It is gratifying to note that in the pursuit of unity with other Reformed churches the Scriptural teaching concerning the church as we confess it has been brought into the discussion. In more than one local bulletin we may read of discussions which particularly focus on Articles 27-29 of the Belgic Confession. It is our hope that through these discussions there is a greater understanding concerning our position on these issues.

A Confessional Stance⤒🔗

At the outset it is incumbent upon us to maintain the clear wording of the confession. The discussion at times indicates that there are a surprising number of novel ways to water down the clear language of the confession. Article 29 BC, in speaking of the true and false church, confesses that these churches are “easily recognized and distinguished from each other.” How are we to understand this phrase? Some have suggested that this is rather harsh and blunt language and that, fortunately, it has been softened by the language of the Westminster Confession, which in Article 25.4 speaks of “more and less pure churches.” In this view the language of the Westminster Confession is regarded as a necessary elaboration and explanation filling out the empty spots of the Belgic Confession.

However, this is an attempt to avoid the clear language of the confession. One should note that the categories of “true” and “false,” as used by Guido De Brès in Article 29 BC, are of an entirely different order from the categories “more and less pure” as used by the Westminster Confession.¹ The Westminster Confession speaks of degrees of purity within the pure or true church, whereas Article 29 BC clearly distinguishes the marks of the true church from the false. The Westminster Confession also speaks of local churches within the bond of one national church, not of various federations. It must be understood with the historical background in mind. Some churches were more independent, others more oriented to the Presbyterian structure; yet, in opposition to the perfectionist leanings of the Puritans and Congregationalists, Westminster said: churches in the true church are still imperfect, i.e., “more or less pure.” But all these churches belonged to the Established church of the day. Westminster’s stand is one which we can all admit (also in opposition to modern day perfectionism!) since a perfect purity in the doctrinal and moral sense is never attainable on this earth. But the language of the Belgic Confession concerning the duty to discern the marks of the true church deals with a different matter. The central question occupying the Belgic Confession concerns the legitimacy and overall direction of the church. Is there a clear indication that all things are to be done in accordance with the teachings of the Word of God? Is the focus strictly on the honour of the Name of God in all things?

Another alternative put forward in order to soften the language of Art. 27-29 is to suggest that the wording crosses both “denominational” and doctrinal lines. In this view, the true church is easily distinguished from the false, but that true church may at any given time include other churches, say, for example, the Lutheran or the Baptist church, or for that matter any other Protestant “denomination.” Here the stand of these churches on church government, or on doctrinal matters like the sacraments, are considered issues of lesser importance. For example, a church which held to the true gospel, but denied only infant baptism, would not be excluded as a true church. Similarly, the Lutheran view on the Lord’s Supper would not be excluded as a possible viewpoint in the realm of the true church.

This is an equally questionable alternative as the former, since it effectually short-circuits cardinal elements of our confession that need attention and discussion. One of the marks of the church is the true administration of the sacraments. Who are we to state that doctrinal views and sentiments differing from what is confessed in the Three Forms of Unity may nonetheless be tolerated? What gives us the right to declare certain doctrines of less significance or importance than others? To be sure, there is a margin of difference in doctrinal matters. Calvin, for example, suggested that the exact way of the soul’s journey at death, whether it went to heaven or some other place, belonged to the realm of indifferent or non-fundamental matters.² But these matters are by their very nature non-confessional. Confessional matters cannot be declared to be indifferent or matters of secondary importance.

We conclude that the language of the Belgic Confession, and specifically Article 29, must be maintained. Also in our discussions with other churches, we should not promote views by which the force of the words is in some way relaxed. A lasting unity can only be attained by working within the limits as confessed together in the Three Forms of Unity. In fact, these Forms as confessions were brought together for the very purpose of forging and upholding a lasting spiritual unity among Reformed Churches, a unity specifically in doctrine and teaching.³