Conscience a Foundational Point of the Reformation

When you think of the major doctrines of the Reformation many things may come to mind.  Justification by faith alone, Regulative Principle of worship, the authority of the Scriptures, these are probably the ones that pop to mind.  I want to suggest that there is another doctrine that was very important to the Reformation was the conscience of man.  It is related to the authority of Scripture, but protecting the right of conscience for the believer was fundamental for the Reformation.  Sadly today the Reformed/Presbyterian church has lost sight of this and often speaks of submission or misapplies “mutual submission” in such a way that destroys the conscience.  I would like to take a few posts to discuss this idea of conscience.  Let me start showing that it is a major point of the Protestant Reformation.

Think back to the first major act in the Swiss Reformation: the Affair of Sausages.  The Affair of Sausages began because many of those who heard and followed Zwingli and his teaching broke the Lenten fast and they sold and ate sausages.  The ultimate justification for breaking this rule of the church was that the church had no right to bind the conscience of any man where Scripture is silent.  Think also about how the monastic vows were tossed out everywhere the Reformation went because it was a binding of the conscience in a place where Scripture did not speak nor bind.  Many of the Earlier Confessions stated it plainly.

The Tetrapolitan Confession of 1530, signed by the reformed churches of four different cities and written by Wolfgang Capito and Martin Bucer, devotes chapter 8 to rejecting the idea that the church had the right to bind men’s consciences: “When, therefore, we saw very evidently that the chief men in the Church beyond the authority of Scripture assumed this authority so to enjoin fasts as to bind men’s consciences, we allowed consciences to be freed from these snares, but by the Scriptures, and especially Paul’s writings, which with singular earnestness remove these rudiments of the world from the necks of Christians.” 

The First Basel Confession written in 1531 by John Oecolampadius and perfected after his death by his successors and was adopted in 1534 includes an article on conscience.  Article 11 simply states, “We confess that no one ought to command in any manner that which Christ has not commanded; also, therefore, no one ought to prohibit that which he has not forbidden.”

The Belgic Confession of Guy DeBres too can be seen to include a mention of the evils of binding a man’s conscience without the word of God.  In Article 29 in the marks of the false church it states, “As for the false church, it ascribes more power and authority to itself and its ordinances than to the Word of God, and will not submit itself to the yoke of Christ.”  The Belgic is condemning churches that require submission to manmade rules and such a usurpation of authority from Christ is a sign of a false church. -- They were shortly afterward removed of their jobs and sent packing from the city.  It is clear from the historical evidence that the reformers stressed the idea that only the Word of God could bind a man’s conscience.  They would not bend their consciences simply for the sake of a job or safety.  Instead they held fast to the idea that God alone could command the conscience.

 

These early confessions held the power of the church was restricted by the Scriptures.  And the church could not bind a man’s conscience, instead only the Word of God could do such things.  If the church went beyond the Bible, then a man’s conscience did not need to submit.  And more than that if the church attempted to bind a man’s conscience, the church was in the wrong.  A church that put more power in its own ordinances that are from outside of the word of God is a church that has missed an important point of the Reformation.  It has missed the authority and headship of Jesus Christ, and it is dangerously usurping a power that does not belong to it.

Hopefully this is enough of a historical proof for now.  Next I would like to go to the Bible and see if these confession agree with the Word.

Three Forms vs. WCF Sabbath - Final Quote

As a nice summary of the difference between the Continental View and the Westminster view, I found a good quote from Dr. Lewis Mayer.  Since some have also thought the difference went away in the 16th century as the view evolved, Mayer should serve as good proof that is not true.  Mayer was born late 18th century and did most of his work in the early 19th century.  He was a professor at Mercersburg Theological Seminary and a member of the German Reformed church, the early RCUS.

"The German Reformed Church, like the Lutheran, considers the Lord's Day a sacred season, set apart for the performance of the ordinary public worship of God, and deriving all its sacredness from the service to which it is appointed; the Presbyterian regards the day as intrinsically holy.  Presbyterians consider it the sabbath linked to the Fourth commandment, but modified by our Lord as to the day and the penalty of its violation and derive its sanctity from the fact that the seventh day is the day of God's resting from all His work."  -pg.20-21 the History of the German Reformed Church

In fairness Mayer has a list of ways the German Church is different than the Presbyterians and this is but one.  I agree with most of them, but one of them does show the beginnings of Mercersburg Theology.  But it is a late German Reformed theologian writing about why it is wrong to consider Reformed Continental Theology the same as English Presbyterian Theology.

WCF vs. 3FU Holiness (Sabbath part 3)

WCF vs. 3FU Sabbath – Part 3

So what is the practical difference between the Continental View of the Sabbath and the Westminster view?  First should be obvious.  The Continental view of the 4^th commandment means the 4^th commandment applies every day of your life, and the Westminster applies only 52 times a year (once a week). 

Second, I do think that there is a disagreement here that goes much deeper.  The Westminster holds to “keeping holy to God such express times as appointed in his word, expressly one whole day in seven” (WLC #116).  The logical question is how do you keep a day holy.  That is answered in the Larger Catechism 117.  “The Sabbath or Lord’s Day is to be sanctified by an holy resting all the day . . .” (WLC 117).  The question goes on to list not only avoiding sin, but also recreation, worldly business, and everything that is not public or private worship or a work of necessity or mercy.  In other words the day is kept holy by avoiding work and attending to worship or mercy.  This is a “holy resting”.  This holy resting is a work we do.  We do it by avoiding most things and worshiping all the day long. 

The Three Forms of Unity has a different concept of keeping the Sabbath Holy.  The concept found in the Heidelberg Catechism is one of “all the day of my life rest from my evil works and allow the Lord to work in me by His Spirit and thus in this life begin the everlasting Sabbath” (HC 103).  Notice the different emphasis.  The Westminster is saying that we make the day itself holy by our “holy rest” or our righteous keeping of the commandment.  The Heidelberg is equating holiness more with allowing the Holy Spirit to work in us.  The Westminster is again focused on our works and our righteousness and the Heidelberg is focused on the Spirit working in us. 

This is the same disagreement we found in the Westminster’s doctrine of assurance.  Assurance in the Heidelberg is found mainly in the Spirit working in us through the sacraments and preaching.  Our assurance was mainly in looking to Christ via the Spirit.  The Westminster’s focus for assurance was our walk in good conscience before the Lord.  So then we should not be all that surprised at the difference on the 4^th Commandment.  The Westminster has work that can be measured and pointed to so that when you look at your walk in a good conscience, you have something to look upon.  The Heidleberg does not put works as a very high priority for assurance, and the 4^th Commandment view is in line with that.  Rather the Heidelberg makes assurance directly related to looking upon Christ, and this is exactly what the 4^th Commandment is about.  Letting God work in us as we acknowledge what is good in this world.  On the seventh day the Lord acknowledge as he had made was very good.  This is what we are to be doing.  Acknowledging it is God who is very good and His work is very good, and our sanctification and holiness is from His work in us. 

This points to a possible disagreement about holiness or at least a different emphasis.  The Westminster holds that one day is more holy than others (or at least we are to keep it holy).  It also emphasizes our work in holiness.  It our holy rest, our keeping.  The Three Forms are different.  It emphasizes God’s work in holiness and holds all days the same.  All the days of our life are to be kept holy, and that is by the Spirit working in us.  The need for the holiness of Christ is repeated in questions 36, 60, and 61 and our holiness is only mentioned in what was lost in the fall of Adam.  The Westminster usually uses it in reference to our holiness.  They mention it as what was lost by Adam (4.2), that we are sanctified to works of holiness without which we will not see the Lord (13.1), our spiritual war leads to our perfecting holiness thanks to the strength of the Spirit (13.3), in the chapter on good works about our fruit unto holiness (16.2), serving the Lord in holiness and righteousness is the goal of Christian Liberty (20.3), and being made perfect in holiness at the Second Coming (32.1). 

