy, as protection of the Church against unbiblical doctrine, that is not correct anymore. That certainly should not come first in our dealing with the Confessions. That would stand in the way of a correct dealing with the Confessions.

Authority

Prof. Kamphuis says even more about this when he speaks about the authority of the Confessions. Yes, certainly, office-bearers are bound to the Three Forms of Unity. They must subscribe to the doctrine of the Confessions. However, and here comes the point, they are not bound to the letter of the Confessions. To the content, yes, but not to the letter. No ‘literalism’. Do you see where this leads to?
We believe that in this manner the Three Forms of Unity receive a very different position - no longer authoritative. The emphasis is shifting: from echoing God’s Word in everything to human doxology in an historical content, even though Kamphuis says that the Confession is indispensable for the Church and certainly has authority. That authority, however, has received a very different meaning. The binding to the Confessions becomes very different. Being unconditionally bound to God’s Word, by subscribing to the Three Forms of Unity, disappears from sight and becomes much less important. Once again, it is because the emphasis no longer lies upon faithfully and obediently echoing God’s Word, but on the human and temporary aspect. And these aspects are not normative. In this way the foundation is and becomes hollowed out.

Actuality

In these developments it is evident that this opinion is shared by many at the Theological University and in the Churches; perhaps not verbally, but then at least in practice. There is no longer an accountability to the Confessions. If that were the case, discipline would definitely be exercised upon various theologians and ministers. Then all sorts of ecclesiastical decisions in recent years would not have been taken.
We refer you to the actuality of these developments. At the General Synod Ede, in the continued sessions of January 15 and 16 this year, a new subscription form was definitively adopted, instead of the one used up until now. It is now called the ‘form of binding’. However, the new name is misleading. Because office-bearers are now much less bound to Scripture and Confession than with the old subscription form. Ministers, for example, now have much more room to present different or personal teachings to the congregation without a direct threat of church discipline.
It is also evident in the appointment that this same synod made for the subject of Dogmatics. Dr. R.T. te Velde and Dr. J.M. Burger were appointed as professors, and the appointment of the latter is a serious matter. Because Dr. Burger denies aspects of Christ’s sacrifice on the cross. He thinks that the atonement lies not so much in Christ’s sacrifice on the cross, in the ultimate shedding of blood. Nowadays you cannot bring such an imagery to the people. No, the sacrifice of Christ lies in His complete devotion to God, even until death, if necessary. Thus something very different. The heart of our redemption is affected, adapted to present day opinions. But doesn’t Article 21 of the Belgic Confessions say: ‘… offering Himself on the tree of the cross, where He poured out His precious blood to purge away our sins’?
Again, another professor who, like Prof. Paas, openly deviates from the Confessions and
apparently receives all the room to do so. To also teach this to future ministers.

No doubt you are also aware of the withdrawal of Prof. Douma from the GKv. In his book ‘Afscheid’ (Departure) in which he defends his withdrawal, he also confirms, with several concrete examples, how the binding to the Confessions is maintained less and less.
The line that Prof. Kamphuis described is simply being extended.

Direct deviation

Now the second point. In the GKv we saw and see that not only the place and value of the Confessions are changing, but we also notice teachings that are going directly in against the Confessions. We refer to what we just mentioned. That is logical. That is connected with each other. If you want to see the Confession primarily as a human, historically bound document, to which you are not literally bound (whatever that may mean exactly) then the protective function of the Confession disappears. Then you indeed make room to deviate from the Confession.
And - we must see this clearly - to be able to deviate from God’s Word.

New Hermeneutics

In the past, at the time of the liberations of 2003/2004 and 2010 this was already pointed out. On several points, as you know. It was about the seventh commandment, the fourth commandment, the sacraments, the liturgy and church discipline. For many of us that was the reason that we knew we were called to liberate. God’s Word was being abandoned on many points.
Today this is still very relevant. We allude to the discussion regarding women in office and the very unsatisfactory decision made on this at General Synod Ede. (This is a complicated and vague decision of which it can at least be determined that the norm whether to have female office-bearers or not, is apparently not clearly given in the Bible. The foundation of the majority report is rejected; but only the foundation. The view that the office should be open to women has the right to exist, so long as it is argued from Scripture. Do you hear this? That is different from arguing according to Scripture. It depends on how you consider the Scriptures... In any case, women in office is not a hindrance for unity with the Nederlands Gereformeerde Kerken (NGK)). And we refer to the underlying influence of the so-called new hermeneutics. However, when we speak about the Confessions then we must determine that the commitment of this new hermeneutics and the conclusions it leads to (and the demand for women in office is a clear and disturbing example of this) are simply in direct conflict with the Confessions.

