1. The Foundation of the Church⤒🔗

The foundation of the Church is Jesus Christ. He bought her with His blood and she has no other foundation (1 Corinthians 3:11). The soundness and the durability of a building is especially determined by a solid foundation.

Now it may seem strange that the apostle Paul says that he, himself 'a wise master-builder laid a foundation' and at the same time 'that the only foundation is Jesus Christ' (1 Corinthians 3:10, 11). It only seems to be a contra­diction, for Paul preached no one but Jesus Christ, and Him crucified (1 Corinthians 2:2). Whether he spoke about wisdom, discord, justice, disci­pline, marriage, or whatever the subject was, he did not want to do anything but lay the only foundation, Jesus Christ.

Scriptures have no other content than Jesus Christ and His work. The Old Testament tells us about the coming of Jesus and everything that is connected with it. The New Testament tells us about the Christ, who has come, about His work and the work that He did through His apostles. We do not simply believe in an abstract Jesus Christ, but in a concrete Jesus Christ, who has revealed Himself in His Word. He is the Christ of the Scriptures. We know Him from the Holy Gospel, which God Himself first revealed in Paradise; afterwards published by the holy patriarchies and prophets, and foreshadowed by the sacrifices and other ceremonies of the law; and lastly fulfilled by His only begotten Son (Hei­delberg Catechism Q & A 19). If we say that Jesus Christ is the foundation of the Church, we may also say that the Bible is the foundation of the Church.

Our Saviour did the same. When Peter, accord­ing to the Scriptures, said, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God", Christ answered, "I say to you Peter, and upon this 'petra' (this bed-rock) I will build My Church" (Matthew 16:16, 18). On the word of the apostle Peter, Christ builds His Church. From other Scripture passages it becomes clear that the Church is not built on that word of Peter only, but on the word of many apostles and prophets. Of this Church (building) Jesus Christ Himself is the cornerstone, which governs the whole building (Ephesians 2:20).

2. The Bulwark of the Truth←⤒🔗

The Church is not only built on the Word, she also has to proclaim that Word; she must carry it out into the World. The Church is the "pillar and bulwark" of the truth (1 Timothy 3:15).

Nearly every time Paul uses the word "truth", he means God's Word. Christ also uses that word in the same sense. "Thy word is truth" (John 17:17).

The truth is diametrically opposed to the lie (Romans 1:25). The devil is the father of lies (John 8:44), but the truth is from God. We live in a world of lies. All men are liars (Psalms 116:11). In this lie-darkened world God sent His light, His reve­lation, His truth. There is a continual battle between the truth and the lie. This battle began in the garden of Eden. As the Word grew, so did the battle for it. Numerically, the battle is unequal. The Church is at times very small, and in the eyes of men reduced to nothing (Belgic Confession article 27). Before long the whole, amazed earth will follow after the beast and the dragon and worship them (Revelation 13:4; cf. 2 Thessaloni­ans 2:9, 11).

However unequal the battle may seem, the Church stands as a bulwark of truth in this lie-darkened world. If anyone wants to know the truth, he has to go to the Church. The Church has received the Word of God, and she must be "a pillar and a bulwark". After studying this text the Rev. Joh. Franke is inclined to take the word "pillar" to mean "an advertising pillar" and the word "bulwark" to mean a "permanent seat". The church publicizes her calling to the world and God's truth, His revealed Word, resides there as on a permanent seat.

3. The Word must be Confessed←⤒🔗

To be and to remain a pillar and bulwark, the Church must keep (guard) the Word of God. We often come across the expression "To keep the Word" in the writings of the apostle John (e.g. John 15:20; 1 John 2:5). That does not mean that we give the Bible a safe place on our bookshelf. "To keep the Word" means to stand guard over it. We must protect it against falsification by the lie. The Liar from the beginning and his henchmen always tries to make the Word of truth powerless and to distort it. He still says, "Indeed, has God said...?" (Genesis 3:1). He denies that Jesus is the Christ (1 John 2:22) and so tries to foil the Word of God.

The Church has to repel those attacks by keep­ing the Word pure; by guarding it as a body­guard guards the life of a king; by confessing it.

