GS 1986 ARTICLE 184

Appeal re Edmonton

Committee 2 presents:

I.     MATERIAL

  • – Agenda, VIII, H, 2 Letter from the Immanuel Canadian Reformed Church at Edmonton re Arts. 148, 165, & 166 of the Acts of the 1983 General Synod

II.     ADMISSIBILITY

The letter of the consistory of the Immanuel Church at Edmonton is an appeal against Arts . 148, 165, and 166 of the Acts of the 1983 General Synod. This appeal is thus at the proper place and can be declared admissible.

Ill. OBSERVATIONS

  • A.    The consistory of the Immanuel Church at Edmonton appeals against the con­siderations of the Articles 148, 165, and 166 of the Acts of the 1983 General Synod. The considerations in Arts. 148, 165, and 166 read:
    • (Art. 148)
      • 1.     It is regrettable that the General Synod of Smithville of 1980 did not publish the grounds for its decision mentioned above.
      • 2.    From both the above submissions it is evident that the issue is:
        • Does Art. 28 of the Belgic Confession call the believers to prove that they are church members or to join the church while not being members at that moment?
      • 3.     Article 28 of the Belgic Confession states clearly:
        • a.     No person ought to withdraw from the church.
        • b.     All men are in duty bound to join themselves to the church, thereby main­taining the unity of the church.
        • c.     It is the duty of all believers to join themselves to this congregation.
        • d.     All those who separate themselves from it act contrary to the ordinance of God.
        • e.     All those who do not join themselves to it act contrary  to the ordinance of God.
      • 4.     The statement that “all believers already belong to the church” would nullify the above confession.
      • 5.     Although we confess in Lord’s Day 7 that those are saved who are ingrafted into Christ by a true faith, yet it is obvious that Q. & A. 55 describes the communion of saints as a characteristic of and a gift to the church.
    • (Art. 165)
      • 1.     To restrict the term “doctrine” to “the principle of the sermon” is unwar­ranted and arbitrary, since this so-called “principle” was elaborated on by Rev. S. DeBruin in his sermon as well as in the “hand-out.”
      • 2.     As unspecified parts of the sermon were withdrawn, it would be incorrect to base a judgment on it.
      • 3.     From Observation 8 it is clear that Rev. S. DeBruin teaches:
        • a.     that all believers are members of Christ’s Church;
        • b.    that, in fact , a believer cannot become a member since he is a member already;
        • c.     that there is a plurality of churches;
        • d.    that the communion of saints is as broad as the holy, catholic church (as consisting of all true believers);
        • e.     that one’s “spiritual well-being” may make it mandatory to leave ascertain church without it having become a false church.
      • 4.     In our confession we state:
        • a.     that no person ought to withdraw from the church;
        • b.     that all men are in duty bound to join and unite themselves with it;
        • c.     that all believers are to join themselves to this congregation;
        • d.     that all who separate themselves from it or do not join themselves to it act contrary to the ordinance of God.
      • 5.     To state that all true believers are already members of Christ’s Church would nullify the above confession.
      • 6.    To state that there is a plurality of churches in fact undermines the confes­sion that everyone is in duty bound to join the church and to this end “ought diligently and circumspectly to discern from the Word of God which is the true church.”
      • 7.     What the church believes and confesses has been summarized in the Three Forms of Unity. The Regional Synod West of September 20-22, 1983, therefore was correct in answering br. H.J. Noot’s second request by refer­ ring him to the confession.
    • (Art. 166)
      • 1.     Br. Werkman overlooks the fact that our confession does not say that er­rors and impurities make a church a false church, but that  the  false church is the opposite of the true church.
      • 2.    Although unspecified parts of the sermon of Lord’s Day 21 were withdrawn, Rev. S. DeBruin himself stated that the “hand-out” contains what he teaches concerning the church.
