The International Conference of Reformed Churches (ICRC) was constituted in 1982 and was the brainchild of the Free Reformed Churches of Australia (FRCA). The FRCA, however, intended it as a conference of sister churches. The FRCA’s former Dutch sister churches (GKv) organised the first ICRC ‘constituent assembly’ but broadened the base to include churches with whom they had contact. Some of these were Presbyterian who have the Westminster Standards as their confession. Consequently, Prof. Dr L. Doekes (of the GKv) was asked to speak about the “harmony and variety” between the Westminster Standards and the Three Forms of Unity. Since he speaks only about the relationship between the Three Forms of Unity and the Westminster Standards, the word ‘variety’ probably refers to variations between these two confessions. Here’s what he had to say to the 1982 Constituent Assembly:
“HARMONY AND VARIETY IN REFORMED CONFESSIONS”
“’We believe and profess one catholic and universal church, a holy congregation of true Christian believers, all expecting their salvation in Jesus Christ, being washed by His blood, sanctified and sealed by the Holy Spirit. This Holy Church is not confined, bound, or limited to a certain place or to certain persons, but is spread and dispersed over the whole world; and yet is joined and united with heart and will, by the power of faith, in one and the same Spirit’ (Belgic Confession Art. 27).
‘This church is built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner stone. She is the house of God, the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth’ (Eph. 2:20, 1 Tim. 3:15).
The church cannot err in matters necessary to salvation, in so far as she, having forsaken all her own wisdom, allows herself to be taught by the Holy Spirit through God’s Word. And what wonder if Christ’s bride and pupil be subject to her Spouse and Teacher, so that she pays constant and careful attention to His Words! For this reason, the church should not be wise of herself, should not devise anything of herself but should set the limit of her own wisdom where Christ has made an end of speaking. That soberness, which the Lord once prescribed for His church, He wants to have preserved forever. But He forbade anything to be added to His Word or to be taken away from it (Calvin, Institutes IV, 8, 13).
Therefore, let this be a firm principle: no other word is to be held as the Word of God, and given place as such in the church, than what is contained first in the Law and the Prophets, then in the writings of the apostles; and the only authorized way of teaching in the church is by the prescription and standard of His Word. We therefore teach that faithful ministers are now not permitted to coin any new doctrine, but that they are simply to cleave to that doctrine to which God has subjected all men without exception. For faith comes from what is heard, but what is heard comes from God’s Word (Rom. 10:17). Here then is a universal rule that we ought to heed: God deprives men of the capacity to put forth new doctrine in order that He alone may be our schoolmaster in spiritual doctrine, as He alone is true (Rom. 3:4), He who can neither lie nor deceive. (Calvin: Institutes IV, 8, 8-9).
The true church of Christ is known by this characteristic: if all things are managed according to the pure Word of God, all things contrary thereto rejected, and Jesus Christ acknowledged as the only Head of the church.
The communion of this church is held together by two bonds: agreement in sound doctrine and brotherly love. But it must be noted that the agreement in sound doctrine ought to be the beginning, end, and the sole rule of the conjunction in love (Institutes IV, 2, 5).
According to this truth and this Word of God they profess the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, which has always been affirmed and maintained by the true church since the time of the apostles, and therefore they do willingly receive the three creeds, namely, that of the Apostles, of Nicea, and of Athanasius.
The agreement in the Confessions of the Reformed Churches in the age of the Reformation was so much evident, that a collection of then could be published at Genava in 1581 under the title of ‘Harmonia Confessionum’, to demonstrate the unity of faith in the variety of the Confessions.
The Reformed Church which maintain their Confession in our time, have either the Westminster Standards or the Forms of Unity of the Reformed Churches of the Netherlands.
The profession of faith of the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands is summarized in the Three Forms of Unity: the Belgic Confession, the Heidelberg Catechism and the Canons of Dort.
During the Synod of Dort (1618-1619), the Belgic Confession was first approved by the delegates from England and afterwards also by the delegates from Germany and Switzerland. The Canons of Dort were drawn up by the synod in co-operation with these foreign delegates and were also signed by them. The Reformed Churches in France accepted the Canons in 1620.