The word "confess", as used in the Bible, has two meanings:

1. to acknowledge a sin (e.g. Mark 1:15)
    
2. to acknowledge Christ as Saviour (e.g. John 9:22).

The Greek word (homologeo) which is used means literally to speak the same thing (homo, same; lego, to speak). To confess then means to say the same thing as the Word. It is a repetition of the Word. Not a repetition in the sense of parroting or reciting it. If you parrot or recite someone's words, it is not necessary to agree with them. This is totally impossible when you confess.

Confessing and believing are inseparably bound together. Paul says, "With the heart man believes and so is justified, and he confesses with his lips and so is saved" (Romans 10:10). Believing with the heart and confessing with the lips cannot be separated. For this reason the Belgic Confession begins with the words, "We all believe with the heart and confess with the mouth..." I cannot believe without confession; I cannot confess without believing. If I believe, I must confess and if I confess, I must believe. One confesses to salvation and, therefore, it is a necessity.

Confession is made with the mouth, but it comes from the heart. It is a matter of the lips but no less so of the heart. What I confess, that I champion. If I truly confess my sins, I am genuinely sorry. If I sincerely confess that Jesus is my Saviour, I know with all my heart that He saved me.

Paul, in Galatians 1:8f, therefore, demands the preservation of the confession, even though he does not use the word confession. When he speaks about the preaching of the gospel, it is already a confession of the Word. What else is preaching but a repetition of the Word? Confes­sion has been rightly called the "Amen" of the church, the "Amen" to the Word. "I believe and, therefore I speak" (2 Corinthians 4:13).

4. The Confession is the Property of the Church←⤒🔗

 In a confession the Church pronounces what she holds for truth according to the Word of God.

Confession is a personal matter. Do we not believe with the heart and confess with the lips? At the same time it is a communal matter to its confessors. This becomes clear from Christ's answer to Peter's confession. "On this 'petra' (this confession) I shall build My Church." His Church! It is a communal matter! The Church is built on the confession!

The apostle John also shows that confession is a communal matter. "Every spirit that confesses Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God" (1 John 4:2); not the spirit, or a spirit, but every spirit. Everyone who does that is from God; and all who do that together are from God.

If God's Word is given to the Church (see 2), then the keeping (guarding) of the Confession of the Word is a matter of the Church as a commu­nity. Rightly so, it has been said, "The congregation of believers (the Church) has, in a common belief, confessed God's truth. She has sought and accepted a common formulation of that truth."

This has important consequences, as we will see.

5. The Confession in History←⤒🔗

The Ethiopian eunuch was baptized after he confessed his faith (Acts 8:37). In the early church there was already a more or less fixed confession formula. Timothy "made the good confession in the presence of many witnesses" (1 Timothy 6:12). It has been sug­gested that Paul refers to a confession made by Timothy at his baptism. Hebrews 3:10, 10:23, and Romans 10:19 also speak of a confession.

In persecutions (1 Timothy 3:13) and in the fight against heresies and heathendom, the congregation was forced to formulate briefly her belief in the Scriptures. In John 4:2 she confessed that Jesus is the Christ against the Docetists; in Corinthians 15:3-8, against a heresy within the Church; and in 1 Corinthians 8:6, against the heathens.

In the second century the heretic Marcion greatly influenced the Church. He taught that there were two gods, the god of the creation and of the Old Testament. He created the horrible world of war, hate and misery. It was this god who made scorpions, snakes and other vermin. Happily there also was a good god. This good god took pity on this poor world created by the evil god. Therefore, the good god sent his son Jesus to redeem the world. This son was not related to this evil world. He appeared in the form of man, but his body was a "phantom" body. He never could accept a body belonging to this evil world.

After Jesus died on the cross, he descended into hell to free the sinners: Cain, Korah, Dathan, Esau, etc... Abel, Abraham, and David he could not set free because they remained faithful to the evil god of the creation.

Only the souls of those set free could be re­deemed. The body belonged to the evil god of the creation. It had to be destroyed through asceti­cism.