      • 3.     In Lord’s Day 7 we confess that those are saved who are ingrafted into Christ by a true faith . Regional Synod West of Sept. 20-22, 1983, correctly stated that the true believers  “thus are included into the church gathering work of Christ (congregatio).” Regional Synod West, however, upholding the judg­ment of Classis Alberta and Manitoba of May 3-5 and June 15-16, 1983, hereby leaves room for identifying being “included in the church gathering work of Christ” and “being a member of Christ’s Church,” thus trying to answer the question how it is possible that there are true believers who yet are not members of Christ’s Church (coetus). Rev . S. DeBruin clearly  tries to find an answer to the same question, the answer which the Lord has reserv­ed for Himself, Deut. 29: 29.
      • 4.     However, the statement  that  “all who have  received  a true  faith become by virtue of that faith ‘members of Jesus Christ and of his church’ and as mutual members of the same body (Article 28) they are therefore duty­ bound to join themselves to Christ’s Church” in fact nullifies what we con­ fess in this very same 28th Article, namely,
        • that no person ought to withdraw from the church;
        • that all men are in duty bound to join and unite themselves with it; that all believers are to join themselves to this congregation;
        • that all who separate themselves from it or do not join themselves to it act contrary to the ordinance of God.
      • 5.    The statement that there is a plurality of churches in fact undermines the confession that everyone is in duty bound to join the church and to this end “ought diligently and circumspectly to discern from the Word of God which is the true church.”
      • 6.    Although some statements and teachings of Rev. S. DeBruin are to be re­jected, yet it cannot be said that he attacks the confessions and has thereby broken the promise given when he signed the Subscription Form for ministers of the Word. Coming with a certain interpretation of the confession which is to be rejected does not necessarily mean launching an attack on the confession.
  • B.    Regarding Article 148, the Immanuel consistory requests General Synod to make the following judgments:
    • 1.    “The General Synod of Cloverdale of 1983 has erred in its judgment made in Article 148, C, 2.
      • Ground This is an unsubstantiated observation in the form of a question, which is not a consideration and therefore cannot be a synodical judgment.
    • 2.    The General Synod of Cloverdale of 1983 has erred in its judgment made in Article 148, C, 3.
      • Ground A partial summary of an article of the confession without any elabora­tion cannot be received as being a consideration , and therefore it cannot be accepted as being a judgment.
    • 3.    The General Synod of Cloverdale of 1983 has erred in its judgment made in Article 148, C, 4.
      • Ground The ” consideration” is an unsubstantiated allegation which does violence to what we confess in Articles 27, 28, and 35 of the Belgic Confes­sion; Lord’s Day 7 and 21; Heidelberg Catechism; and Canons of Dort II, 9; Ill/IV, 11-14; V, 9.
    • 4.    The General Synod of Cloverdale of 1983 has erred in its judgment made in Article 148, C, 5.
      • Grounds
        • a.    There are no grounds provided for the synodical claim to something being obvious, as such it cannot serve as a judgment.
        • b.     The consideration is confusing since it leaves room for the idea that the communion of saints can be spoken of as a gift added to the holy, catholic church instead of it being identical to or with the holy, catholic church.
  • C.    Regarding Article 165 and 166, the Immanuel Church at Edmonton requests Synod to judge that:
    • 1.    The General Synod of Cloverdale of 1983 has erred in its declarations and judgments as recorded in its Acts , Article 165, C, 3, 4, 5, and 6, and in Arti­cle 166, C, 3, 4, 5, and the first part of 6.
      • Grounds
        • a.    This synod has not provided any valid Scriptural and/or confessional substantiation for its doctrinal judgments in its considerations, as is re­quired in God’s Word.
        • b.    The Acts of this synod show no evidence that it has properly considered the Scriptural and confessional givens from the “hand-out” by Rev. S. DeBruin, which was used to come to its judgments.
    • 2.    The General Synod of Cloverdale of 1983 has erred in its use of Article 28 of the Belgic Confession when judging the teaching of Rev. S. DeBruin.
      • Grounds
        • a.     Its partial summary of Article 28 of the Belgic Confession leaves room for, and even posits the wrong understanding that membership in the one holy, catholic church, as confessed in Article 27, 28, 35, Belgic Confession;  Lord’s Day 21, Heidelberg Catechism; and the Canons of Dort II, 9 and V, 9, is limited to being a member of a local true church.
