In the 2013 letter from the BBK deputies to the CanRC Synod Carmen, it was acknowledged that the churches with which the CanRC has had an ecclesiastical EF relationship since 2001 display, in many respects, a healthy vision. But that is not sufficient. These churches must also demonstrate that they reject all forms of error and deviations from the pure Word of God.
When such deviations are recognized, the first necessity and duty is to discuss them with these churches and call them to repentance, before declaring that they are a true church and initiating the process of unification. Naturally, such ecclesiastical contacts require patience, but they may never lead to unscriptural tolerance for the sake of unity.
Pluriformity and unscriptural tolerance
Entering into an ecclesiastical relationship (EF) without genuinely satisfying all the marks of a true church has far-reaching consequences. The Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC) has no binding to the church’s confession (Westminster Standards). Only office-bearers are bound to a “system of doctrine,” a vague, undefined reference to the teaching of the church. This church appears to have no problems with people who do not endorse Reformed doctrine, such as Baptists and Remonstrants. They may participate in the celebration of the Lord’s Supper, both within the OPC and in the CanRC, since no attestations are used.
Apparently, for the OPC the difference between its doctrine and that of Baptists or Remonstrants is not a matter of deviation from the truth. Its website connects this position with its doctrine of the invisible church.
According to the official OPC website, the basis for fellowship can be summarized in the following kind of “core confession”: if they place their hope in Christ to save them from their sins. We quote the website (www.opc.org/qa.html?question_id=482:
“Here there is a real and active unity in the truth. Error can never bring unity, but the truth always will. Whether or not we see an organic, actual, visible unity among churches, even among Reformed churches, the prayer of Christ is answered when I receive another brother or sister because they acknowledge the same Lord and Savior as I do. I have fellowship with them, even if we disagree about baptism or church government, or even if they believe that Jesus Christ died only for those whom the Father gave him. If only they place their hope in Christ to save them from their sins, we have room to begin to give shape to our unity of faith in the bond of peace (Eph. 4:1–13ff).”
We cannot avoid concluding that this view of the OPC does not do justice to maintaining the truth of Holy Scripture. It is not in agreement with the Three Forms of Unity with respect to the true doctrine of the catholic church (visible church), the covenant (baptism), the sacraments (Holy Baptism and Holy Supper), and discipline.
This view gives room for accepting or tolerating serious errors. It also minimizes the true and complete doctrine of salvation to a “core belief.” What we believe and confess with respect to this dangerous view is so clearly confessed in the Heidelberg Catechism, Lord’s Day 27, and Article 34 of the Belgic Confession, in which the doctrine of the Anabaptists is specifically rejected as error. The question, therefore, is how the Lord judges this.
Of His disapproval we read in Ex. 4:24–26. The LORD wanted to kill Moses because he had not had his son circumcised. Only after Moses had nevertheless circumcised his son did the LORD leave him alone (cf. Gen. 17:14; Col. 2:11–12).
Bapism and Anabaptism
Along the same lines, one of the CanRC ministers (Rev. James Visscher) wrote in Clarion in 1987 about baptism and Anabaptism:
“Baptism communicates the promises of God, but it also communicates the demands of God. It calls all who are baptized, when they reach years of discretion, to cleave to the Lord with faith, hope, love, and obedience. If one does not do this, the covenant does not lapse; it does something more serious: it unleashes the curses of the covenant (cf. Deut. 29).
In summary we say about the Anabaptist view: By excluding the children of believers from baptism one comes into conflict with the entire character of God’s continuing revelation;
It feeds individualism and refuses to acknowledge the biblical teaching of covenant community; It undermines the unity of the Word of God and the people of God by driving a wedge between circumcision and baptism, or otherwise by distorting the meaning of circumcision; As a result it makes God a God of the strong, the mature, the gifted, the adult, but calls into question whether He is also the God of very young children, the intellectually disabled, and all those who for one reason or another do not meet the first requirement of faith; It emphasizes the personal by making something in man the first requirement for baptism.”
(to be continued)