Marcion had an enormous influence. He estab­lished separate churches. In the year 160 A.D., Justin wrote that the whole world was filled with churches of Marcion. He had followers in Asia Minor, Antioch, Alexandria, Rome, and Carthage. The crisis in which the Church found herself was tremendous. It was perhaps the greatest crisis of the New Testament times. What did the Church do? The so-called Apostolic Confession was for­mulated against the Marcionites at this time, although the exact date of this confession cannot be determined. Over against Marcion's heresies the Church confessed, "I believe in God the Fa­ther, Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth. And in Jesus Christ, His only begotten Son, our Lord; Who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary."

It was necessary for the Church to take meas­ures against this destructive heresy. What would have happened to the Church, if she had not confessed the Divine truth or kept the Word?

We cannot give here an overview of the confession in history. It should, however, be dear from the foregoing that the Church today would not have been a pillar or a bulwark, if the Word had not been kept in the past.

6. The Significance of the Confession←⤒🔗

The confession fulfills an important function in the preservation of the Church.

According to Prof. P. Bijsterveld, the confession is necessary:

1. To give a true and authentic survey of the con­fessed doctrine of the Church, so that all slander of the opposition can be denied;
    
2. To witness publicly against the world and for the honour of God;
    
3. To preserve unity among the churches of the same confession;
    
4. To preserve the purity of faith and to prevent the spread of heresies;
    
5. To pass on the true religion to the next genera­tion, so that they can propagate and develop it;

To show what in history has been held as the truth.

A few remarks about the unity and necessity of the confession.

Without the confession there cannot be a unity of faith. If I would say, "I appeal to the Scriptures", I know beforehand that many others can do the same thing, but with a totally different result. "Every heretic has his text. Everyone can find texts in the Bible, that seem to defend his particular position. For instance a pacifist can say "It says in the Bible, 'Thou shalt not kill' and 'all who take the sword will perish by the sword.'" He, however, uses Scriptures to his own advan­tage, for it also says, that the authorities do not bear the sword in vain.

Prof. Dr. K. Schilder once said that proof texts constitute the Achilles heel of dogmatics. One has to read each Bible text in context, and com­pare Scripture with Scripture, if one wants to understand God's Word.

God's Word is a unity and that unity cannot be broken (John 10:35). We must never loose sight of that unity. The confession honours that unity. It does not quote a particular text out of context but does justice to the totality of Scriptures. The confession arranges the many texts on the same subject and so comes with the message of the Scriptures concerning that subject.

So the Church places the message of the one, indivisible Word of God over against the false doctrine, so that the truth does not go down in a world of lies.

7. Is the Confession Work of Men only?←⤒🔗

"But", you hear so often proclaimed, "the con­fession is the work of men only, and as such infinitely inferior to the inspired Word. Isn't it?" That way a wedge is driven between the Divine Word and the repeated word of the confession. That the confession is the work of men and the Bible is the Divinely inspired Word goes without saying.

The confession itself, however, does not want anything to do with that faulty antitheses. It does not place itself above but precisely beneath the Scriptures, as it is expressed in Belgic Confession article 7;

it is unlawful for anyone, though an apostle, to teach otherwise than what we are now taught in the Holy Scriptures ... Neither may we consider any writings of men, however holy these men may have been, of equal value with those divine Scriptures ... Therefore we reject with all our hearts whatsoever does not agree with this infallible rule, which the apostles have taught us, saying, 'Prove the spirits, whether they are of God' (1 John 4:1). Likewise: 'If any one cometh unto you and bringeth not this teaching, receive him not into your house' (2 John 10).

Jacobus Trigland, who fought against Armini­anism, denied the charge that the confession is only a human document in his Ecclesiastical His­tory (1650),

One must not consider the Belgic Confes­sion as simply a human document but as the writings of God-fearing and faithful teachers of the true Church of our Lord Jesus Christ. It is taken from the Word of God to serve as a sound and scriptural confession of faith; it was confessed by the faithful martyrs in prison, on the rack, at the stake, under the sword and gallow; because of it thousands lost their lives or possession and were driven into exile; it was recognized by the Reformed Churches of the Netherlands and France as being sound and in conformity with God's Word and as such was used against the papists and all kinds of sects; it was defended boldly and intellectu­ally against all dissidents; and by it the Re­formed Churches were separated from all kinds of sects. That is more than simply the writings of men.