        • b.     The terms “congregatio” and “coetus,” as well as their explanation and use by the General Synod of Cloverdale of 1983 have no confes­sional status or authority.
        • c.    Its judgment re “nullifies”  does violence to what we proclaim in our “Form for Adult Baptism,” and it leaves room for the semi-Arminian idea that membership  in the holy, catholic church depends in the first place on the act of man, instead of on the sovereign foregoing act of God, to which all believers  are obliged to respond in covenantal  obedience, by seeking to join, or institute with fellow believers, a local true church.
    • 3.     The General Synod of Cloverdale of 1983 has erred in its judgments in Arti­cle 165, C, 6, and Article 166, C, 5. Grounds
      • a.     These judgments have been destroyed by the General Synod of Clover­dale of 1983 with its own judgment in Article 166,C, 1, which by implica­tion agrees with the judgments made by Regional Synod West 1983, Classis Alberta/Manitoba May 3-5 and June 15-16, 1983, and also im­plicitly with what is taught by Rev. S. DeBruin on this point in his “outline.”
      • b.     These judgments have been contradicted by the fact that this same Synod has recognized that the holy, catholic church is revealed in the world as a plurality of various churches which can be joined in an Inter­ national Conference of Reformed Churches.
      • c.     The General Synod of 1983, while using Rev. S. DeBruin’s “outline” in coming to these judgments, has not refuted any of the Scriptural and confessional givens provided by him.
      • Nor has it provided any valid grounds for the accusation made against Rev. S. DeBruin as required according to God’s Word, II Cor. 13: 1; I Tim. 5: 19; L.D. 43, Heidelberg Catechism.
    • 4.     The General Synod of Cloverdale of 1983 has judged that Rev. S. DeBruin has not broken his Subscription Form promise. It has thereby nullified, under­ mined, and destroyed its own foregoing judgments against him re his alleged nullifying and undermining of the confession.
      • Grounds
        • a.    The last decision of a General Synod overrules any previous decision even when this takes place during the same General Synod in judgments on the same matter. In Article 166, C, 6 it constitutes a summation judgment.
        • b.     When a General Synod judges a minister of the Word to have remained faithful to his Subscription Form promise, this automatically rules out any allegations of his having nullified or undermined the confession.
        • c.     Our God “is  not a God of confusion but of peace” (I Cor. 14: 33) nor is He a God who condones contradictions (Matt. 5: 37; II Cor. 1: 17, 18; James 5: 12).
    • 5.     The General Synod of Cloverdale of 1983 has erred by having made un­ substantiated judgments against the teachings of Rev. S. DeBruin, and it has thereby publicly dishonoured his name.
      • a.    The General Synod of 1983 has not shown any valid proof from Scrip­ture or the confessions while making public judgments regarding the alleged erroneous teaching of Rev. S. DeBruin.
      • b.     It is a Scriptural principle that a person is innocent until proven guilty, and that the burden of providing proof lies with the accuser.
      • c.     Those who read the Acts of synod may not, and cannot assume what a synod may have meant or intended with its judgments, but they are limited to how the Acts read. A synod has no right to burden the church­es with contradictory judgments. nor with judgments devoid of substantiation.
  • D.    The Immanuel Church at Edmonton points to:
    • 1.    Art. 35, Belgic Confession, to demonstrate how God regenerates people and thereby “incorporates them ‘into His family which is His church’ ” and this is “effected by the Word of the gospel in the communion of saints of the body of Christ … and this is ‘common to all … the elect of God.’ “
    • 2.    Lord’s Day 21 (55) where it is stated that “believers, all and every one as members of Christ have communion with Him,” in order to show that “no such gifts can be received outside the communion of saints (body of Christ).”