Thus the Heidelberg speaks of Christ’s holiness and our need for it and Christ giving it to us.  The Westminster speaks of Holiness as a result of our sanctification and what we grow in and work on during this life.  This is a difference between the Westminster and the Three Forms that is all throughout and finds its clearest difference in the 4^th Commandment. 

Three Forms vs. Westminster - Fourth Commandment Part 2

A commenter in the previous post made the point that the change from the “Continental” view of the 4^th commandment to the “Puritan” view was simply a development of doctrine, and thus the Puritan view is the Reformed view.  A quick look at my labels of blog posts and you will see how I really detest the idea of Doctrinal Development.  It is a sword often wielded to help shield people from the fact of what they are really saying is “The first 1700 years of the church knew nothing of this, but thankfully we invented it”.  But I shall put that aside a moment and try to continue to show that it is truly two separate traditions or streams within the broader Reformed river.

The challenge has been made to show someone from the 17^th century that held to the Continental View of the Sabbath as expressed in the Second Helvetic Confession or the Heidelberg Catechism.  It is true that in the 17^th century we begin to see in the Netherlands the Nadere Reformation that brings the Puritan thinking into the Netherlands.  One could turn the challenge around and tell others to find someone not related to the Nadere Reformation who supported the Puritan view of the Sabbath, but I shall simply answer their challenge.

Let me start with the Dutch.  Here you had a large group who followed Johannes Cocceius.  Cocceius is a bit of a controversial figure, but nonetheless, he held to a Continental View of the Sabbath as did the vast majority of his followers.  The number of his followers should not be considered small either.  This is a large group of men since he taught at Frankener and Leiden, two major universities.  Now to go to the other end of the spectrum, we can grab Franciscus Gromarus.  Gromarus, most famous for his staunch opposition to Arminius, also held to the Continental view of the Sabbath.    Both of these Dutch Theologians were professors and taught a Continental view of the Sabbath.  

The commenter mentioned the French Reformed were represented at Westminster.  While I am unaware of who would have been there, it should be mentioned that by the time of the Westminster Amyraldianism was everywhere in the French church to the degree that the French church would soon be effectively split from at least the Swiss Reformed Churches.  It should also be noted that just because some French Reformed were there does not mean they agreed.  Earlier in the 17th century men like Antoine de la Faye, head pastor at Geneva, held to a Continental view.  

It is hard to find a lot of German 17^th century people writing on the Sabbath, so it is hard one way or another to say for sure on many of them.  But David Pareus would be a Continental view pastor.  He died in Heidelberg where his career began, but also pastored in a few other places in Germany.  Johann Alsted taught at the University of Heborn and held to a Continental view.  It is more than likely that the majority of German Reformed churches held to the Continental view.  However, the German Reformed were busy fighting for their right to be reformed for a full third of the century while those in England did little to help the cause.  Thus, they were much more free to write and debate the new doctrine advocated by Bound (the Puritan view of the Sabbath).  

Lest we forget too much that many in England held a Continental view of the Sabbath or at least a non-Westminster view.  Archbishop Whitgift and Laud and Bishop Thomas Morton all appeared to have supported King James’s Book of Sports.  And James was raised a Scottish Presbyterian himself.  It is wrong to look back on the 17^th Century England and assume that everyone agreed with the Westminster view of the 4^th Commandment.  It was highly debated until the debate was settled when they cut off King Charles’s head.  

Let us also note that the idea that there is really only one position on the Sabbath is completely new.  Just listen to Herman Hoeksema.  "One cannot fail to observe a different conception of the sabbath in this Westminster Confession from that of the Second Helvetic".  He states one cannot fail.  It should be impossible to think they are the same.  

Hopefully this brief summary shows that there were plenty of 17th century who held to a Continental view.  And that Reformed theologians on both sides of the debate for literally centuries have agreed there were two different views on the Fourth Commandment.

WCF vs. Three Forms - Fourth Commandment Part 1

I guess what everyone is waiting on in this Three Forms vs. Westminster is the difference with regards to the Sabbath or the Fourth Commandment.  It is the most recognized difference, although many people believe that there is really not a big difference.  Dr. Clark argues that there might be some difference, but fundamentally the Westminster and the Heidelberg are the same and thus the idea of a “Continental” and a “Westminster” or “Puritan” view of the Sabbath is wrong. 

So, I should begin by arguing that there is indeed a “Continental” view of the Sabbath and it finds expression in the Heidelberg Catechism Question 103. 

“In the first place, God wills that the ministry of the Gospel and schools be maintained, and that I, especially on the day of rest, diligently attend church to learn the Word of God, to use the Holy Sacraments, to call publicly upon the Lord, and to give Christian alms.  In the second place, that all the days of my life I rest from my evil works, allow the Lord to work in me by His Spirit, and thus begin in this life the everlasting Sabbath.” 

And now the Westminster 21.7

“As it is the law of nature, that, in general, a due proportion of time be set apart for the worship of God; so, in His Word, by a positive, moral, and perpetual commandment binding all men in all ages, He hath particularly appointed one day in seven, for a Sabbath, to be kept holy unto Him: which, from the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ, was changed into the first day of the week, which, in Scripture, is called the Lord’s Day, and is to be continued to the end of the worlds, as the Christian Sabbath.” 

And Westminster Larger Catechism #116

“The fourth commandment requireth of all men the sanctifying or keeping holy to God such set times as he hath appointed in his word, expressly one whole day in seven; which was the seventh from the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ, and the first day of the week ever since, and so to continue to the end of the world; which is the Christian Sabbath, and in the New Testament called The Lord’s Day.” 

Dr. Clark (and others I am just using his blog because it isthe best), argue that there is a Reformed view of the Sabbath and it states a one day in seven pattern, grounded in creation, continues in the NT, and changed with the resurrection of Jesus from the last day to the first day. 

The question is do you see those things in both the Heidelberg and the Westminster?  Clark points to lectures given by Ursinus that explain the perpetual part of the commandment being the worship of God.  However, in his commentary he seems to indicate that the Sabbath day was a sign and sacrament of the OT that is done away with.  He describes the moral and perpetural nature of the 4^th Commandment as “a careful shunning of sin, and a worship of God by confession and obedience” (pg.992).  He also calls it a “spiritual Sabbath” and contrasts that with the ceremonial portion or the “external Sabbath”.  He divides that “external sabbath” into the immediate and mediate.  The immediate was the Old Testament Sabbath of worshipping on Saturday, and it is fulfilled and gone.  The mediate is the New testament.  He describes it, “the old was restricted to the seventh day: its observance was necessary and constituted the worship of God.  The new depends upon the decision and appointment of the church, which for certain reasons has made the choice of the first day of the week, which is to be observed for the sake of order, and not from any idea of necessity, as if this and no other were to be observed by the church” (pg.994).  Perhaps it should be added that this internal-external division is not new as it can be seen in places like the Large Emden Catechism of John A’Lasko. 

Now does that sound like what is written in the Westminster?  I think the answer is no.  The Westminster is saying that the day remains a necessity and was changed by the resurrection of Jesus Christ into the first day.  The Heidelberg says nothing about a specific day.  In fact, we now have seen that the idea of a specific day was rejected by at least one of the authors of the Catechism. 

Just to show that the Heidelberg is not alone take a look at the Second Helvetic Confession of Henry Bullinger.  The Second Helvetic was given to the Elector Frederick III to use in his defense at the Diet of Augsburg in 1566, so it has some connection to Heidelberg.  Chapter 24 of Holy Days, Fasts, and Choice Meats:

“Every church, therefore, chooses unto itself a certain time for public prayers and for preaching of the gospel . . . .  Yet herein we give no place unto the Jewish observation of the day or to any superstitions.  For we do not account one day to be holier than another, nor think that mere rest is of itself liked of God.  Besides we do celebrate and keep the Lord’s Day, and not the Sabbath, and that with a free observation.” 