The Westminster Standards are the results of work done by the members of the Westminster Assembly who came from Scotland and England. The Reformed church in Europe and other parts of the world have not officially approved of the Westminster Confession. However, the large measure of agreement between this Confession and the above mentioned Three Forms of Unity has been acknowledged again and again with thankfulness. In all its parts the harmony with the Three Forms of Unity of the Reformed Church of The Netherlands is very evident. This is especially the case in comparison with the Canons of Dort.
As a result of the increase in international contacts, the Reformed Churches see themselves confronted with the questions as to whether all parts of the Westminster Standards are in agreement with the three confessions which have been accepted by the church in the Netherlands, Australia, Canada, South Africa and Sumba.
This is not a question regarding minor variations in terminology or a difference in the order in which the respective heads of doctrine are dealt with. Also, the fact that a certain element sometimes does receive a place in the Westminster Confession whereas it is absent in the Dutch Confessions (or the reverse) does not yet have to be qualified as a lack of agreement.
However, some striking divergences can be indicated, giving rise to the question whether certain statements are sufficiently based on the Holy Scriptures here. We will mention a number of examples.
The Westminster Confession contains a separate chapter about God’s covenant with man (Ch. VII). Here, the first covenant that was made with man is called a covenant of works (VII, 2). Ch. XIX, which deals with the law of God, says: ‘God gave to Adam a law, as a covenant of works’ (XIX, I). ‘This law, after his fall, continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness, and, as such, was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai in ten commandments’ (XIX, 2).
We observe at this point that the term ‘covenant of works’ is familiar in Reformed Theology, but it does not occur in the Dutch Confessions. It is a question whether this qualification of God’s covenant in Paradise does justice to what the Scripture says. One may also ask whether God’s revelation in the ten commandments can be rightly called a law of works.
The praise of the covenant of grace is described in the Westminster Confession in this sense: God promises ‘to give unto all those that are ordained unto life, his Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe’. The words ‘ordained in life’ have been derived from Acts 13:48, but there they do not function as a description of God’s promise.
In this connection, one should also pay attention to the Larger Catechism, Q.31: ‘With whom was the covenant of grace made? A. The covenant of grace was made with Christ as the second Adam, and in him with all the elect with his seed’. Here the question that comes up for discussion is: Are only the elect included in the covenant of grace? Is the promise of the covenant made only for them?
In the chapter concerning the Church (Ch. XXV) the Westminster Confession makes a distinction between the visible and the invisible church: ‘The catholic or universal Church, which is invisible, consists of the whole number of elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the Head thereof: and is the spouse, the body, the fullness of him that filleth all in all’ (XXV, 1). The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the gospel … consists of all those, throughout the world, that profess the true religion, and of (Am. ed.: together with) their children; and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation’ (XXV, 2).
These and other parts of the Westminster Standards diverge from the Three Forms of Unity. With a view to the unifying power of the confessions such passages deserve further attention.
Here we may refer to John Calvin who in his Institutes (IV, 1, 12) writes about certain heads of doctrine which are the subject of dispute among the churches, but yet do not break the unity of faith. ‘For why should it be regarded as a ground of dissension between churches, if one, without any spirit of contention or perverseness in dogmatizing, hold that the soul on quitting the body flies to heaven, and another, without venturing to speak positively as to the abode, holds for certain that it lives with the Lord?”
Referring to Philippians 3:15 Calvin states that this sort of differences of opinion ought not to separate Christians from each other: although he would not support even the slightest errors with the thought of fostering them through flattery and connivance.
There is a similar divergency when the Westminster Confession, Ch. XXXII, says that the souls of the righteous after death ‘are received into the highest heavens, where they behold the face of God in light and glory’. The Confession refers to Hebr. 12:23, 2 Cor. 5:1, 6, 8, Phil. 1:23, with Acts 3:21 and Eph. 4:10 (Am. ed. 1 John 3:2). Now we heartily believe all that is taught in these Scripture-verses. But they do not say that the place where the believers are after death (‘paradise’) is identical to ‘the highest heavens’.
The same chapter (XXXII, 1) says that the souls of men after death have ‘an immortal subsistence’. In our opinion, however, the doctrine of Holy Scripture is rendered in a better way by the Belgic Confession, which, in article 37, says that the ‘the wicked … shall become immortal, but only to be tormented in the eternal fire’.