    • 3.     Canons of Dort II, 9 and V, 9, to show that “every true believer, whether in an instituted church or in isolation, … ought never to doubt ‘that they are and always shall remain true and living members of the church.’ “
    • 4.    The Form for Adult Baptism (the third question) to prove that an adult who has come to faith and desires baptism “has already become a member of God’s family (the holy, catholic church) by faith” before he becomes a member of the local church before his baptism. This leads to their conclu­sion that the action of God in joining the believer to His family (the holy, catholic church) precedes the action of the believer in joining himself to a local, true church (seep. 11).
    • 5.    Concerning the communion of saints and its relation to the church of Christ, they write, “In brief, General Synod 1983 has limited the communion of saints to be­ing an observable, local gift to each church instead of it being a confessed reality which is as broad as the holy, catholic church we confess in Article 27, Belgic Confession.”
  • E.    As supporting evidence, the Immanuel Church at Edmonton attached the “hand­ out” of Rev. S. DeBruin of the Immanuel Church at Edmonton (Appendix 1). In this “hand-out” the pastor of the Immanuel Church at Edmonton says, “let us make our starting point with the assertion and confession that … our cove­nant God … will accomplish His eternal plan concerning all those chosen in Jesus Christ from before the foundation of the world” (p. 4). He then goes on to make the following points:
    • 1.    “A true faith is a gift of God which is ‘conferred on the elect at a time and place of God’s own choosing.’ “
    • 2.    “By a true faith the elect are in due time ‘ingrafted’ into Jesus Christ and with this action of God they also receive ‘all (Christ’s) benefits’ … ‘treasures and gifts.’ “
    • 3.    “All who have received a true faith become by virtue of that fact ‘a member of Jesus Christ and of His Church (third question in the Form for Adult Bap­tism) and as mutual members of the same body’ (Art.28, Belgic Confession) they are therefore duty-bound to join themselves to Christ’s Church (when possible) wherever she has become visible.”
    • 4.     “Everyone who has been ingrafted into Jesus Christ by a true faith HAS (emphasis is ours) true unity of faith with all other members who have similarly been ingrafted, wherever these members may be in the world.”
    • 5.    “There is only one holy, catholic church … This holy congregation is still being gathered by God’s Word and Spirit, and will not be complete until the Lord Jesus Christ returns.
    • Part of this holy congregation is already with Christ in heaven, part has been and is gathered on earth today, and a part is yet to be gathered.” (All these quotes are from p. 4.)
    • 6.    Instead of the word pluriformity he uses the term plurality for “the obvious number of different churches or church federations in the world.” To ex­ plain this concept he refers to how he instructs the young people, “that when they are away from home on the Lord’s Day they should first of all seek a Canadian Reformed Church (when possible) and after that look for a church close to one’s own, e.g. Christian Reformed or Free Reformed, then various Presbyterian Churches which still maintain the Westminster Standards, Evangelical or Confessional Lutheran churches, Missionary Alliance, any church where God’s Word still receives a place of honour. None such chur­ches can be classified as being false re Article 29, Belgic Confession” (p. 10).
    • 7.     Concerning the communion of saints, he writes that “in principle the com­munion of saints is as broad as the holy, catholic church, i.e. they cover each other perfectly.” “It is in Jesus Christ and through Him that all true Christians are related to each other, regardless of where they may be in the world.” “ALL are brothers and sisters and thus children of the same Father in heaven.”
    • This communion of saints must thus be practiced and shared with all be­lievers, who together comprise the holy, catholic church, according to this viewpoint.

IV.   CONSIDERATIONS RE THE APPEAL OF THE IMMANUEL CHURCH AT EDMONTON

  • A.    Re Art. 148 of the 1983 General Synod.
    • 1.    Re Observation B, I (of this report).
      • Although Art. 148, C, 2 (1983) indeed only observes the two basic viewpoints, nevertheless it was a valuable point which led to the next consideration.
    • 2.    Re Observation B, 2 (against Art. 148, C, 3 of the 1983 General Synod).
