The Character of the Church’s Creeds I

What is the character of the standards of a Reformed church, a church which aims at being confessing church in the world by proclaiming the truth of God’s Word?

This question demands a composite answer.

Such an answer has been provided by the late Prof. P. Biesterveld in his Schets van de Symboliek. He defines a doctrinal standard as “a writing wherein a church or group of churches pronounces what it holds to be the truth according to God’s Word.”1 He pursues this subject by delineating the six characteristic purposes of these doctrinal statements:

a – to present a correct and authentic summary of the doctrine maintained;

b – to witness to this truth in the world;

c – to preserve the unity of the faith among the several churches;

d – to maintain the purity of the faith and oppose all heresy;

e – to transmit this pure doctrine to posterity; and

f – to demonstrate what the churches have always held to be the truth.

Our aim in these articles is not to elaborate on these several confessional aspects outlined by Prof. Biesterveld. Rather will it be the underscoring of one of these, namely, the communal responsibility of preserving the true faith among the several churches. This communal aspect, let it be said at once. has juridical implications, because the community of believers is characterized by a common order. This order in turn manifests itself in the specific rules which such believers are to obey in the spirit of love.


Within the church there exists, indeed, Christian liberty.

Such liberty presupposes that differences of opinion may exist within the church. What may not be presupposed, however, is that such liberty renders lawful the free and uncontrolled blowing of every wind of doctrine within the house of the Lord. God is the God of order; therefore his house “is builded as a city that is compact together” (Ps. 122:3 ). It may not be divided against itself. To express the unity of faith, this doctrinal unity of believers who with one accord praise the name of their God and Savior in the words of their confession, has always been one of the aims of creedal statements.

Therefore these confessions have a juridical aspect.

By the term juridical we do not mean to affirm that confessions are laws imposed by a government, even at times against the will of some of the people. Rather a confession, accepted without constraint by members and office-bearers of the church, is a communal possession and heritage, subject to common rules. Thus it is never “my own business” whether I deviate from the confession. If I disagree with some part thereof, I should follow a prescribed path. This path is carefully outlined in the order of the churches. Nor is the liberty of the church such that it may claim to have a confession and yet refuse to preserve it. The church must ever be watchful to keep its standards high and pure.


It may seem strange to emphasize the above in the community of Reformed churches. The reasons for doing so will be pointed out later. Here we only affirm that from the beginning the confessions as mutual doctrinal agreements have had their fixed place within the Reformed churches.

Calvin stressed the necessity of such a confession immediately after his coming to Geneva. He required subscription to such a doctrinal statement from every citizen and urged that in this matter the members of the City Council set a good example. Upon his return in 1541 an ecclesiastical constitution was adopted, which demanded of every future minister the declaration “that he would receive and keep the approved doctrine of the church.”2

In the constitution of the Reformed churches of the Netherlands subscription to the creeds played a significant role. The earliest synods already required of all officebearers an expression of their agreement with the Belgic Confession. On this matter the first synod, held at Emden, reported, “To demonstrate the doctrinal agreement among the Dutch churches the brothers consented in the subscription of the Confession of Faith of the Dutch churches.”3 To this was added. “Also the office-bearers who are not herc present will be admonished to consent to this subscription; the same shall be asked of all others who shall be called to the ministry, before they enter upon their duties” (art. 4). The Synod of Dort (1618–‘19) adopted the Form of Subscription still used by many Reformed churches today. Hereby the office-bearers declare “that they heartily believe and are persuaded that all the articles and points of doctrine, contained in the confession and catechism of the Reformed churches, together with the explanation of some points of the aforesaid doctrine, made by the National Synod of Dort 1618–‘19, do fully agree with the Word of God. We promise therefore diligently to teach and faithfully to defend the aforesaid doctrine, without either directly or indirectly contradicting the same by our public preaching or writing.” The expression “do fully agree” reads in the Latin text “per omnia consentire” (agree in all parts).4