"In conformity with God's Word" is a beautiful expression! The confession has already been called: "the repeated Word", "a repetition of the Holy Scriptures", and "the Amen of the Church to the Word".

Prof. J. Kamphuis has said it very clearly.

One is mistaken, if one says: 'The confession is human confection (ready-made)'. Out of the question! GOD'S uniform! So we find it written in Ephe­sians 6, 'Put on the whole armour of God.' In Isaiah 59 we see the Lord Himself putting on this armour. Now THIS armour has been given us in the Gospel of the old and new covenant. As we have accepted it from His hands (Ephesians 6:13) we won't, while wearing this uniform, loose our head, when we are told that we are walking around in a ready-made suit. That His armour may be ours; that His Word may be answered in our confession, that is precisely the fullness of His grace...

One of the temptations of the devil is to call our armour human confection. Well, it isn't! It is your heart that believes and your lips that confess. Haven't you confessed of your heart and of your lips that they are human and thus fallible? Such temptations are clever, but God's people place the confession of God's Church of all ages over against that...: my heart, my lips are indeed human, but near is the Word of God, near in my heart and on my lips. So the word of faith, the confession, remains firm in all darkness and in all oppression.

8. The Historic Foundation of the Church←⤒🔗

After the foregoing it is no longer difficult to call the confessions the historic foundation of the church. The Scriptural foundation, as we have seen, is the word of the apostles and prophets. If, however, the Church maintains that Scriptural element in the confession (the repeated word), then we may also call the confession the repeated Word and the historic foundation of the Church.

The confession "takes its authority from Scrip­ture". It does not want to be anything but an interpretation of Scripture, in conformity with the Word of God. For each heart and each day — so our fathers confessed — it is examinable to the Word of God. For that reason the expression 'On the basis of the confession' means to a Calvinist nothing else than on the basis of the Word.

The confession is often divided as follows:

1.  General or ecumenical creeds:
   - Apostles' Creed;
   - Nicene Creed;
   - Athanasian Creed.
    
2.  Particular or reformed creeds:
   - Belgic Confession (B.C.);
   - Heidelberg Catechism (H.C.);
   - Canons of Dort. (C.D.).

The terms 'ecumenical' and 'reformed' confes­sion are not opposites but they indicate the his­toric origins of the creeds. The ecumenical creeds were formulated and accepted by the ecumenical councils of the early Church, while the reformed creeds came into being during the Reformation era. The latter, however, are nothing more that expansions and elaborations of the former. The terms 'general' and 'particular' creeds are, strictly speaking, incorrect. The detailed creeds are not special creeds as opposed to the general confes­sion of the Apostles' Creed. They are for every­one who believes, the Apostles's Creed, and for everyone who believes, that in the detailed creeds he remains faithful to the Apostles' Creed.

These remarks are very important to the unity and continuity of the confession. If God's Word is the eternal Word (see Isaiah 40:8) then the repeated word also shall not age. That does not mean that an expansion of the confession will never be necessary.

9. Church Confederation and Confession←⤒🔗

According to Prof. Dr. K. Schilder, Christ also gave His blood for the church confederation. Church federation and confession are closely related. Unity of confession is the essential basis for church federation; church federation can only be entered into when the unity of confession is present. Then, however, church federation must be entered into.

For the doctrine isn't the property of a particu­lar Church but belongs to the Churches in general. The Word did not come to one Church only, but to all Churches. The Churches then are committed to one another not because of an agree­ment but because God says so and points the one out to the other. For this Christ died; behind that confederation lies Golgotha and the blood of reconciliation.

Rules, mutual agreement (a church order) are needed for a church confederation. The church order has been called the agreement of the eccle­siastical society.

We are well aware of the fact that the character of the church order is totally different from that of the confession. We also know:

• that God has charged us to form a Church confed­eration;
   
• that the unity of the confession is the basis for church confederation;
   
• that the Church confederation, as laid down in the church order, guards the un-adulterated maintenance of the confession (article 53, 54);
   
• that the Church government, the ecclesiastical law, as laid down in the church order, is dictated by God's Word. We do not, however, disguise the fact that some points of order, included in the church order, are not directly taken from Scrip­tures or confession.

