Below is a continuation of the letter which deputies BBK sent to the Synod Carman 2013 (Acts Synod Groningen 2014, pages 224-232).
Grounds for unification with another church federation
The letter points to the first condition for unification for unification is the sharing of the true foundation of Holy Scripture and the Reformed Confessions. This first condition should be fulfilled prior to all activities toward unification. Therefore, not only Art. 28, but also Art. 29 BC is at stake.
All marks of the true church should first be mutually recognized. That should be done “diligently and very carefully” (Art. 29 BC).
That should also include the recognition of what is said in the short summary, that the concerned church will “govern itself according to the pure Word of God and reject all things contrary to it regarding Jesus Christ as the only Head.” That points to the actual maintaining of the truth.
The doctrines of the concerned church may not be settled as “less pure” as is often advocated with a plea to the Presbyterian Westminster Confession. A reformed church is bound to its own confession. If it is concluded during the contacts that the foundation of the other church is not fully pure, this church should then be called to reformation.
Being a true church does not mean that the church members themselves are always pure in their thinking and acting. We all are sinners, and therefore not pure. But the foundation of the true church of Christ should be the uncorrupted Word of God. Therefore erring members can be admonished according to the pure foundation.
Everything that is contrary to the pure foundation should be rejected in faithfulness to the true church of Christ. When deviations are tolerated within the church, Christ is no longer followed as the only Head.
Revelation 2 and 3 are often quoted to defend existing impurities of th e foundation of a church. But this pleading ignores the instructions in these letters that Christ’s Spirit is directing toward “less pure” churches and it also ignores the promises and threats He connects respectively with obedience and disobedience to His commands.
In the letter it is agreed that the churches with which the CanRC have an EF relationship have shown sound vision in many respects. But that is not enough. These churches should also show evidence of rejecting all forms of heresies and deviations from the pure Word of God.
If such deviations are recognized, the first need and duty should be to discuss it and to call them to repentance, before declaring them as a true church and starting the process of unification.
Of course, these contacts require patience and perseverance, but they should never result in unscriptural tolerance for the sake of unity.
The consequences of impurity and tolerance
Engaging in EF without a true match of all the marks of a true church has major consequences, as we will show. One is related to the adopted doctrine of the church. The OPC appeared to have no problems with Baptists sharing their celebration of the Lord’s Supper.
The OPC writes this on its official website. Apparently, the difference of its doctrine with that of a Baptist is not a matter of deviation from the Truth. The site connects its view with its doctrine of the invisible church.
According to the OPC site the reason for fellowship can be summarized in the following kind of ‘core confession:’ “If they have their hope in Christ to save them from their sin.”
We quote this passage (www.opc.org/qa.html?question_id=482):
“ Here is real and active unity around the truth. Untruth can never bring unity, but truth always should. Whether or not we see organic, actual, visible unity among the churches, even among Reformed churches, Christ’s prayer is being answered when I receive another brother or sister because they confess the same Lord and Saviour I do. I have fellowship with them even as we the CanRC might disagree about baptism or church government or even whether they believe that Jesus Christ died for those whom the Father gave him alone. If they have their hope in Christ to save them from their sins, we have a place to start in building our unity of the faith in the bond of peace (Eph. 4:1ff).”
Astonishingly, this view by the OPC does not do any justice to the truth of Holy Scripture, consistent with the Three Forms of Unity regarding the true doctrines of the catholic church (visible church), covenant (Baptism), sacraments (Holy Baptism and Lord’s Supper) and discipline.
It opens up the way to accepting or tolerating serious heresies including Anabaptism and Arminianism. It also minimizes the true and complete doctrine of salvation to a core faith. What we believe and confess concerning this dangerous view is so clearly stated in Heidelberg Catechism LD 27, and Art. 34 BC, in which the Anabaptistic doctrine is specifically rejected as error.
Along the same lines one of the CanRC ministers (Rev. James Visscher) wrote in Clarion in 1987 about baptism and anabaptism:
“Baptism conveys the promises of God, but it also conveys the demands of God. It calls on all those who have been baptized, when they reach their years of discretion, to cleave to the Lord in faith, hope, love, and obedience. Failure to do so does not nullify the covenant; it does something worse, it unleashes the curses of the covenant (cf. Deuteronomy 29).
In conclusion, we say about the Anabaptist position: By excluding the children of believers from baptism it goes contrary to the whole character of God’s progressive revelation:
- It caters to individualism and refuses to recognise the biblical teaching of covenantal solidarity;
- It undermines the unity of the Word of God and the people of God by either driving a wedge between circumcision and baptism or else by distorting the meaning of circumcision;
- By implication it makes God a God of the strong, the mature, the able, the adult but places in question whether he is also the God of the very young, the mentally disabled, and all those who can for one reason or other not meet the pre-condition of faith;
It emphasises the subjective by making something in man the sole pre-condition for baptism.”
(to be continued)