Bullinger here draws a line of separation between the Lord’s Day and the Sabbath.  They are distinct not one changing into the other as the Westminster puts it.  And the Heidelberg does not use the title Lord’s Day at all.  The Heidelberg Catechism does not speak of one day in seven.  The Heidelberg does not speak of Sunday at all.  The Heidelberg does not speak of rest from labor at all, only resting from evil works or sin, which seems to put it more in line with the Second Helvetic thinking that rest from work is not part of the commandment for us today.  Or at least not a necessary part.  Westminster Larger Catechism 117 states specifically that rest is not just from sinful work, but from all work and even recreation and Westminster 21.8 expands that to thoughts and words about regular work and worldly employment. 

It seems to me then that a clear “Continental tradition” and “Puritan Tradition” can be seen.  It is difficult to see the principles of agreement named by Dr. Clark that would unify these different understandings of the 4^th Commandment.  Exactly how the disagreement plays out will be the subject of the next post.      

3FU vs. WCF Worship

                Let me start by simply saying I believe both documents teach the Regulative Principle of Worship (RPW).  For those who may be unfamiliar with the RPW it simply states that whatever is not commanded in worship is thus forbidden.  It has some important caveats: 1. You are to use good and necessary consequences and 2. This applies to elements of worship, not circumstances of worship.  An element would be an essential part while circumstances are simply the accidents of those essential parts such as what time worship meets?  What time is not essential, but does have to be answered.  If one is having worship, then it happens at a time; thus, it is an accident of worship.  Other examples include such things as chairs or pews, or whether you stand or sit or kneel for prayer.  Prayer is the element, the body position then has to be answered, but is merely a circumstance of prayer.  Again both documents seems to agree on this point, so let us dive into the differences.

                The Westminster lays out the elements of worship in Chapter 21.  Specifically prayer is discussed as part of religious worship in 21.3, and then reading and hearing Scripture, preaching, administration of the sacraments, and singing psalms are listed in 21.5 as the other elements of worship.  Special things can be added apparently such as oaths and vows, solemn fasting, and thanksgiving.  So we have a regular list of worship elements found in this chapter of the WCF.  The Larger Catechism Q108 also provides a list: prayer and thanksgiving, reading of the word, preaching of the word, hearing of the word, administering and receiving the sacraments, church government and discipline, ministry and its maintenance, fasting, swearing by God’s name, and vowing to Him.  The main addition here seems to be the gathering in of the offering as an acceptable part of worship and performing discipline allowing for sentences passed to be read in worship.  Interestingly enough however WLC 108 does not mention singing by name nor does it mention psalms.   

                The best list found in the Three Forms of Unity comes from the Heidelberg Catechism Q.103.  Here the Catechism lists learning the Word of God, use the holy sacraments, call publicly upon the Lord, and give Christian alms.  This list is much shorter and much broader than the specific list of the Westminster.  Clearly we can agree that learning the word of God means preaching and reading it.  The interesting section is “call publicly upon the Lord”.  What is included here?  Singing is not in the list, nor is prayer, nor confession of faith?  Can one rightly assume they all belong under this heading?  Ursinus in his commentary includes “confession, thanksgiving, and prayer” which is done corporately and publicly (pg. 1005).  Otto Thelemann includes prayer and singing (pg.505) in his commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism.  It seems then we can include all of those in this section.

                The question becomes does it make a difference?  Does the stricter, longer list of the Westminster differ at all from the Heidelberg’s list?  I think it does.  If the element is call publicly upon the Lord, rather than prayer or singing, then it does change things.  If the element is calling upon the Lord, then the circumstance of how I do that is more flexible.  I can call publicly upon the Lord through confessing the Apostles’ Creed together, by taking vows, or by singing.  In fact, my prayer could very well be sung.  It is simply a circumstance of how I pray.  And it is very traditional for churches to sing the Lord’s Prayer.  That does not make it no longer a prayer, it is now just a prayer that I sing.  The manner of my prayer, or my calling upon the Lord, is simply a circumstance.  Instead the Westminster Confession indicates singing is to be done with the psalms.  Singing is a separate element from prayer.  Thus, it is reasonable to conclude from WCF 21 that singing cannot be done as a prayer unless it is a prayer found in the Psalms.  After all it specifically states, singing psalms.  The Lord’s Prayer is not a psalm.  Not surprisingly we can see this difference play out in history as Continental Reformed Churches much more often sang hymns than the Puritan and Scottish Presbyterians. 

                Another little wrinkle is confessing faith in the Westminster service.  I have been in Westminster churches that use the Apostles’ Creed and even the Westminster in their service.  But where does this fit into the list given in WCF 21?  If it is not a section of scripture, is it considered allowable?  I am sure there is a defense out there, but the easy to see category is not readily apparent.  It is my understanding that post-Westminster Assembly Scottish churches stopped using the Apostles’ Creed in worship as did those churches in England and New England who followed it. 

                So I think then that the Westminster is far stricter on what is and what is not an element of worship, and seems to have a different understanding of the role of singing in church than does the Heidelberg.  The Heidelberg avoids the difficulties of exclusive psalmody completely through its different take on singing and elements in worship.  The Westminster's stricter categories also seem to create problems with such activities as confessing faith using something other than Scripture.  Perhaps it is time we start coming the realization that the Regulative Principle can be agreed upon, but there is vast difference on how to apply this Regulative Principle even within the Reformed Tradition. 

WCF vs. 3FU Adoption

There is another difference between the two that is more of a difference in emphasis and omission.  And that can be found in the Westminster Confession of Faith Chapter 12 echoed in the Larger Catechism 74 and Smaller Catechism 34.  This chapter is on adoption.

Again it is not that the Three Forms of Unity deny adoption.  But they simply move past it quickly as a given or merge it into justification.  The Heidelberg Catechism assumes this doctrine as the phrase “my Father” is used in many places such Question 1 or more prominently HC#26 where the answer states, “That the eternal Father of our Lord Jesus Christ . . . is for the sake of Christ, his Son, my God and my Father”.  But the force of HC#26 is about the providential control of the God the Father Almighty, and is not specifically addressing adoption.  Clearly it is believed, but not explained.  The Belgic Confession has no chapter on Adoption, and it is only briefly mentioned in the chapter on Baptism (34) as God being our Father. 

The Westminster is unique in its emphasis on Adoption.  The French Confession of Calvin does not discuss it, the Second Helvetic Confession of Bullinger does not discuss it.  Even Turretin’s Elenctic Theology does not have a separate section for adoption.  Rather there it is discussed as a subset of justification.  And the famous “ordo salutis” as advocated by Louis Berkhof does not include adoption.  And so it would seem flowing out of the Dutch creeds, adoption has not been stressed. 

However, the Westminster does seem to put Adoption into the ordo salutis.  The chapters of the Westminster go from Effectual Calling to Justification to Adoption to Sanctification and eventually to Perseverance to the end.  The Westminster stresses it by giving it is own chapter.  And it points out that adoption is a free grace and is a legal action that by which we are given the liberties and privileges of being a child of God.  This beautiful chapter in the Westminster is only one article, but by going against the flow of Reformed Creeds and giving adoption its own chapter makes it an important chapter.

I think you could probably argue that adoption still does not get the emphasis that it needs in the Reformed world today.  However, only the Westminster can rightly claim to have given adoption a place of importance and stress. 

WCF vs. Three Forms - The Church

Let us move on to the next difference between the Westminster and the Heidelberg specifically.  And this is regarding the Church.  This can be found in the Heidelberg mainly in Question 54 about the Holy Catholic Church and the WCF chapter 25. 

Now there is wide agreement.  Both have Christ as the head of the church (WCF 25.1, HC#50).  Both define the church primarily as the elect throughout all of history (WCF 25.1, HC #54).  Both understand that the church on earth contains unbelievers (WCF 25.2,4-5, HC#82).  Now it is explicit in the Westminster, and more an implication in the Heidelberg.  The Westminster labels it as an invisible and visible church.  This labeling is not found in the Heidelberg and the answer to HC#54 about the church specifically speaks of the elect.  Yet, we do see the Heidelberg talk about infants belonging to the people of God (#74), and the practice of church discipline to remove unbelievers and hypocrites (#82).  Clearly then the Heidelberg acknowledges this visible church understanding and the presence of unbelievers in the visible walls of the church. 