For those reasons we are of the opinion that the church order belongs to the historic foundation of the Church.

10. The Authority of the Confession←⤒🔗

The church is quite clear about the authority of the confession. The office bearers of the Church have to subscribe to the Three Forms of Unity and if they refuse to do so, they are suspended de facto. The Form of Subscription, drawn up by the Synod of Dort 1618/19, expresses this even more point­edly. It states that the Three Forms of Unity "in all things conform to the Word of God". The sub­scribers promise that "they will diligently teach and faithfully advocate the doctrine; to oppose, defend, and refute any heresy contrary to the doctrine as expressed in the three Forms of Unity". If they do not adhere to it they will be dismissed ipso facto.

This is not confessionalism, not an over-estima­tion of the confession. Calvinists never put the confession on a par with the inspired Word of God. The Form of Subscription leaves the possibilities open for those who have "any difficulties or different sentiments respecting the aforesaid doctrine or any point, to bring them before an ecclesiastical assembly".

For "in the confession ... we read God's truth, which we read in His Word. That truth the Church has absorbed, reflected, processed, and in her own words expressed against heresies". In her own words she repeats Scriptures. She, there­fore, has derivative authority only.

Precisely therein lies the confession's greatest strength. "It witnesses; so says the Scriptures; it is written!"

Is the confession then a straight-jacket of our faith? Is there no freedom of exegesis at all? Of course there is. In the first place, the Form of Subscription leaves open the possibility of appeal to the Scriptures via the ecclesiastical way. In the second place, the Church has not made pronouncements on all of Scriptures. With the con­fession the Church wished to refute the heresies and to remain in that way a pillar and foundation of the truth, in a world of lies.

When Rev. B. Telder, in his book Dying and then...?, objected to the clause, "that not only my soul shall immediately be taken up to Christ, its Head" (Heidelberg Catechism Q.&A. 57), the church had already made a pronouncement. She had taken a stand against the Roman doctrine of purgatory, against the Anabaptist doctrine of the sleeping soul. She had taught over against those heresies: "Thus says Scriptures." When the Church has made a pronouncement one is bound by it.

In matters on which the Church has not spoken the libertas prophetandi, the freedom of prophesying, exists. Thus the Church in 1618/19, did not make any pronouncements on infra-and supra­lapsarianism, and left Gomarus free.

When the Church no longer says "thus says the Lord", and no longer binds office-bearers and church members to these decisions, the Church is finished as a pillar and as a certainty of the truth. For that reason the Church must maintain the authority of the confession for the sake of her life.

11. The Interpretation of the Confession←⤒🔗

In all possible ways people have been trying to get out from under the authority of the confes­sion. One of these ways has been the interpreta­tion, the exegesis of the confession.

Nowadays, it is generally argued that the con­fessions have had their time. To be sure, they are honourable church-documents, and in their time were accepted by the church, but that was long ago. In the time of their origin they, indeed, rendered good service, but they are historic docu­ments and as such bound to time. Since their origin theological thinking has developed ex­traordinarily. Today we say that we formulate many things differently and there are many doctrines about which people think differently today.

To be sure, one can use the confession, but only if they are used as historic papers; they are excellent means for discovering the theological thought of its framers.

This historical interpretation was the downfall of the Dutch Reformed Church. The Church order (1956) states in article X sub.1, that one "confesses in communion with the creeds of the fathers"; and in article X sub. 2 it says, "the creeds of the fathers is summarized in..." (Summary follows). Apparently the confession "in com­munion with the fathers" is not valued very highly, for Article X sub. 3 states: "In her respon­sibility for the present and living in accordance with the Scriptural confession of the fathers, the Church confesses always anew ... Jesus Christ as the Head of the Church and as the Lord of the world". It all sounds very pious, however, a word to the wise is enough. They have disasso­ciated themselves from the confession of the fa­thers "in her responsibility for the present", and "Jesus is the Head of the Church and the Lord of the world" all that there is left.

