In the past while I have had several opportunities to discuss with fellow Canadian Reformed people the point of how we should evaluate our confessions, the conversations centered on the question whether the Three Forms of Unity are the only faithful summaries of the Word of God or if there are other faithful summaries out there somewhere in the world.

The Canadian and American Reformed Churches form a confessional community. We love our confessions. By way of the Three Forms of Unity, solidarity of faith is maintained among us as believers and as churches. We thank and praise the LORD God for illuminating de Bres, Ursinus, Olevianius, and the fathers of Dort and enabling them to write beautiful and accurate summaries of the divine doctrine. May the LORD God give us the courage to “offer (our) backs to stripes, (our) tongues to knives, (our) mouths to gags, and (our) whole bodies to fire,” rather than deny the truth expressed in these confessions (see introduction to The Belgic Confession).

However, we must watch that our great love for and loyalty to our confessions do not lead us to an incorrect evaluation of them. How do we evaluate them? Are they summaries of the doctrine of God's Word or the summary of the doctrine of God's Word? Do we see them as accurate and faithful expressions of the Reformed faith or as the only such accurate and faithful expressions? Can the Reformed faith be voiced by way of other confessions, or do the Three Forms of Unity provide the only valid vehicle?

Reformed churches historically rooted in the Netherlands hold to the Three Forms of Unity. The Belgic Confession was written in what is now Belgium in the French language. We borrowed the Heidelberg Catechism from Germany. Only the Canons of Dort are truly home grown. The Three Forms of Unity are rather eclectic, but they complement one another beautifully. The Belgic Confession is our banner. By it we let the world know what we believe. By holding to the Heidelberg Catechism, we have a teaching tool surpassed by none. The Canons of Dort keep us firmly in the doctrine of the free and sovereign grace of God against the pernicious Arminian heresy rampant upon the North American continent. Via the Three Forms of Unity, we, as Reformed believers and churches, confess our faith.

But this does not mean that there are no other valid expressions of the Reformed faith. There are other Reformed believers and churches in the world who also confess the Reformed faith, but by way of different confessions. The Swiss Reformed churches adopted Heinrich Bullinger's Second Helvetic Confession, 1566. The French Reformed churches embraced John Calvin's French Confession of Faith, 1559 (adopted by the Synod of La Rochelle, 1571). The Reformed in Scotland professed their faith by way of the Scots Confession of Faith, 1560. The Protestants of England adopted the Westminster Confession of Faith, 1647. The true Reformed faith was confessed by Reformed believers in different parts of the world via different confessional statements. Let us not absolutize our confessional statements and consider them as the only possible way in which biblical truth and the Reformed faith can be expressed. Let us not believe in our confessions. Let us rather confess what we believe by way of commonly accepted standards.

This is not to say that there are no differences between the various confessions. We can distinguish broadly between two sorts of standards. There are those which emphasize God's saving love towards miserable sinners. They very quickly begin to speak about what God has done for us in Jesus Christ. The Scots Confession and the Heidelberg Catechism are examples. Then there are those which place greater emphasis on the truth of the faith. They begin with affirmations of the truths of revelation in Scripture before discussing the saving activity of God. Examples are the Second Helvetic Confession, the French Confession and the Belgic Confession. These two types of confessions are compatible as we show by embracing both the Belgic and the Heidelberg.

If one compares various confessions, e.g., the Three Forms of Unity with the Westminster Standards, he will not find the identity of sentiment nor of expression he may wish to find. As fellow Reformed believers holding to different sets of standards, we need to discuss these differences openly and honestly as we strive for concrete unity. However, he will also see that those who faithfully confess the Reformed faith, although by way of different confessions, stand together on one side of the line which separates those who confess to be saved by grace apart from works and those who would save themselves either by works or by an imagined free will. Although differences exist, he will rejoice in the concord exhibited. And so we will be able to walk together, without compromising the true faith, in mutual charity and with forbearance.