The main difference comes in WCF 25.3 and Heidelberg Q#54.  The Westminster begins here, “Unto this catholic visible Church Christ has given the ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God for the gathering and perfecting of the saints in this life”.  The Westminster than has the Church given Word and the Church then gathers with the oracles, ordinances, and ministry, which is later said to be made effectual by the Spirit.  The Heidelberg has a different approach.  “That out of the whole human race, from the beginning to the end of the world, the Son of God, by His Spirit and Word, gathers, defends, and preserves for Himself unto everlasting life a chosen communion in the unity of the true faith; and that I am and forever shall remain a living member of this communion.”  Do you see the difference?

Yeah okay, I didn’t either the first times I read it.  But the difference is in where the church comes from.  The Westminster has the church existing and then being given the ministry and oracles and is the main actor in the gathering and perfecting of the saints, although its power is still rooted in the Spirit.  The Heidelberg has the church created by Son with the Word and Spirit of God.  The main actor then is no so much the Church as Christ. 

Perhaps you have heard the quote, “You cannot have God for your father unless you have the church as your mother”.   It is from Cyprian as far as I can tell.  And the metaphor of Church as mother is often seen even in Calvin’s writings.  However, I believe the metaphor only fits the Westminster view of the church.  There the church is an actor in bringing about gathering of believers.  This leads to the declaration that “outside of [the church] there is no ordinary possibility of salvation”.  A phrase found in the Belgic, but not the Heidelberg.  For the Heidelberg if you are saved, you are part of the church.  You were not birthed by the church, but gathered by God and now a member of His church.  Now Q#55 lets us know you will now feel bound to use your gifts in the communion of the saints and thus, no believer will keep himself apart from a visible church, but ultimately the stress of the Heidelberg is that you are in the church now.  Christ saved you.  It is not God as father and Church as mother.  It is gathered by Christ to be the church.  Through the Word and Spirit you have been gathered and made part of the church now.  The Heidelberg is stressing the individual’s integration into the Church.  The last clause does that as well.  You are now and forever shall remain part of that communion.  The Westminster has the people gathered by the Church’s use of the means and the integration of the individual into the Church is not discussed. 

It has to be noted here the Belgic has the Westminster’s view.  And oddly enough the Westminster Larger Catechism has the Heidelberg’s view.  WLC #63 the church is gathered and protected by God and it is God who offers grace by Christ to the members of the Church, and not the Church being given the ministry and then the church using that ministry to gather people in.  Remember this fact when we get around to discussing the Westminster Larger Catechism as its own document and not really a summary of the Westminster Confession of Faith. 

The outworking of this view of Church is a bit more difficult to see.  But the WCF has a Higher Church view than does the Heidelberg.  It is not surprising to see then occasional revivals of High Church theology in a Westminster system. 

Three Forms vs. WCF: Assurance

The first difference I would like to examine is not the Sabbath, but rather works and their role in assurance.  

It should probably be noted that the different places these works of a believer are discussed is probably important.  The Heidelberg starts with our sin, moves to salvation in Christ (where works are denied), then hits the sacraments before going on to Christian works of thankfulness.  The WCF starts with creation, sin, salvation in Christ (where works are denied), and then goes into works, assurance, the Law, and even civil government before getting around to the sacraments.  

Let us start with WCF 16.2: "These good works, done in obedience to God's commandments are the fruit and evidence of a true and lively faith and by them believers manifest their thankfulness, strengthen their faith . . ."  

The WCF starts by letting us know that good works are an evidence of our salvation in Christ.  Thus, we can expect to see works as a major portion of our assurance of salvation.  The article does mention the role of works in strengthening our faith among other things.  The section does go on to mention the imperfection of even these works, but still the works are a reliable evidence of our salvation.  WCF 18.1 then does follow this logic by stressing assurance can be had for those who "truly believe in the Lord Jesus, and love Him in sincerity, endeavoring to walk in all good conscience before Him".  Notice the assurance seems to be looking primarily at ourselves including our works, which I would say falls under walking in a good conscience before God.  18.2 gives the ground of assurance as the "divine truth of the promises of salvation, the inward evidence of those graces unto which these promise are made, the testimony of the Spirit witnessing with our spirits".  While this does add the outward promise of God the other are inward focused.  The Westminster Larger Catechism Q.80 answers assurance by combining those two making the stress again fall upon those who are endeavoring to walk in good conscience.  Absent from the assurance section is any mention of the sacraments.

The Heidelberg takes a very different view focusing outward on Christ for assurance.  Assurance shows up in Q65 about the sacraments where the Holy Ghost confirms our faith by the use of the holy sacraments.  Now the WCF uses the confirming one's faith language in their section on the sacraments, but the sacraments themselves do not show up in the section on assurance and works do, while works themselves have already been discussed.  The Heidelberg begins with the sacraments, which "declare and seal to us the promise of the Gospel".  Thus, assurance is going to come from the means of grace, which are designed to direct us not to ourselves, but to the "sacrifice of Christ on the cross as the only ground of salvation" (Q.67).  Then the in-depth discussion of both sacraments is slamming that fact home.  How do they direct us to the cross?  Where can you find that in the word?  Is the power in the sacraments themselves?  Now in HC.Q86 we do see the Heidelberg say that works have the function of assuring our faith by the fruits thereof, but it still comes out as third in a list of four.  Let us not forget that the Heidelberg has already taught us that our good works in this life are all defiled with sin (Q.62).  The discussion of the commandments is next, and it ends with this reminder that "even the holiest of men, while in this life, have only a small beginning of such obedience" (Q.114), and that the law for the believer is still ultimately to teach us our sinfulness and drive us to Christ for forgiveness and to Him in prayer for sanctification (Q.115).  It is not quite the same view of the Law shown in WCF 19.6 where the law itself is useful to the regenerate to "restrain their corruptions".  The Heidelberg seems to focus on the law as showing our corruption and leaves the making us ready and willing to live unto God up to the Spirit (HC#1).  

So it appears a very different method of assurance is found in the Three Forms as opposed to the WCF.  The WCF points heavily to oneself and the personal witness of the spirit and their own works, to serve as evidence of salvation and thus assurance.  The Heidelberg points much more toward preaching and the sacraments as the main route of assurance since those both point toward Christ on the cross.  The Belgic seems to agree more with the Heidelberg as it states in Article 24 if we looked to works "we would always be in doubt, tossed to and fro without any certainty, and our poor consciences would be continually vexed".  No assurance that does not point to Jesus Christ.  Although it has to be admitted that the Canons of Dort 5th Head of Doctrine seem to point inward to a witnessing of the Spirit to one's spirit, and to one's work as the way to assurance.  

In summary assurance for the WCF is to look within oneself to see the fruits and for the Heidelberg and Belgic it is to look to what Christ has done.  

I open the floor for discussion and rebuttal.

Westminster Vs. Three Forms Intro

One of the things that concerns me about the growing call for more Calvin in the Lord’s Supper and the rooting out of all Zwinglians, and thus unknowingly the Bullinger position as well, is the enshrinement of the Westminster tradition over the Continental traditions. 

I am not sure how the Westminster became so dominant, but it clearly has.  Yes, this is a country of mostly Englishmen and Scots.  I get it.  But still denominations with Continental backgrounds almost cannot wait to talk about and follow the Westminster.  Is there any stricter sabbatarian denomination around than the URCNA or the Heritage Congregations?  Both of those denominations have a very Westminster view of the Sabbath despite having confessional documents other than the Westminster!  The Two Kingdom debate is dominated by how it fits with the Westminster (see the Confessional Presbyterian and the Mid America Journal of this past year) even though some of the people participating adhere to the Three Forms.  When was the last time you saw an argument about what the Heidelberg and the Canons of Dort said about the issue? 

