There are as yet two questions that have not received an answer: What is the authority of the confession? And why are office bearers so closely bound by it? In this article I intend to dig some more into these questions.

Scripture and Confession⤒🔗

After the Liberation in our churches (1944) the two are often mentioned in the same breath: “Scripture and Confession!” or “on the basis of Scripture and the confession.” We want it to be known that we’re good Reformed people. However we will not deny that this can sound like they are placed exactly on the same level. And then suddenly it’s no longer Reformed and well, because the “Amen” of the church can and may never be equated with the Word of the Lord. In the Belgic Confession, Article 7, the warning is heard, “We may not consider any writings of men, however holy these men may have been, of equal value with the divine Scriptures.” The same goes for all confessional writings. They are and remain human writings, however much they may echo God’s truth.

There is then also a profound and intense difference between the Scriptures and our confession.

In the first place there is a foundational difference. Scripture is the Word of God, inspired by God himself (2 Tim. 4:16). The confession is a document of the church, of which it may never be said that it “is breathed out by God” (theopneustos), as it literally reads in 2 Timothy 3:16.

Further, there is a functional difference. God’s Word is living and active (Heb. 4:12), it regenerates (1 Peter 1:23), it works faith (Rom. 10:17). The Holy Scriptures can make us wise unto salvation (2 Tim. 4:15). All of this cannot be said of our confession. It is not an instrument of grace in the hands of the Holy Spirit.

In the third place there is a quantitative difference. The confession draws from Scripture, but it does not exhaust Scripture. Scripture says so much more than what we have recorded in our confession. There is height, depth, and width in Scripture that can never be fully captured by a confession. God’s Word is as an ocean, with the church scooping up a pail of water.

The church has traditionally displayed modesty in its manner of confessing. The word “summary” that we meet in the Heidelberg Catechism, QA 22, gives evidence of such modesty.¹ The doctrine of the Scriptures is summarized in our confession. And that is very different from an exhaustive rendition. God’s Word is perfect (Ps. 19:7), but that can never be said of the confession.

In an attempt to properly indicate the relationship between Scripture and the confession, the Reformed have used the expressions: norma normans and norma normata. Scripture is the norm that norms (that sets the standard) and it has authority in itself. The confession is the norm that is normed (has its standard) in Scripture; it only has authority insofar as it speaks the words of Scripture. H. Bavinck wrote: “Scripture alone is the norm and rule of faith and life (norma et regula fidei et vitae). The confession deserves credence only because and insofar as it is agrees with Scripture and, as the fallible work of human hands, remains open to revision and examination by the standard of Scripture. Accordingly, the confession is at most a secondary standard (norma secundaria) … binding for all who wish to live in fellowship with that church. Within the church the confession has authority as an agreement of fellowship, as the expression of the faith of the church, but it believes and maintains that confession only on the basis of Scripture.”²

Even though the confession has derived authority, it definitely does have authority! Because it repeats the clear Word of the Lord, it may function as the rule for orthodoxy and orthopraxis. Its normative strength rests in the normative power of God’s Word and what it conveys to us. Yes, it is indeed human lips that confess God’s name, but they confess this name as so holy, great, and good. And the power of this name asserts itself through human words, and seeks to be acknowledged.³ Therefore the confession has authority, albeit that it derives this authority entirely from Scripture.

This last part impresses on us that the confession can never have the final word in any contentious issue. We have already noted what Bavinck wrote about the confession as being human work open to revision and examination by the standard of Scripture. Anyone who knows better on the basis of Scripture, can and must say so. The Reformed churches have always known the right of the gravamen, whereby objections against any part of the confession can be presented in the ecclesiastical way (i.e., open to evaluation by church assemblies). With this right of gravamen the churches oppose any form of confessionalism that would make the confession into an unalterable entity, and would preclude any deeper insights. The Reformer John à Lasco wrote that the confessional writings “do not want to impinge on the developments of future centuries where it would please God to give greater clarity.”⁴ In fact, confessionalism would affect the core essence of the confession: it is not the infallible word, but the inadequate human word that should always have to justify itself when compared against the divine Word.