The same rule obtained in the Swiss churches at that time. In a letter of the Genevan delegates to the Synod of Dort we read, “In our churches no one is admitted to the ministry or to an office, however learned or gifted he may be, unless he binds himself by oath to the Swiss Confession (Confessio Helvetica), promising that he will teach in accordance with it and will propose, spread or propagate nothing strange to it either publicly or secretly, before he proposed it and received the right to it in a major assembly or synod.”5



During the nineteenth century those in the Netherlands who remained true to the Reformed faith again stressed this position. The synod of the Dutch Reformed Church had so altered the Form of Subscription that it became possible to assent to the doctrine expounded in the ecclesiastical standards not because (quia) but in so far as (quatenus) they agreed with God’s Word. As a result doctrines of all kinds were proclaimed from the pulpits and heresies were disseminated throughout the congregations. One of the first acts of the first synod of the Secessionists, held in 1836, was the subscription to a fraternal agreement, which essentially reproduced the venerable Form of Subscription adopted by the Synod of Dort (1618–‘19). The same was true in the days of the Doleantie. A conference of office-bearers was held in the city of Amsterdam in 1883. This paved the way for the second secession from the old Dutch Reformed Church. All members signed a register under the following declaration, “In placing their names on this roll the undersigned declare that they cordially agree with the three Forms of Unity as the agreement of ecclesiastical communion, not in so far as but because they agree with the Word of God.”

The same requirement prevails in the Christian Reformed Church. Upon examination a candidate for the ministry signs the Form of Subscription. According to article 53 of the Church Order all ministers and professors of theology must subscribe to the Three Forms of Unity. “And the ministers of the Word who refuse to do so shall de facto be suspended from their office by the Consistory or Classis until they shall have given a full statement, and if they obstinately persist in refusing, they shall be deposed from their office.”


Two matters are involved in this act of subscription.

The first is the solemn declaration that the confessions contain the doctrine of God’s Word; that they are—to use the language of the Reformed fathers—a repetition of that Word of God and are always and in all parts subject to that Word of God.

The second is the sincere promise to teach and defend this doctrine. not contradicting it in any way and following the prescribed rules of the church, should any doubts or objections to any part of this doctrine arise. Likewise these rules pledge everyone to refrain from spreading such doubts and objections, while subjecting them in accordance with this promise to the judgment of the consistory or one of the major assemblies.

To this promise it is possible to raise an objection. Does not this conflict with that liberlas prophetandi which we seek to honor particularly in the Protestant climate wherein we proclaim the sole authority of God’s Word? We would reply that by definition (per definitionem) this “freedom of prophecy” is by no means an unrestricted and individual freedom. It is limited by the fact that not every prophet is a true prophet; not every prophecy a true prophecy. The Bible itself admonishes, “Prove the spirits whether they are of God” (I John 4:1). It urges especially the elders to “take heed…to all the flock” since “grievous wolves” shall enter the church and not spare Christ’s flock (Acts 20:28,29).

Yet this authoritative, binding character of the creeds upon all office-bearers has throughout the years been denied by many. The arguments employed and the direction taken by those who object have been masterfully set forth by Prof. A. D. R. Polman in the first chapter of his large work on the Belgic Confession.6  Today we are confronted in this respect especially with the views championed by Adolf von Harnack and Karl Barth.


During the winter of 1899–1900 von Harnack delivered his famous lectures on What Is Christianity? These embodied the thinking of the liberal theology of his day. In his lectures he stressed the ethical (moral) aspects of Christianity to the exclusion of the doctrinal. In his opinion the gospel is the message of human brotherhood. Such doctrines as the trinity and the two natures of Christ do not belong to its original message. These are but products of passing historical influences wherein the Hellenistic mind of the ancient church expressed itself.