It is often said that there is no real difference between the Westminster Standards and the Three Forms, but only in tone.  This is simply not true.  Now I am not saying the Westminster is a different faith or anything like that.  The Westminster Standards and the Three Forms are both part of the Reformed Tradition, but the differences are real and do end up in some different places.  It is not just about style, nor is it that the Westminster is just further along the doctrinal development road (that is just condescending and in the end probably a way to help make the Westminster tradition the only one), nor is it that it is just in one or two questions.  I hope to start going through some of these differences so that we can stop trying to merge these traditions.

Belgic and the French - Defining the Church with Christ

One of the stark differences between the French Confession and the Belgic is the focus the Belgic Confession puts on the Jesus Christ with regard to the Church. We looked at the difference in the view of Rome in the last post, but note the references to Christ in those same paragraphs.

The French Confession Article 28:

"In this belief we protest that when the Word of God is not received and when there is no professed subjection to it, and where there is no use of the sacrament, if we will speak properly, we cannot judge that there is any church. Wherefore we condemn those assemblies in the papacy, because the pure Word of God is banished out of them, and because in them the sacraments are corrupted, counterfeited, falsified or utterly abolished, and because among them, separate and cut themselves off from the body of Christ Jesus. Yet nevertheless, because there is yet some small track of a church in the papacy, and that baptism as it is in the substance, has been still continued, and because the efficacy of baptism does not depend upon him who administers it, we confess that they which are thus baptized do not need a second baptism. In the meanwhile, because of those corruptions which are mingled with the administration of that sacrament, no man can present his children to be baptized in that church without polluting his conscience."

Notice the focus is primarily on the Word of God. They don't receive the Word of God, they banished the Word of God. The body of Christ is mentioned as the church, but that is it. Take a look now at the definition of Church in Article 27.

However, we do believe that we ought to distinguish carefully and prudently between the true and false church, because the word church is very much abused. We say then, according to the Word of God, that the church is an assembly of believers who agree among themselves to follow God's Word, and the pure religion which depends upon it, and who profit by it during their whole life, increasing and confirming themselves in the fear of God, as being persons who daily need a farther progress and advancement in holiness. Yet notwithstanding all their endeavors, they must have recourse to the grace of God for the forgiveness of sins. Nor do we deny but that among the faithful there are some hypocrites or despisers of God or ill-livers; whose wickedness cannot blot out the name of the church.

Again we see here a high focus on the Word of God. Here the church is a band of people following the Word of God upon which true religion depends. Now see the same topics in the Belgic and note the different focus.

The Belgic Article 29.

"We believe that we ought diligently and circumspectly to discern from the Word of god which is the true Church, since all sects which are in the world assume to themselves the name of the Church. but we speak not here of hypocrites, who are mixed in the Church with the good, yet are not of the Church, though externally in it; but we say that they body and communion of the true Church must be distinguished from all sects that call themselves the Church.
The marks by which the true church is known are these: If the pure doctrine of the gospel is preached therein; if it is maintains the pure administration of the sacraments as instituted by Christ; if church discipline is exercised in punishing of sin; in short, 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. Hereby the true Church may certainly be known, from which no man has a right to separate himself.
With respect to those who are members of the Church, they may be known by the marks of Christians; namely, by faith, and when having received Jesus Christ the only savior, they avoid sin, follow after righteousness, love the true God and their neighbor, neither turn aside to the right or the left, crucify the flesh with the works thereof. But this is not to be understood as if there did not remain in them great infirmities; but they fight against them through the Spirit all the days of their life, continually taking their refuge in the blood, death passion, and obedience of our Lord Jesus Christ, in whom they have remission of sins, through faith in Him.
As for the false Church, it ascribes more power and authority to itself and its ordinances than to the Word of God, and will not submit itself to the yoke of Christ. Neither does it administer the sacraments as appointed by Christ in His Word, but adds to and takes from them, as it thinks proper; it relies more upon men than upon Christ; and persecutes those who live holily according to the Word of God and rebuke it for its errors, covetousness, and idolatry.
These two Churches are easily known and distinguished from each other.

"

Here we see that the Belgic makes the mark of the Church include a submission to Jesus Christ as Head. The mark of a Christian as receiving Jesus as the only savior and take refuge in Him. The false Church does indeed lower the Word of God, but also refuses the yoke of Christ seen by not administering the sacraments according to Christ. It relies upon men more than Christ. The focus is much less on the Word and much more on Jesus as Savior. The same can be seen when the Belgic defines the word Church.

Belgic Article 27 (only first paragraph)

We believe and profess one catholic and universal Church, which is 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.

Here the Belgic puts the focus on Christ. A church is a congregation of believers expecting salvation from Jesus and are washed by Him, sealed by the Spirit. The French Confession defined it as believers agreeing to follow God's Word. The Belgic defines the Church by the Savior and the French much more by the Word of God. An interesting difference. One can only guess at the reason. Perhaps it was because the French were still trying to win the Royal family over through argumentation. Thus, they may have wished to stress the Roman church's departure from the Word of God. They may also have had a concern not to alienate to many in the Roman faith by stating or implying that they were not believers in Christ, rather they were simply not following the Word of God. This might explain the inclusion of no need of rebaptism in the French Confession. The Belgic barely address rebaptism in a small phrase at the end of the section on Baptism, but it is addressed to the Anabaptists not to Rome. The Belgic Confession was written during a time of massive persecution by the Spanish, and the Dutch were not trying to win over the royal family. They were not trying to win disputations and colloquies. They may have felt more free to link the persecution of the Reformed Church to a hatred of Jesus Christ himself.

One more place that this can be seen, I believe, is in Article 37 On the Last Judgment. I won't reproduce the whole article, but it is about the return of Jesus Christ. A bodily return. But the main focus of the article is that God will bring punishment on those who "cruelly persecuted, oppressed, and tormented them [elect] in this world." And then the comfort that the judgment brings to elect as the "Son of God will confess their names before God His father and His elect angels". It ends with a call an "ardent desire" to "fully enjoy the promises of God in Christ Jesus our Lord." This relates to the church theme because it is Christ's triumphant return to deliver his elect from the persecution of the wicked. Which ought to include the False Church which Article 29 stated "persecutes those who live holily according to the Word of God". The French Confession does not have a section on the return of Christ.

Now, I don't want anyone to think that I am trying to say that the French Confession does not promote Jesus Christ. It surely does in beautiful articles 12-19 especially. I am speaking here of a difference in emphasis especially as it relates to the Church. The French Confession has a clear exalted view of Jesus, but it does not have the same focus on Jesus when discussing the Church that the Belgic contains.

Hopefully in the next post we will take one last contrast between the French and the Belgic.

The Belgic versus the French on Rome

Calvin did not think a new Confession needed to be written for the churches in the Low Countries, but he did not oppose or condemn it in anyway. It appears that he simply thought the French Confession of 1559 was good enough for the Low Countries as well. Yet, the ministers in the Low Countries seemed to disagree. Perhaps because the situation had radically changed between 1559 and 1561. Geneva was a relative safe spot for the Reformation and Calvin did not experience there any real persecution from the Romanists. This was not the case in Belgium. Even France, which used Calvin's Confession of 1559, was relatively peaceful in that year. But by 1561 persecution had really broken out across France and the first wars of religion were being fought. In 1559 the Colloquy at Poissy was on the horizon and hope for a peaceful settlement still existed. But in 1561, France had seen the Massacre at Vassy, and the beginning of never ending strife had started. The Low Countries were even worse. The Inquisition was occurring and the ministers in the Low Countries often fled into France for safety telling you something about how unsafe the Low Countries really were for Reformed believers. I think that this attitude can be found in the Belgic Confession. Let us compare the French Confession of Calvin in 1559 to the Belgic and how it speaks of the Roman Catholic Church.