Bound to the Confession←⤒🔗

Taking a cue from A. Kuyper, the confession has been termed as “the accord (agreement) of ecclesiastical fellowship.” The intent of this designation is to clarify the extent of how all church members are bound to the confession. On the basis of this confession people enter into mutual fellowship. In this connection Kuyper compared the confession with the Constitution, to which all members of government are bound in their sessions.⁵ We can quibble about Kuyper’s terminology. “Accord/Agreement” nowadays hints of “contract.” In looking at it this way we can end up in a formal judicial atmosphere that does not do justice to the confession. In all fairness we should not forget the historical context of Kuyper’s characterization. Over against the noncommittal spirit of the state church his aim was to give validation to the confession, and to foster a high respect for the confession as a benchmark of ecclesiastical unity. Kuyper wanted to stress that the church is the assembly of all true believers.⁶

Kuyper’s designation may meet objections, yet what he advocated is right. The confession is the profession of the church. Anyone who joins this church needs to agree with this “amen.” Because the confession is our common confession, all of us in the church are bound to it. It is simply incompatible to be a member while at the same time you disagree with the confession. By becoming a member we consciously take up the song of the church on our lips, and we will be part of the choir that together sings its (commonly accepted) song of praise.

In the 1960s some people in our churches claimed that when it comes to the public profession of faith we only require agreement to what is confessed in the Twelve Articles of the Apostles’ Creed, and not with the content of the Three Forms of Unity: the Belgic Confession, the Heidelberg Catechism, and the Canons of Dort.⁷ This opinion cannot be sustained. There has been much ado in the past about the phrase “taught here in this Christian church.”⁸ This phrase is found in the questions at the administration of baptism as well as in the Form for Public Profession of Faith, Q. 4. The small word “here” had at one time been replaced with “as follows”. J. Trigland mentions that in spite of objections on the part of the Remonstrants, the Synod of Dort, 1618-19, decided to keep it as “here.” There is no reason to doubt Trigland’s testimony.

Later editions of our liturgical forms therefore phrase it as the doctrine “taught here in this Christian church.” It deals with the doctrine of the Old and New Testament and it is this doctrine that is taught in the church where baptism and profession take place. This doctrine is taught in our confessional documents, especially in the Forms of Unity. When one makes profession of faith, one declares publicly that this doctrine is true and that the amen of the church is one’s own amen as well. It is for that reason that Article 61 of our Church Order speaks of “the profession of the Reformed faith.”

Office Bearers←⤒🔗

For a long time already our churches observe the practice that after their ordination the office bearers also sign their names under the Form of Subscription. They are ready to take upon themselves a very responsible task in the church. It means a lot to the congregation how such a brother will carry out his office. They have to “teach what accords to sound doctrine” (Titus 2:1), “to give instruction in sound doctrine, and also to rebuke those who contradict it” (Titus 1:9), “rightly handling the word of truth” (2 Tim. 2:15). It is for that reason that brothers who are called to such a responsible task are asked to “declare sincerely and in good conscience before the Lord that we heartily believe that the whole doctrine contained in the Belgic Confession, the Heidelberg Catechism, and the Canons of Dordt fully agrees with the Word of God.”

Initially in the 16^th century, only the ministers of the word signed the Belgic Confession. This was asked specifically of them, to promote and guarantee unanimity in the doctrine. A little later this was also asked of the elders and the deacons (1574). Yet it did not prove adequate to safeguard the purity of the doctrine. There was a trend within the Reformed churches of members who did not feel quite at ease with the teaching of the Belgic Confession and the Heidelberg Catechism. When the outside threat to the churches was diminished (an armistice between Spain and the Netherlands), this trend became stronger in the churches. After 1600 it broke through clearly in the person of Arminius and his supporters. They did not want to be bound to the confession – a human document – and believed that there has to be room to distance oneself from what is written in the Belgic Confession or in the Heidelberger.