      • Art. 148,C, 3 (General Synod of 1983) summarizes the essential parts of Article 28, Belgic Confession. The appellants claim that thereby Article 28 is separated from Article 27. But this is not true. While Article 27 gives an overview of the “one, catholic or universal church,” in Article 28 the norms for believers (to join the church, to maintain the unity of the church, to sub­mit to the instruction and discipline of the church, to bend their necks under the yoke of Christ, and to serve the edification of the brotherhood) are given. These are not two churches but one church. To join the assembly of true believers is to join the one, holy, catholic and Christian church. Thus the 1983 General Synod, in its summary of the norms which Christ maintains in gathering the holy and universal church, pointed to and preserved the dynamic character of the church.
    • 3.    Re Observation B. 3 (against Art. 148, C, 4 of the 1983 General Synod). The appellants uphold the statement that “all believers already belong to the church,” and therefore reject this consideration.
      • Reference is made to Articles 27, 28, 35 of the Belgic Confession, Lord ‘ s Day 7 & 21 of the Heidelberg Catechism, and the Canons of Dort 11.9, III/IV.11-14, V.9, as well as to the third question of the Form for Adult Bap­tism to support their contention.
      • a.    Art. 27 as an introductory article describes the church in general terms. It nowhere states that everyone who is a believer is already a member of the (holy, catholic) church even if the believer is not a member of a true, local church. This would make the concept of the holy, catholic church into a nebulous term devoid of meaning, since “church” means an assembly which Jesus Christ gathers, defends, and preserves, and which can be discerned by means of three marks, i.e. the preaching of the pure Word, the administration of the sacraments, and the exer­cise of discipline.
      • b.    Art. 28 again refers to the church as an assembly and congregation (con­gregatio and coetus as interchangeable terms) of the redeemed. The appellants then use the identification of the church in Articles 27 and 28 in an axiomatic manner as a syllogism. They work with two intercon­nected syllogisms as follows:
      • First Syllogism
        • The holy, catholic church is the assembly of all the elect and regenerated.
        • ii     Belief is a fruit of election.
        • iii    Therefore all believers, even if they have not (yet) joined a true church, are members of the holy, catholic church.
      • Second Syllogism
        • The communion of saints is as broad as the holy, catholic church.
        • ii All believers are members of the holy, catholic church.
        • iii Therefore all believers share in the communion of saints.
      • This theological construction (attempting to systematize a broken and sinful situation), whether intentionally or not, undermines the urgent call for all believers to join the true church wherever God has established it, and it neglects the norms mentioned in Art. 28. Scriptural evidence for this consideration can be found, e.g, in I Corinthians. In this letter the apostle addresses himself to the Church at Corinth with its official congregational meetings (“when you are assembled,” 5: 4; 14: 26; “when you assemble as a church,” 11: 18; 14: 23), in which discipline is exercised (5: 4, 5) and the Lord’s Supper is celebrated (11: 20), where the Word is preached (14: 19) and where outsiders and even unbelievers may come in and be convinced by the preaching (14: 22-24) and where the believers receive their appointments, gifts, and assignments in their special office and in the office of all believers (12: 27-31). The church (ekklesia) in Paul’s letter is the assembly of the saints which is called together.
      • c.     Art. 35, B.C., is adduced as support for the appellants’ view. But that the Lord’s Supper nourishes those “whom He has already regenerated and incorporated into His family, which is His Church,” should be seen within (and not outside of) the context of this Article. The article refers to the twofold life of the believers. For the support of the regenerated life, believers, as the family of God, need the living bread from the table of Jesus Christ. One should not therefore draw the wrong conclusion from this that there is a nebulous concept of the holy, catholic church of all the regenerated and the elect, a church which is contrasted with the local, true churches.
      • d.    Lord’s Day 7 (20) answers the question who are saved. The answer stresses the need for a true faith by which one is grafted into Christ and by which we accept all his benefits (which the Heidelberg Catechism usually summarizes as the forgiveness of sins and the gift of eternal life). To deduce that this answer teaches that every believers is incor­porated into the body of Christ, the church,  even before they officially join themselves to the church, is a misuse of the answer and of the word “church.”