There is another striking divergency between the Westminster Catechism and the Heidelberg Catechism in the interpretation of the fourth commandment. In the latter the answer to the question (103): ‘What does God require in the fourth commandment?’ reads: ‘First, that the ministry of the gospel and the schools be maintained; and that I, especially on the Sabbath, that is , the day of rest, diligently attend the house of God, to learn God’s Word, to use the Sacraments, to call publicly on the Lord, and to give Christian alms. Second, that all the days of my life I rest from my evil works, let the Lord work in me by His Holy Spirit, and thus begin in this life the eternal Sabbath.’
The Westminster Larger Catechism says (Q. 117): ‘The Sabbath or Lord’s Day is to be sanctified by a holy rest all that day, not only from such works as are at all times sinful, but even from such worldly employments and recreations as are on other days lawful; and making it our delight to spend the whole time (except so much of it as is to be taken up in works of necessity and mercy) in the public and private exercises of God’s worship! Among the sins forbidden in the fourth commandment, this Larger Catechism mentions (Q. 119) ‘all needless works, words, and thoughts, about our worldly employments and recreations’. Cf. the same strain in Westminster Confession Ch. XXI, 8. Ph. Schaff, in his Creeds of Christendom I, 776, calls this chapter ‘the first symbolical endorsement of what may be called the Puritan theory of the Christian Sabbath which was not taught by the Reformers and the Continental Confessions’.
Another point of difference, again, between the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Belgic Confession concerns the authority of synods. According to the former (Ch. XXXI, 2). ‘It belongeth to synods and councils, ministerially, to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his Church; to receive complaints in case of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same: which decrees and determinations, if consonant to the Word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission, not only for their agreement with the Word, but also for the power they are made, as being an ordinance of God, appointed thereunto in his Word’.
The Belgic Confession (Art. 32) says: ‘we believe, though it is useful and beneficial that those who are rulers of the Church institute and establish certain ordinances among themselves for maintaining the body of the church, yet that they ought studiously to take care that they do not depart from these things which Christ, our only Master, has instituted. And therefore, we reject all human inventions, and all laws which man would introduce into the worship of God, thereby to bind and compel the conscience in any manner whatever. Therefore, we admit only of that which tends to nourish and preserve concord and unity, and to keep all men in obedience to God.’ The same Confession says (Art. 7): ‘we ought not to consider custom, or the great multitude, or antiquity, or succession of time and persons, or councils, decrees or statues, as of equal value with the truth of God, since the truth is above all’.
Likewise, the Westminster Confession say (Ch. XXXI, 3): ‘All synods or councils since the apostles’ times, whether general or particular, may err, and many have erred; therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith or practice, but to be used as a help in both’. On this point there is no difference between the Belgic Confession and the Westminster Confession. But the question arises if the decrees and the determinations of synods, if consonant to the Word of God, are to be received with submission, not only for their agreement with the Word, but also for the power whereby they are made, as being an ordinance of God, appointed thereunto in His Word. The Westminster Confession refers to Acts 15, 16:4, Matth. 18:17. But synods and councils are not on a level with the assembly of the apostles and elders and others at Jerusalem, who were entitled to write: it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us. (Acts 15:28).”
***
The speech ends rather abruptly here. From the above it would seem that, according to Prof. Dr L. Doekes, although there is much harmony between the Three Forms of Unity and the Westminster Standards (WS), there are also divergencies. Some of these are not serious; others, however, are “striking divergencies”. He draws particular attention to the divergencies in relation to the covenant (WS speak about a covenant of works and to a covenant made with the elect) and to the church (WS make a distinction between the visible and invisible church). Doekes says: “These and other parts of the Westminster Standards diverge from the Three Forms of Unity” and “deserve further attention”. In view of Prof. Dr L. Doekes’ words that “Christ’s bride and pupil be subject to her Spouse and Teacher, so that she pays constant and careful attention to His Words”, and that Christ “forbade anything to be added to His Word or to be taken away from it”, I intend to give some attention to these ‘striking divergencies’ in a future article.
I am indebted to Br Jan Eikelboom who, in the 1980’s, published some “Information Booklets”, one of which contained a copy of Prof. Dr L. Doekes’ speech.