As a note, I will be using the French Confession as translated by William Foote in The Huguenots (1870), and the Belgic Confession the Christians Reformed Church 1976 Psalter edition as reprinted in Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries Vol. 2 by James Dennison.

The French Confession speaks directly about the Roman Church in Article 28:

"In this belief we protest that when the Word of God is not received and when there is no professed subjection to it, and where there is no use of the sacrament, if we will speak properly, we cannot judge that there is any church. Wherefore we condemn those assemblies in the papacy, because the pure Word of God is banished out of them, and because in them the sacraments are corrupted, counterfeited, falsified or utterly abolished, and because among them, separate and cut themselves off from the body of Christ Jesus. Yet nevertheless, because there is yet some small track of a church in the papacy, and that baptism as it is in the substance, has been still continued, and because the efficacy of baptism does not depend upon him who administers it, we confess that they which are thus baptized do not need a second baptism. In the meanwhile, because of those corruptions which are mingled with the administration of that sacrament, no man can present his children to be baptized in that church without polluting his conscience."

The Belgic goes head on wit the Roman Church in Article 29. I will start with paragraph 2.

"The marks by which the true church is known are these: If the pure doctrine of the gospel is preached therein; if it is maintains the pure administration of the sacraments as instituted by Christ; if church discipline is exercised in punishing of sin; in short, 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. Hereby the true Church may certainly be known, from which no man has a right to separate himself.
With respect to those who are members of the Church, they may be known by the marks of Christians; namely, by faith, and when having received Jesus Christ the only savior, they avoid sin, follow after righteousness, love the true God and their neighbor, neither turn aside to the right or the left, crucify the flesh with the works thereof. But this is not to be understood as if there did not remain in them great infirmities; but they fight against them through the Spirit all the days of their life, continually taking their refuge in the blood, death passion, and obedience of our Lord Jesus Christ, in whom they have remission of sins, through faith in Him.
As for the false Church, it ascribes more power and authority to itself and its ordinances than to the Word of God, and will not submit itself to the yoke of Christ. Neither does it administer the sacraments as appointed by Christ in His Word, but adds to and takes from them, as it thinks proper; it relies more upon men than upon Christ; and persecutes those who live holily according to the Word of God and rebuke it for its errors, covetousness, and idolatry.
These two Churches are easily known and distinguished from each other."

I think an interesting difference in tone more than in substance takes place here. Calvin in the French Confession does make sure to point out that certain assemblies in the papacy banish God's Word, and corrupt the sacraments, but he then goes out of his way to speak about a small track of the church in the papacy, and how there is no need for rebaptism in what seems like perhaps a precaution against Anabaptists or other extreme reformed movements.

The Belgic on the other hand seems to speak in harsher terms about the Roman Catholics. Pointing out directly that the church lowers Jesus Christ putting more faith in man than in the Savior. Refusing to submit to Christ they go a step further and "persecute" those who do submit to that yoke of Jesus Christ. The papacy is condemned outright by making a mark of the true church acknowledging Jesus Christ as the lone head of the church. The Belgic puts a contrast forth that the true Church (the Reformed churches) follow Christ in all things, and the Roman Church rejects Christ and puts more faith in man's power and authority. This is the basis for rejecting Rome as a true church. There is no thought of dangers of Anabaptists or other extremists Protestant groups, but rather the Belgic focuses in on the extreme danger of Roman Catholicism.

Note also the call for people to leave the Roman Catholic Church found in the Belgic. In discussing the true church the Belgic states, "from which no man has a right to separate himself". And with the false church of Rome, "The two churches are easily known and distinguished from each other." In other words, if you are a believer in Jesus Christ, a Christian, you ought to be able to see the difference between the false church of Rome and the true Church, which is persecuted. And there is no reason whatsoever for you not to leave the Roman Church and join the Reformed Church. You can easily know the difference and you have no right to remain separate from a true church. It is true that the French Confession speaks of a polluted conscience if one stays within the Roman Communion, but the French Confession also admits a "small track of a church in the papacy". That is something the persecuted church in the Low Countries does not place in their confession.

The Belgic Confession draws a sharper contrast between Rome and the Reformation and that contrast is based on Christ. One church submits and follows Him, and the other rejects and persecutes Him. This is something that runs throughout the Belgic Confession, as we shall see.

The Belgic versus the French on Rome

Calvin did not think a new Confession needed to be written for the churches in the Low Countries, but he did not oppose or condemn it in anyway. It appears that he simply thought the French Confession of 1559 was good enough for the Low Countries as well. Yet, the ministers in the Low Countries seemed to disagree. Perhaps because the situation had radically changed between 1559 and 1561. Geneva was a relative safe spot for the Reformation and Calvin did not experience there any real persecution from the Romanists. This was not the case in Belgium. Even France, which used Calvin's Confession of 1559, was relatively peaceful in that year. But by 1561 persecution had really broken out across France and the first wars of religion were being fought. In 1559 the Colloquy at Poissy was on the horizon and hope for a peaceful settlement still existed. But in 1561, France had seen the Massacre at Vassy, and the beginning of never ending strife had started. The Low Countries were even worse. The Inquisition was occurring and the ministers in the Low Countries often fled into France for safety telling you something about how unsafe the Low Countries really were for Reformed believers. I think that this attitude can be found in the Belgic Confession. Let us compare the French Confession of Calvin in 1559 to the Belgic and how it speaks of the Roman Catholic Church.

As a note, I will be using the French Confession as translated by William Foote in The Huguenots (1870), and the Belgic Confession the Christians Reformed Church 1976 Psalter edition as reprinted in Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries Vol. 2 by James Dennison.

The French Confession speaks directly about the Roman Church in Article 28:

"In this belief we protest that when the Word of God is not received and when there is no professed subjection to it, and where there is no use of the sacrament, if we will speak properly, we cannot judge that there is any church. Wherefore we condemn those assemblies in the papacy, because the pure Word of God is banished out of them, and because in them the sacraments are corrupted, counterfeited, falsified or utterly abolished, and because among them, separate and cut themselves off from the body of Christ Jesus. Yet nevertheless, because there is yet some small track of a church in the papacy, and that baptism as it is in the substance, has been still continued, and because the efficacy of baptism does not depend upon him who administers it, we confess that they which are thus baptized do not need a second baptism. In the meanwhile, because of those corruptions which are mingled with the administration of that sacrament, no man can present his children to be baptized in that church without polluting his conscience."

The Belgic goes head on wit the Roman Church in Article 29. I will start with paragraph 2.

"The marks by which the true church is known are these: If the pure doctrine of the gospel is preached therein; if it is maintains the pure administration of the sacraments as instituted by Christ; if church discipline is exercised in punishing of sin; in short, 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. Hereby the true Church may certainly be known, from which no man has a right to separate himself.
With respect to those who are members of the Church, they may be known by the marks of Christians; namely, by faith, and when having received Jesus Christ the only savior, they avoid sin, follow after righteousness, love the true God and their neighbor, neither turn aside to the right or the left, crucify the flesh with the works thereof. But this is not to be understood as if there did not remain in them great infirmities; but they fight against them through the Spirit all the days of their life, continually taking their refuge in the blood, death passion, and obedience of our Lord Jesus Christ, in whom they have remission of sins, through faith in Him.
As for the false Church, it ascribes more power and authority to itself and its ordinances than to the Word of God, and will not submit itself to the yoke of Christ. Neither does it administer the sacraments as appointed by Christ in His Word, but adds to and takes from them, as it thinks proper; it relies more upon men than upon Christ; and persecutes those who live holily according to the Word of God and rebuke it for its errors, covetousness, and idolatry.
These two Churches are easily known and distinguished from each other."

I think an interesting difference in tone more than in substance takes place here. Calvin in the French Confession does make sure to point out that certain assemblies in the papacy banish God's Word, and corrupt the sacraments, but he then goes out of his way to speak about a small track of the church in the papacy, and how there is no need for rebaptism in what seems like perhaps a precaution against Anabaptists or other extreme reformed movements.