The norm is no longer the Word of God but theological scholarship. If one only sees what the authors meant with the confession, one has to take the responsibility for the present into ac­count. The authors were well intentioned, and as a remote background the confession has its mer­its, but it is out of step with modern theology. Today the basic formula; "Jesus is Lord..." is sufficient.

The confessions, however, are not historical documents only. "The confessions must be read and explained in the light of the authors inten­tions, not in accordance with the theology of those days, but in accordance with and in the sense of the Scriptures."

If one no longer reads the confession in the Scriptural sense, but interprets it as one pleases, it becomes extremely dangerous. Then one reads too easily one's own thoughts into the confession. The confession is then explained in such a way that it conforms to one's own opinions. So the Synodical Churches divided the B.C. Art. 27-29, into two parts. Art. 27 deals with the invisible Church and Art. 29 with the visible Church. In doing so the correct view of the Church was lost.

They went so far as to interpret the confession on official (major) assemblies. The background against which the confessions should be read were prescribed. "It becomes dangerous, when ecclesiastical assemblies interpret the confession", for an ecclesiastical interpretation is binding. That is why the pacification formula of 1905 concern­ing the presumptive regeneration was already so dangerous. The decisions of 1942 were much worse. A binding interpretation of the confession was decreed; everyone had to believe that the "in Christ sanctified" of the confession was the same as regenerated.

Prof. Dr. K. Schilder, called these doctrinal pronouncements a fourth form of unity. A con­fession to which one was bound. In this way one can within certain limits, make the confession say whatever one wants it to say; in this way the authority of the confession was shoved aside.

As a result it went from bad to worse. The synodical churches still have the confessions, but in practice they are no longer bound to it. Prof. Lever may safely preach his evolution theory. The decisions of Assen (1926) concerning the authority and especially the inerrancy of Scrip­ture, were set aside. Prof. Kuitert is allowed to call the authority and inerrancy of Scriptures into question. The Synod of Lunteren even denied the doctrine of rejection as confessed in the Canons of Dort. They even had the audacity to join the World Council of Churches, whose only mean­ingless confession formula is, "Jesus is Lord" and even that formulation is not taken seriously.

Through historical or scientific interpretation of the confession, God's people have been robbed of the teachings of Scriptures. Therefore, there is no other interpretation of the confessions, than that of the Word of God.

12. The Catholicity of the Confession←⤒🔗

We believe and profess a holy, catholic (= universal) Christian Church, which has been from the beginning of the world and will be to the end thereof; she is spread out over the length and breadth of the earth as well as over the length of her history.

In paragraph 8, it has already been pointed out that "newer" confessions are elaborations of an older one.

Prof. Dr. J. Faber, has pointed out that the Belgic Confession, following in Calvin's footsteps, makes use of the Scriptural treasures of the New Testa­ment Church especially those of the first five centuries.

As the Church is catholic, so is her confession. The confession speaks to everyone through all the ages. The Church has the message of Scrip­ture for all the ages.

The catholicity of the confession, however, does not only apply to the continuity in history, but also to life in all its aspects. It is not restricted to the ecclesiastical life. Each church member has promised in his public profession to submit himself to the admonition and discipline of the church if they become delinquent. The Church exercises her official authority over all her mem­bers in all their conduct. With the "spheres of life", political, social, and school societies, the Church does not deal, but she deals with the members of such societies as church members. No matter in what area the church members are busy, they are always bound to the confession. There is no "sphere of life", in which the confes­sion is not active. When church members form a society, no matter what kind, they are always bound to the confession. For that reason the foundation of a political or school society or whatever society of church members there may be, can be no other than the confession. For such an organization or society not a part of, but the whole confession counts, because the Word of God is one. The differentiation between major and minor issues of the doctrine is a human invention.

13. Major and Minor Issues←⤒🔗

The error, that only the major issues count and that minor issues are less important, is wide spread. The words of Jesus to Martha: "You are anxious and troubled about many things; one thing is needful ", are quoted to justify such a stand. That the Lord Jesus corrects Martha be­cause she busies herself with material things and does not pay any attention to Jesus' teachings, are conveniently forgotten.