      • e.     Lord’s Day 21, Q. & A. 54 indeed gives an overview of Christ’s work of gathering the congregation chosen to everlasting life. The norms (by the Spirit and Word, in the unity of the true faith) are included. This general definition therefore does not postulate a vague concept of a non­ observable, catholic church which is to be separated from the local gatherings.
      • Q. & A. 55 does teach that every believer enjoys participation (“koinonia,” cf. I Cor. 10: 16) in Christ and in His benefits. These believers must use such participation for the mutual benefit of all the members of the local, true community of saints (I Cor. 12: 7, 14-26).
      • On the basis of this fellowship with Christ, the members of the congrega­tion as members of the body of Christ are called to pursue unity and brotherly love and to avoid divisions, to edify each other and be edified.
      • Unfortunately, owing to the brokenness and sinfulness here on earth, not every believer has joined the true church wherever God has estab­lished it, and not every believer thus does practices the fellowship of saints as he/she ought. What is normative for us is that Christ and His apostles apply the terms, the communion of saints or the body of Christ, to the local, true churches. For  example, Paul in speaking to the saints in Corinth says, “you are the body of Christ and individually members of it” (I Cor. 12: 27).
      • f.     Canons of Dort. Canons of Dort 11.9 accents  how the counsel  of  God to redeem a chosen people cannot be frustrated but  will be fulfilled.  As a consequence the elect will be gathered into one flock under one Shepherd. But the expression “church of believers” should not  be quoted out of context to prove something it was not intended to prove, i.e. that the church is the number of the elect who have come to faith. Canons of Dort V.9 speaks of the assurance of perseverance of the saints in faith. By God’s preserving grace they surely believe that they are and always will remain true and living members of the church. To deduce from this that this article teaches that believers, before joining the local church of Jesus Christ, already are members of an ill-defined universal church is a misuse of this article.
      • g.    Form for Adult Baptism, Third Question. The statement that “by the power of the Holy Spirit you have become a member of Jesus Christ and His Church” should again not be taken out of its setting. An adult has come to the church to hear the proclamation of redemption and for instruction in the way of salvation; the person has appeared before the consistory to be examined; and now that adult stands up in the con­gregation to have his membership in the church and kingdom of God sealed. Under those circumstances this language is understandable (cf. the parallel in the case of infant baptism,  in which the infants “must be grafted into the Christian church” (Q. & A. 74) and yet “as  members of His Church ought to be baptized” (Form). One should not press this language to posit a Scripturally unknown concept of a non-observable church of the elect and regenerated .
  • B.    Re Arts. 165, 166 of the 1983 General Synod.
    • 1.     Re Observation C, 1 (against Arts. 165, C, 3, 4, 5, and 166, C, 3, 4, 5 of the 1983 General Synod).
      • The appellants complain that no valid Scriptural and confessional substan­tiation was provided, and that the “hand-out” of Rev. DeBruin was improperly considered. The 1983 General Synod of Cloverdale indeed pointed to various parts of the confessions, but the particular references to the confessions are not accepted by the appellants.
      • Moreover, since the confessions were not questioned, it is illegitimate to complain that they predominantly were quoted and summarized. After all, the confessions have been accepted as faithful summaries of God’s Word.
    • 2.    Re Observation C, 2 (against the alleged wrong use of Art. 28, B.C., in judging the teachings of Rev. DeBruin).
      • It is wrong to suppose that the 1983 General Synod posited a narrow view of the church as though the only believers are in recognized, true and local churches. Together with the 1984 General Synod of Heemse of our Dutch sister-churches (cf. its “Uitspraak … inzake de leer van ds. Joh. Hoorn over artikel 28 NGB”), we reject such a narrow view. The summary of arti­cle 28, B.C., as given by the 1983 General Synod of Cloverdale accented the norms which apply to the believers and which Christ maintains in gather­ing His church.
      • The appellants correctly state that the terms “congregatio” and ” coetus” in article 28, Belgic Confession, are used interchangeably for variety and can be seen as describing two aspects of the one church-gathering work.
      • The reference to the third question in the Form for Adult Baptism has been answered above (cf. Consideration A, 3, g).