The Belgic on the other hand seems to speak in harsher terms about the Roman Catholics. Pointing out directly that the church lowers Jesus Christ putting more faith in man than in the Savior. Refusing to submit to Christ they go a step further and "persecute" those who do submit to that yoke of Jesus Christ. The papacy is condemned outright by making a mark of the true church acknowledging Jesus Christ as the lone head of the church. The Belgic puts a contrast forth that the true Church (the Reformed churches) follow Christ in all things, and the Roman Church rejects Christ and puts more faith in man's power and authority. This is the basis for rejecting Rome as a true church. There is no thought of dangers of Anabaptists or other extremists Protestant groups, but rather the Belgic focuses in on the extreme danger of Roman Catholicism.

Note also the call for people to leave the Roman Catholic Church found in the Belgic. In discussing the true church the Belgic states, "from which no man has a right to separate himself". And with the false church of Rome, "The two churches are easily known and distinguished from each other." In other words, if you are a believer in Jesus Christ, a Christian, you ought to be able to see the difference between the false church of Rome and the true Church, which is persecuted. And there is no reason whatsoever for you not to leave the Roman Church and join the Reformed Church. You can easily know the difference and you have no right to remain separate from a true church. It is true that the French Confession speaks of a polluted conscience if one stays within the Roman Communion, but the French Confession also admits a "small track of a church in the papacy". That is something the persecuted church in the Low Countries does not place in their confession.

The Belgic Confession draws a sharper contrast between Rome and the Reformation and that contrast is based on Christ. One church submits and follows Him, and the other rejects and persecutes Him. This is something that runs throughout the Belgic Confession, as we shall see.

2011 - 1561 = 450 years of the Belgic Confession

This year is the 450th anniversary of the writing of the Belgic Confession of Faith (unless my math is wrong, which is always a possibility). So, my plan for this blog this year is to mostly discuss the Belgic Confession (I did say mostly so there will be some other stuff like movie reviews and what nots).

For those not familiar with the Belgic Confession, it was written in 1561 by Guy De Bres sometimes called Guido De Bray. Guido was from modern day Belgium, but at that time was part of Spain and under the control of Charles V. As a Reformed believer, he was an outlaw and he fled to England for a time. There he attended John A Lasco's Stranger's Church in London, but would flee persecution there under Queen Mary. This eventually brought him to Geneva, where he would learn under Calvin. De Bres would re-enter the Low Countries to preach the gospel in about 1559. He wrote the Belgic Confession as an apology for the Reformed Faith. It was primarily his work, but seems to have probably at least gotten feed back by several other area pastors. The Confession would be officially adopted by the church in the Low Countries later, but De Bres would be caught and die a martyrs death under the hand of the Spanish Inquisition.

Today the Belgic Confession might be the most subscribed to Reformed document, and is easily the best known Continental Confession. Oddly enough that was not true in its day. Its modern popularity is in large part because of the devastation of the 30 Years' War. Also the Dutch were a more successful group than the Swiss including at staying orthodox. In its day the Second Helvetic Confession was more widely used, but today that document is almost non-existent in churches. It is the Belgic that rules the day.

The guiding point for my first few looks at the Belgic is the point that really interests me right now. The Belgic Confession is not the Gallic Confession written by Calvin in 1559. Calvin appears to actually have been against writing a new confession for the Low Countries. The Belgic clearly follows the outline of the Gallic Confession, but there are real differences, and those are interesting.

So hope on board for my year long look and celebration of the Belgic Confession of Faith.

Recovering the Reformed Confessions and 6 Day Creation

R. Scott Clark’s book Recovering the Reformed Confessions is a good book, but I do have to take issue with something he said in his second chapter: the chapter about the Quest for Illegitimate Religious Certainty. Basically, Clark’s argument is that where the Confessions are silent it is a point of liberty and those who wish to add (specifically in this case) 6/24 creation as a test of religious orthodoxy are illegitimate. The chapter briefly covers to other things that are extra confessional or anti-confessional: Theonomy and basically the Federal Vision/Shepherdism. The largest section is directed at 6/24 hour day creation proponents. It seems clear to me that the RCUS in particular is in view and indeed we are specifically cited as the only NAPARC denomination to not grant liberty on this point and we appear in a footnote. I will be addressing why Clark is wrong on this point.

Full disclosure moment. Dr. Clark was formerly in the RCUS and left on mostly amicable terms. Dr. Clark now teaches at Westminster Theological Seminary California which is no longer supported by the RCUS mostly for their non-6/24 hour stance on creation.

Points of disagreement

1. Clark starts by stating that proponents of the 6/24 hour day view of creation have always been unable to show a theological reason for holding to this view. He also claims that this stance has "little to do with the Reformed Confessions" (pg. 48). I could not disagree more. This has a lot to do with the Reformed Confessions and theological reasons abound. Creation in 6 days with rest on the 7th day is the foundation of the 4th Commandment. The 4th Commandment is covered in Confessions. What on earth does the Heidelberg mean in Question 92 when it is reciting the law including the basis that "in six days the Lord made the heaven and the earth." Surely then the meaning of the word "day" has confessional implications, and is not restricted to Genesis 1 as an extra-confessional debate. What about Question 103 where the catechism states in its explication of the 4th commandment "especially on the day of rest, diligently attend church . . ." Again the troubling word "day" appears. The Westminister also states "within the space of six days". Surely then it is considered a confessional matter. Yet, Clark waves this off as a simple rejection of Augustine’s instantaneous creation, not a pronouncement upon the days. Yet there is more confessional situations at stake here. The articles of the nature of Scripture are at stake. Article 7 of the Belgic Confession requires us to "reject with all our hearts whatsoever doth not agree with this infallible rule [Scripture]". Is that arguably what is going on with the statement about creation? Article 7 also speaks of not respecting the writings of men above Scripture no matter how holy they are, which presumably ought to include the writing of scientists as well as theologians. And it states we ought to believe all that it is in the Scripture. What about the Westminster Confession of Faith 1.7 that states Scripture is clear and even the unlearned can understand it. Is that true of the GapTheory or Framework? Or is the clear teaching of Scripture 6/24 hour days. And what of WCF 1.9 that says Scripture ought to interpret Scripture and the meaning is one. Can the meaning be one but the message from the ministers be four fold as the PCA would have it on creation? Or WCF 1.10 that says Scripture is the supreme judge of all things. Does that not put it over science? Should I not believe the words of God even if science is against me?
2. Clark dismisses the argument of David Hall and others that point to WCF 4.1 and the "in the space of six days" statement as addressing a different question. That was to keep out Instantaneous Creation and thus has no bearing upon Day-Age or Framework theories of the day. Yet, does not this argument work against Clark as well? The divines simply did not say "God did not create instantly." Rather they stated it was six days. A confessional marker. Also, if what question they were answering is important then is the Confession not applicable to any questions that come after them? Evolution is a challenge to the gospel that is well after the confessions. Does it mean we are all at liberty? Or does it meant that it was not specifically rejected in the Confessions because those views are not yet invented? It seems to me this argument could cut either way, Clark just makes it cut his way and ignores the rest.
3. Clark has a long excursus on heliocentric versus geocentric universe discussions in the past. He is clearly attempting to draw a parallel between the two. Clark wants to argue that using Scriptrue as a text book for science is bad theology and science. First, no one is saying Scripture is a science book. Second, all people are saying is that where the Bible does speak it must be obeyed. Comparing Genesis 1’s repetition of a 6/24 hour formula for creation to the geocentric world debates is a long stretch. It is more an attempt to smear than a real argument.
4. Clark claims these men came to their views "exegetically" and thus it is an extraconfessional and exegetical disagreement (pg.50). If the requirement for things to be considered confessional is that they are exegetically based then we ought to apologize for the Canons of Dort as the Arminians were exegetical. They were just really really bad exegetes of Scripture. And thus they were condemned. Framework and Day Age and Gap Theory are also really really bad exegetical examples. And they are also clearly examples of letting science control the exegesis, which does run into some confessional problems as noted above in point 1.
5. Clark states this is not a debate between "two religions . . . not even between two different hermeneutical principles, but rather a debate over the application of those principles and specific exegetical applications" (pg.61). Clark here makes a good point that it is not two different religions. But does the RCUS say that if you believe in Theistic Evolution or Old Earth that you are not Reformed? No. Is this chapter supposed to be about who is Reformed and who is not? No. The chapter was about Illegitimate Religious Certainity. The question then is can we be certain about 6/24 hour day creation. And to that the RCUS has answered yes. Clark has changed the question a little to make the RCUS seem to be saying something we are not. We are not disagreeing with the theology, piety, and practice of prior men in history who may have held to an Old Earth. We are simply saying that one can understand God’s word and what it teaches in Genesis 1. Science does not have the ability to change the words. I do want to point out that I disagree with Clark that it is not about differing hermenuetical principles. How one can use a Grammatical-Historical approach and come away with anything other than 6/24 hour days is beyond me. I do believe then it is about different hermeutical approaches.