It was Harnack’s conviction that “no historical form of Christianity must be absolutized or regarded as normative or authoritative. Instead, we must recognize that, though we cannot be christians except through the medium of concrete historical traditions, it is not these traditions but their ultimate historical source that can be the fountain of Christian faith and life, namely the gospel of Jesus Christ. Where the gospel, as Jesus proclaimed it, is believed, there is Christianity; and the gospel does not require a normative. historical form (in doctrine, dogma, liturgy, church polity, etc.) in order to produce belief.” His conclusion is that “Christians must live by the gospel, for which they must find free and unauthoritarian forms in their common life according to the exigencies of ever-changing historical situations.”7

The intriguing point in von Harnack’s exposition is that he appeals to the gospel for the sake of a free Christian attitude independent of historical circumstances and opinions. Yet this gospel is his own gospel—a historical, very liberal, and intensely personal Harnackian gospel including a severely critical attitude towards the inspired words of the gospel itself!


Karl Barth has upon more than one occasion expressed his hearty appreciation of the confessions. Their voice should be accepted and embraced as the voice of our fathers and brethren in the faith. It has ecclesiastical authority. But this authority is a spiritual, never a canonical authority. Everyone should read the confession as a first commentary on Holy Scripture and thereafter make his own decision. The confession is to function as a kind of horizon for our thinking and speaking. Of this horizon we should never lose sight. Yet within its confines we may feel free either to accept its terms and ideas or to contradict them. In this way Barth pleads for what he deems an actual and critical decision.8

In the Netherlands Barthian influences had played a significant role in the construction of the new Church Order of the “Nederlandse Hervormde” church. In this document the dynamic character of the act of confessing is stressed in such a way that, according to the famous tenth article, the church’s communion with the confessing fathers does not exclude criticism of their confessions.


Discussions on the character and binding authority of the creeds began in the “Gereformeerde” churches of that land during the thirties of this century. At a ministers’ conference in 1940 Prof. Dr. F. W. Grosheide lectured on the theme “Living with the Creeds.” Questions were raised at that time about Paul’s authorship of the epistle to the Hebrews (Belg. Conf., art. 4) and the validity of the Catechism’s interpretation of Christ’s descent into hell (Heidel. Cat., 44). Of greater import were problems raised in connection with the terminology which the creeds employ. Such questions were asked as: Should we discover influences of Greek philosophy (Aristotle) in the terms and distinctions employed by the creeds; is it permissible to criticize these terms or explain them in a sense which we deem to be more biblical? 9

Since 1940 much has happened within those churches. In 1944 the “Liberated Reformed Churches” separated from that body. One of the issues concerned itself with the character of the creeds. specifically with the right of synod to explain its creeds and to make such an explanation binding on all office-bearers. Those who objected to this procedure spoke of “super-scriptural bindings.” In 1946 these doctrinal pronouncements were retracted.

After this in the interest of possible union with the “Hervormde” church, some leaders in the “Gereformeerde” churches began to speak about a “reduction” of the creeds. How far this should go, no one defined precisely. Without a doubt this trend must be linked up with the old distinction between “fundamental” and “non-fundamental” articles of faith. Meanwhile a new feeling of confessional freedom seems to pervade these churches. In the “Liberated” churches a minister wrote a book dealing with what happens to man after death. 1o In his views he deviated from the Heidelberg Catechism. Yet he did not submit his position to the judgment of the ecclesiastical assemblies. To this novel approach both his consistory and classis seemed to assent. Likewise the president of the youth organizations defended the position that images may be tolerated in the churches. He also failed to appear before the proper ecclesiastical assemblies with a gravamen (official protest) against the position set forth in the ninety-eighth question and answer of the Catechism.