One all too often hears: "What does it really matter whether or not we agree on all the details of doctrine, whether or not we go to the same church, as long as we love the Lord Jesus."

In the second half of the previous century this matter occupied the minds of many. It caused a profound difference of opinion between Dr. A. Kuyper and Dr. J. J. van Toorenenberger.

Van Toorenenberger wanted to maintain the confession, but only in an evangelical manner. The essence of the Gospel is also the essence of the ecclesiastical symbols (= confessions), her unchangeable Credo. Besides these the confession recognizes more or less essential matters. To these unessential matters - according to Van Toorenenberger -— belong the Canons of Dort, "the apocrypha of the reformed confession."

In his Revision of the Revision legends (1879), Kuyper rejects this point of view. From many examples it appears "that one should read the Forms accurately and without any changes that ministers, prior to their ordination, must promise to keep them strictly." The non-fundamental articles of the doctrine, according to Kuyper, were not in, but outside, the confession. Kuyper quotes Trigland,

Even if only one article of the doctrine of salvation is denied or obscured, all the others are dissolved or denied.

In the meantime the error of major and minor issues has not died. When the Rev. B. Telder published his book Dying and then...? (1960), it was once again not a matter of a major issue but a minor detail of the confession. Rev. Telder could not agree with the parenthetic clause in Lord's Day 22, Q. & A. 57. The clause which states that "my soul, after this life, shall immediately be taken up to Christ, its Head." In recent times this question has troubled reformed ecclesiastical life. In addition to this Rev. Telder did not follow the ecclesiastical way as he had promised, but published his erroneous views in a book.

Prof. Dr. K. Schilder has put the error of differ­entiating between major and minor issues in a clear perspective.

He writes:

The distinction made between major issues and less important ones is in itself foolish, unscientific, superficial, and misleading for truth is cloth woven in one piece. The one truth is indissolubly connected to the other. He, who lets go of one dogma, tears apart and upsets everything and will come to a totally new 'doctrinal structure'. He, who thinks profoundly and logically, will always construct the one thesis from the other and so maintains both of them, or deletes both of them from his confession. To mention just one example: All 'brothers' do not agree on child baptism. That is a question of minor importance, they say. Yet, for those who think this matter through, the question of child baptism is intimately bound up with the other questions; How the children of believers are viewed; how the Church is presented in the Scriptures; what the essence of the Church is; what the covenant promises are. Here we are immediately confronted with major issues.

Already in the previous century, Kuyper pointed out 'how confessional relativism and scriptural relativism are mutually related, and how one finds himself on a pernicious slide, if this kind of relativism is introduced. It is subjectivism (aris­ing from the subject, from man) no matter what. Once captured by it one withdraws himself first from the confession; no word of man in the Church but the Word of God. It becomes the slogan with which the subjectivism, even for subjectivists, is camouflaged. If, however, it concerns the Scriptures, precisely that same sub­jectivism, which first raised the slogan against the confession, comes home to roost. Then those Scriptures concern themselves with 'the Gospel', and everything else is secondary.'

In simple words: If one differentiates between major and minor issues in the confessions, one will differentiate eventually between major and minor issues in Scriptures, and in that way the undivided Word of God is lost.

14. The Public Profession of Faith←⤒🔗

The form for public profession of faith contains the following question:

Do you acknowledge the doctrine which is contained in the Old and the New Testament and in the articles of the Chris­tian faith and which are taught here in this Chris­tian Church, to be the true and complete doctrine of salvation, and do you promise by the grace of God steadfastly to continue in this profession in life and death?

It has been said more than once in the recent past that by "the articles of the Christian faith" the "Apostles Creed" is meant, and that one does not bind oneself to the three forms of unity at the profession of faith. The phrase following "taught here in this Christian Church", however, makes it clear that our fathers intended the articles of the Christian faith to mean the forms of unity, for they are taught in the Christian church. Evidence for this is to be found in the form for public profession used in the church at Batavia (1621) where the confessor promises "to acknowledge all the doctrines of God's Word and the Christian reformed religion briefly explained in the Belgic Confession and the Heidelberg Catechism."