Now I believe what is really motivating Dr. Clark here to try and smack down the RCUS and any other Creationists who stand with us is about protecting men like B.B. Warfield, Machen, and A.A. Hodge as Reformed and true. They would fail this test about 6/24 hour day creation. And fairly clearly Clark thinks any marker that allows in Seventh Day Adventists and keeps out Warfield is Illegitimate (pg.49). Of course no one is trying to let Adventists in as if the Confessions do not exist. It is for Warfield and Princeton that Clark strives. That is why Clark devotes 14 pages to the extra-confessional liberty he believes ought to exist and only 4 to the anti-confessional position of Theonomy and 4 to the Covenant Moralism which he also thinks contradicts the Confessions. I will address this issue in a separate post.

PCA Denominational Renewal

I have to say there is some amazing stuff going on over in the Presbyterian Church of America. Now I am not a member of the PCA, and I don’t want to appear to be throwing stones for the RCUS has troubles of its own, we are just too small for them to become internet fodder. No one has sights dedicated to the troubles of the RCUS. That being said, I would like to lovingly point a few things out to my friends in the PCA.

There is a discussion now that follows up on a conference held a few months ago called Denominational Renewal. Of course the goal is to renew the PCA. Fair enough so far. The discussion includes negative voices and friendly voices and is supposed to be a denominational wide discussion. The latest talk was on Renewing Theology and is positively reviewed by John Frame. It is opposed by Sean Michael, a professor at Covenant Seminary. I believe the talk by Jeremy Jones and the response by Dr. Frame are fundamentally very dangerous, and I fear that it is being missed in the PCA.

Note one of Frame’s points.

3. The PCA is a “confessional church,” as we are often told. We should, however, forthrightly ask the question whether this is a good thing. If it is, what role should a 350 year old confession have in a contemporary church? Is it plausible to suggest that we should treat the confession in effect as an infallible presentation of biblical doctrine? How then can we do justice to the immense amount of quality biblical scholarship and theological reflection that has taken place since that time? Does confessionalism itself lead to sectarianism? If not, how can a confessional church guard against sectarians who appeal to the confession as a “golden age” document? On these matters I am, for now, content to ask questions, rather than presuming to provide answers.

This is little other than John Williamson Nevin, who is back in vogue even among Presbyterians. Confessionalism leading to sectarianism is pure Nevin speaking of creeds as a "necessary evil". The problem with the Confession for Frame is that it is old. It is not contemporary. And more importantly as he points out people will "appeal to it". That is the real problem for Frame. It is out of date and people want to use it anyway. Renewing Theology then becomes a modernization of theology or at least the bringing to bear scholarly developments to it. Implicitly then Frame is saying the Confession is flawed and thus wrong. He would probably want to couch it in terms of the WCF being a ‘second grade text book that is not enough for our 12th grade understanding of these subjects.’ At least that is the analogy used by Doug Wilson in his works not to mention Philip Schaff in his. What concerns me even more is that the opposing reviewer cannot quite put his finger on it. Michael states:

first, it strikes me that his proposal for renewing theology holds out great hope for “creative theological thinking.” And yet, if we pay attention to those witnesses of the past, like Irenaeus and Tertullian, they stressed not their creativity, but their unoriginality. . . . the unspoken tension in Jeremy’s paper is actually between “theology” and “history.” That is to ask, how does this rich confessional tradition (or, to maintain the stream of thought, collection of witnesses) called “the Reformed tradition” speak to contemporary theological reflection? Should “the Reformed tradition” be a privileged witness among other witnesses for those who subscription to a Reformed confessional standard? If so, how does such privileging work?

The tension is identified, but not exposed. Michael sees the "creative theological thinking" as a potential problem, but does not denounce it at all. He sees tension between theology in history in the talk, but does not seem to see that Renewing Theology means making sure theology keeps up with history.

Over at Green Baggins elder Bob Mattes goes into a review of these talks and Rev. Frame’s particularly. He quotes from Frame and then comments (the Frame quote is from above and is the first two lines).

How then can we do justice to the immense amount of quality biblical scholarship and theological reflection that has taken place since that time?
I’m not sure that I understand what Dr. Frame means by this question. Given my response to his last question, does he wish to say that someone has found an error in the Standards in the intervening period? I’m just not sure where he’s going here.

Elder Mattes is being too nice in my opinion here. Dr. Frame in context (as can be seen above) is putting scholarship in contraposition to the confession as an accurate summary of God’s Word although he uses the word infallible in order to make his case look better. Frame is essentially saying if you continue to appeal and use the WCF then you have rejected all the better learning and theological advancements we have made. That is Frame’s position. The goal obviously is the alteration of the WCF or its removal. Why else ask the question in such a fashion. This is the discussion that is going on under the noses of many in the PCA.

My loving brotherly encouragement to men like brother Mattes and Michael is to dig deeper into what they mean. Have the debate of whether history and modern scholarship really has advanced theology to the point of changing it substantially so that it needs to be renewed. Do not be distracted by the talk of theology is application to modern life because it is not. Theology is the study of God, words about God. I have no problem with applying theology to life, and I admit that as history and technology move forward we will apply our theology to new situations. But the talk of changing the way we apply theology or updating or contextualizing applications of theology is really a back door way to change the theology itself. Has man’s sinful condition changed so much that we need a new way of applying ‘justification by faith alone’? What about Scripture? Is allowing people to understand creation as either 6-day creation or Framework or Day-Age really just contextualizing the doctrine of creation for modern man or updating it considering all the great ‘science’ or is it altering the theology fundamentally?

Normally, I would keep my mouth shut about such things, or at least I might have. But, I fear that the PCA is letting its guard down. I have spoken to several who believe the threat of challenges to justification by faith and other fundamental doctrines are basically over since the Federal Vision has been “defeated”. Many have said it but Bob Mattes again gives it the best expression in a comment on Professor Michael’s essay.

Al - May I offer that our current constitution (Westminsters + BCO) handled everything thrown at it so far? To address your specific examples,the Standards handled Federal Vision nicely. Yes, it took a study committee to ferret out the details, but there's nothing wrong with a careful effort. Feminism in the church context is nicely covered in the BCO backed up by Scripture.

While I have no doubt the Westminster rejects Federal Vision the problem is far from handled. Rev. Wilkins left as a minister in good standing and is now a part of another denomination. We could all list several other ministers still in good standing in the denomination who follow the Federal Vision and contributed to a book by that title. The fight is not over, it is simply in a new phase. The direct attack failed. Now the back door approach comes. Read Dr. Frame again. He complains of appealing to a 350 year old document and how it hampers new scholarship. I hope you can all see how accepting this Denominational Renewal would allow the NEW perspectives on Paul and the Federal Vision in the driver seat.