The remarkable thing happened, that some Remonstrant preachers did at times put their signatures to the confessions. The provincial synod of South-Holland 1618, recognized the impasse and presented to the upcoming general synod a subscription form with these words: “Because the Remonstrants are in fact signing the forms of unity, namely the Confession and the Catechism, and yet teach contrary to these, the national synod is asked in what manner this evil can be counteracted.”⁹

We see here the historical background to the well-known Form of Subscription that the great synod of Dordt 1618-19 implemented! People desired honesty and unambiguity. Ministers needed to be heartily convinced of the doctrine of the church, confessed in “all articles and documents.” The subscription carried nothing less than the character of a profession of faith: this is what I profess, and here I take my stand. At the same time, room was given for reservations or dissenting opinions. However, they obligated themselves not to teach such views openly, but to present their opinions to the church via its assemblies.

This Form of Subscription – modernized linguistically only – is still functioning in our churches for the ministers of the word and mutatis mutandis (changes where change was needed) also for elders and deacons.

Does this mean that there cannot be any criticism of what our confession is saying? I point out once again that the subscription form asks for agreement of the doctrine “in all parts.” It does not say “in all expressions.” The confessional writings carry the marks of their time of origin. Sometimes they clearly use expressions from that time. We see this especially in the oldest rendition of the Canons of Dort. The way a certain matter is confessed may sometimes remind us of previous eras. We see it, for example, in the formulation of the questions in Lord’s Day 5. Yet the Reformed believers have agreed with what was already worded in the First Swiss Confession (which Calvin accepted wholeheartedly as well): “Whoever concurs with these articles, with such we are unanimous, even if he were to use other expressions.” “Dem auf die Sache selbst und die Wahrheit, nicht auf die Worte soll man sehen.”¹⁰

Calvin directs us to the modesty of holy people who warn us “that we should not immediately brand those who do not want to swear to words that we have written, namely, when they are not guided by pride, impertinence, or malicious behaviour.”¹¹ J.R. Wiskerke writes as follows: “Without declaring the expressions or terminology as unimportant, over time the Reformed people have shown broadmindedness in this regard.”¹² In that way we are not bound to the historical background, or to what our forefathers may have meant with a particular expression. The confession does not provide a summary of the thoughts of our fathers, but of the doctrine of Scripture. It needs to be read and understood in the light of the Word.

More Room for Dissent?←⤒🔗

In discussions between our deputies with other Reformed Churches it has become clear that some churches deem that more room is desirable and necessary in order to discuss topics in depth and in all openness, to a greater extent than what is possible within the context of the subscription form. If someone publishes something that differs from the doctrine, there should not immediately be the threat of being suspended. That these churches give more space becomes evident when ministers can voice public criticism of the accepted doctrine.

Yet I am of the opinion that the churches need to take careful thought before they let go of the strict binding to the doctrine. The binding of the subscription form safeguards the congregation from personal opinions and honours the fact that the confession functions as the “amen” of the church. If you take that seriously, the way for “a discussion in all openness” cannot be entertained. The confession is not only a discussion piece, but the answer of faith given by the church. That answer of faith cannot be criticized publicly. As soon as that is allowed to happen, the confession loses its essence.

The way of the gravamen is a wise way. It prevents authors from floating some opinions, and forces those who think they know better to subject their feelings to the judgment of the churches via their assemblies. Going this route honours the fact that the confession is about our common faith, and that only the churches together are authorized to make changes. We are seeing examples around us where it ends up when this route is not taken into consideration. When parts of the confession can be criticized publicly, where is the guarantee that on Sundays the congregation will be taught in “the faith according to the Reformed doctrine”?

Within the framework of the subscription form there is always room. Yet it is a space that needs boundaries, out of respect for the amen of the church. Newer insights are always possible. Justifiable criticism is not silenced. But the churches take their confession so seriously that they may also expect a substantial and thoughtful document outlining the criticism and grounds for revision for discussion at their assemblies. They stand on guard for the purity of doctrine, and may not permit that congregations are left in a state of confusion about the common faith.

In Closing←⤒🔗

My hope is that both articles I submitted on this topic will contribute to the awareness of what we possess in our confessions, and what important functions they have. This renewed realization can help us to see the importance of the binding as expressed through the subscription form. Behind all of this is the desire that what we confess with the church of the ages is truly our tried and tested confession. A confession that in all its parts rings true: “We all believe with the heart and confess with the mouth”!