Holy and canonical, perfect and complete

The title of this lecture is ‘Holy and canonical, perfect and complete’. These words are borrowed from Articles 5 and 7 of the Belgic Confession. In these articles we confess that God’s Word is true. That God’s Word is holy and canonical. Nothing may be added to or taken away from that. We confess in these articles that God’s Word is perfect. And complete. We do not need more. This, as it is written in the Bible, is sufficient for us. In Article 2 we also confess the clarity of God’s Word. What the LORD has given to us in His Word, so say the Confessions, is sufficient for our salvation.
No, that does not mean that every person shall immediately fully understand every word, every sentence, every text. That is not necessary. And I say it deliberately in this way. But it does mean that the Bible is clear in what is the will of the LORD. Not only for certain people, in a certain period of history, but for church people of all centuries.
Many ministers in the GKv will deny this. Last year, you probably remember this as well, a few professors went to Canada to meet and discuss with concerned Canadian colleagues. It became evident there that Prof. Kamphuis, and his colleagues with him, are of the opinion that the Bible is not clear! The Bible is not adequate. Adequate means: satisfactory, fitting, applicable, suitable for its purpose. And that’s not what the Bible is, they think. The Bible is very difficult. Unclear. ‘Yes’ and ‘no’ at the same time. God’s will is not clear. That is because all of God’s Word comes to us in metaphors, in imagery. And those metaphors are not easy to interpret. The Bible as we know it, so we may conclude from those words, is not enough for us. God has apparently not made Himself - and we don’t mean that disrespectfully - clearly and fully known. The Bible reader cannot find everything that is necessary for his salvation. In this present time. More is needed. Interpretation. Explanation whereby the text is made applicable and acceptable for our context. So that it says something very different than we always thought.
Yes, we cannot conclude otherwise. And that is in direct conflict with Articles 2, 5 and 7 of the Belgic Confession.

Yet…

Yet all these things can be said. Yet it may be propagated.
We have already determined that earlier. With regard to the publications of Prof. De Bruijne, Rev. Doedens and Dr. Van Bekkum. But today it is being put forth very bluntly.
From the reports about the discussions at Synod Ede you would be able to conclude that it is not all that bad. After all, the majority of the delegates seem to be of opinion that the report on man/woman in the church, through straightforward reasoning starting from the new hermeneutics, is not a good starting point for a decision on this issue.
Sounds good, doesn’t it?
But is it not so that many still want women in office on other grounds? Is it not so that of all advisors only one, Prof. Van Bruggen, rejected the case? And didn’t all the others only come up with practical objections? Is it not so that in fact, the commission to the deputies, and the commission to the new deputies, suggests that possibly the Church, throughout the centuries, has wrongly interpreted the Biblical instruction regarding the position of man and woman in the church? And that the Bible, that God’s commandments on this point are not clear?
That God’s Word has a very different meaning today than in the days of the bible authors?
Whoever thinks and proclaims in this way, is in direct conflict with the Confessions.

Seriousness

We will summarize. The position of the Confessions has changed. They have no authority anymore. There is room to deal with them differently. Where necessary they are put aside. For isn’t it necessary, to be able to function in these times? For those Confessions are a hindrance, an impediment to modern theology. Room has been created for deviant teachings. In direct conflict with the Confessions.
And, because that is what it is all about, in direct conflict with Scripture itself.
Brothers and sisters, that is the situation in the Reformed Churches (GKv). Such thinking has become commonplace. It is evident everywhere. The foundation has been rejected - the historic foundation and, inseparably intertwined, the Scriptural foundation. And when the Church lets go of its foundation and rejects it, then that church is no longer Church of Christ.
That is the deep seriousness of letting go of the Confessions.

Rest

Brothers and sisters of the Reformed Churches (GKv), you should know that the developments in the Reformed Churches (GKv) do not leave us unmoved. On the contrary. We notice the deterioration with deep sorrow, concern and sadness. Please never think that we let go of you and of the brothers and sisters there. Every Sunday in the churches and in many homes, we remember you in our prayers. It is not without reason that we hold these evenings for concerned members. Many of us maintain contacts within the family circles and with friends and acquaintances.
We desire to help you to find the way out of these concerns.
At a previous information evening for concerned members, Rev. Van Gurp pointed out from the Bible that there is now only one way to go: break away from the iniquity. Otherwise you yourself will become part of it.
We sincerely call upon you to join us. Before it is too late. It is no longer five to twelve - it is already five past twelve.
Breaking away from the iniquity of abandoning the foundations, the sin of abandoning Scripture - for that is what we are talking about: the putting aside the binding to the Confessions - breaking away from this means: liberation. That is now the call of the LORD. Of this we are deeply convinced. And this we wish to impress on your minds
Follow this call. You will find rest. No, that does not mean that there will never be any struggles anymore. However, you will receive the rest of Matthew 11:28: ‘Come to Me, all you who labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest’. The rest of again living in obedience to the Word of our God.
‘Come, let us go with one accord’.

*) Lecture held at an information evening for concerned members of the GKv, held in Zwolle, Leusden, Pijnacker and Grootegast, by DGK.