To show how strong this new and free attitude towards the creeds is becoming we would refer to the recent book of the Rev. H. Volten entitled Around the Confession of the Church. On the Canons of Dart he remarks “that the question begins to press whether a gravamen should not be brought in, although this is almost impossible.” According to him the Canons reason much too deductively from God’s eternal decree and fail to demonstrate with sufficient clarity the relation of election to Christ. As to the Belgic Confession “the relation between general and special revelation is poorly, if not wrongly, expressed in article 2.” The concluding words of article 5 “are at least disputable, because the truth of God’s Word can never be perceived without faith.” There are “shortcomings in articles 3 through 7, articles 27 through 30, and article 36.” In article 16 the author discovers too much deductive reasoning from two virtues of God (his mercy and justice), “as if these two have nothing to do with each other.” Nor does the Catechism escape Volten’s criticism. “The relation between God’s justice and mercy in Lord’s Days 4 and 5 has not been stated quite correctly.” He uncovers “scholasticism” in the Lord’s Days 5 and 6. The definition of faith in Lord’s Day 7 he believes is productive of misunderstanding. The answer to question 41 is primitive and incomplete. Lord’s Days 25 through 27 are not clear; 28 through 30 are too difficult and verbose. Others he criticizes as being too brief. Lord’s Days 34 through 44 all betray defects; “they are not effective for our day.” Small wonder that Volten concludes, “It is impossible to fix a literal binding; a distinction between form and content is inescapable, and it is useful to assume an essence and main points in the confessions.”11

Volten’s criticism is no isolated phenomenon.

When a “Hervormde” pastoral letter criticized the following statement of the Canons: “That some receive the gift of faith from God, and others do not receive it, proceeds from God’s eternal decree” (1,6), Prof. Polman agreed. He regards this expression as a logical conclusion not substantiated by Scriptural proof. He argues, however, that no real confessional question is at stake here “because it is clear, that a critical attitude towards some formulas and pronouncements of the confessions and the use of others does not imply an attack on the gospel of God.”12 And with this also Prof. G. C. Berkouwer fully agrees.

Berkouwer speaks in this connection of an interesting analogy found in present-day Roman Catholic discussions of the creeds of that church. There the distinction is made between affirmation of the truth, which is unchangeable, and representation of the specific truth, which is affected by time and circumstances. On these grounds Roman Catholic theologians seem to be able to criticize the very words of the decrees of Trent, while inSisting in the same breath that they are not criticizing the truth of these words.13 In essence Berkouwer agrees with such or a similar distinction. According to him, and this is his main thrust, faithfulness to the gospel may involve a critical attitude to the form in which the confessions speak. “It is not an indication of relativism when we speak of the problem of affirmation and representation, but it may mean -this all depends!—faithfulness to the gospel, namely, when we have recognized the faithfulness of the church to the gospel in its historical struggle, in all kinds of frameworks and formulae, and in that way integrally accept the confession.”14 Thus he speaks of the possibility that “we learn to understand the confession in its human and defective character, and in that way try to understand what is the real doctrine of the church.”15

Against this background of the historic position of the Reformed churches on the character and binding authority of its church confessions and of present-day discussions, I shall attempt in the next article to show what is at stake. Only then will it be possible to ask and answer the question whether there is a way out for a confessional church which truly wants to be confessing church in the world today.

1. Outline of Symbolics; Kampen, 1912; p. I.

2. Cf. B. J. Kidd: Documents Illustrative of the Continental Reformation, 1941; p. 591.

3. F. L. Rutgers: Acta run de Nederlandsche Synoden de, 16de Eeuw, 1899; p. 56.

4. H. H. Kuyper: De Post-Acta, 1899; p. 187.

5. Ibid., p. 513.

6. A. D. R. Polman: On.te Geloofsbelijdenis; alg. inleiding.

7. W. Fauek: “Adolf von Harnack’s Interpretation of Church History” in The Heritage of the Reformation, 1961 sec. ed; pp. 345,346.

8. Polman, op. cit., pp. 27, 28.

9. G. T. T., 1940, VI.

10. B. Teldcr: Sterven en daarna.

11. H. Volten: Random de Belijdenis, 1962; pp. 107–141.

12. Gereformeerd Weekblad, 13 Juli, 1962.

13. G. C. Berkouwer: Vragen rondom de belijdenis; G. T. T., Feb. 1963; pp. 4,39.

14. Ibid., p. 23.

15. Ibid., p. 26.