    • 3.     Re Observation C, 3 (against Arts. 165, C, 6 and 166, C, 5 of the 1983 General Synod).
      • The appellants, by improper implications, draw wrong conclusions from Art. 166, C, 1. This is clear from Art. 166, C, 3.
      • That the Canadian Reformed Churches have joined the International Con­ference of Reformed Churches does not mean we believe a plurality of churches as described in the “hand-out” (see esp. pp. 9-11). This is a conference of Reformed member-churches who have recognized each other’s confessional and church-governmental standards. One of the pur­poses of this conference is “to encourage the fullest ecclesiastical fellowship among the member-churches.” Thus there is no acceptance of the concept of a plurality of churches.
    • 4.    Re Observation C, 4 (against the considerations of Art . 165, 166 of the 1983 General Synod, since this General Synod stated that Rev. S. DeBruin did not break his ordination vows).
      • This consideration (Art. 166, C, 6) has indeed caused confusion, as is also apparent from the other appeals on this matter. Since the 1983 General Synod of Cloverdale gave no further explanation of this consideration, one can only go by the literal text itself. This text in itself is indeed inconsistent. To nullify or undermine the confessions is indeed to attack them; and not to break one’s pledge in the Subscription Form means that one keeps to the confessions. One cannot maintain both. After saying that some statements and teachings of Rev. S. DeBruin are to be rejected, this con­sideration should not have gone on to retract this declaration by stating that this “does not necessarily mean launching an attack on the confession.”
    • 5.    Re Observation C, 5 (against the first sentence of Art. 166, C, 6 of the 1983 General Synod).
      • That “some statements and teachings of Rev. S. DeBruin are to be rejected ” is indeed vague, though some references to these teachings may be found in the previous considerations of Acts, Arts. 165, 166 of the 1983 General
      • Synod. Specific errors should have been mentioned, so that the consistory could also have exercised proper supervision of the doctrine of its minister.
      • The 1983 General Synod attempted to uphold the name of Rev. DeBruin in Art . 166, C, 6 by stating, “yet it cannot be said that he attacks the con­fessions and has thereby broken the promise given when he signed the Subscription Form for ministers of the Word.”

V.    FURTHER CONSIDERATIONS

  • A.    Pastoral Considerations.
    • 1.     The consistory of the Immanuel Church at Edmonton wrongly lays the blame totally on the 1983 General Synod decisions for the confusion and damage done to the congregation there. It is nevertheless imperative that this General Synod speak clearly in order to restore and preserve “the peace of Jerusalem” (cf. also the appeals of J. Werkman, H. DeJong, T.& M. Vander­ Zyl. and H. Noot).
    • 2.    The supporting materials of the appeal from the Immanuel Church at Ed­monton as well as some of the appeals of persons from Edmonton reveal how these issues cause deep divisions. From these documents we discern two opposing and hostile factions.
    • These factions seem to feed on each others’ weaknesses and extremes. For example, the “hand-out” uses belligerent and antagonistic language (accusations against church-members for being isolationistic, ignorant. loveless. weak in faith, dishonouring Christ. and being theological nitpickers –   cl. pp. 2-3). On the other hand, some appellants counter with such terms as devious doctrine , unrighteousness, and accursed heresy. There is a need for all concerned to exercise restraint and humility; for recognition of one another as brothers in Christ: for respect of the office-bearers; and for priestly and pastoral edifications of the body of Christ, as we are taught for example in Gal. 6:1-6.
  • B.    Church Political Considerations.
    • 1.     It is the task of the consistory/council to supervise the doctrine and life of its minister(s) as well as of the elders and deacons to ensure that the office­ bearers maintain their pledge when they signed the Subscription Form . The consistory  also has the task to discipline any office-bearer  who impenitent­ly contradicts the Scripture or the confessions.
    • 2.    It is the task of the classis to ensure that the ministers maintain what they pledged at classis by their subscription to the Scriptures and the confes­sions. Maintenance of the Scripture and confessions should also be an im­portant point on the agenda of the church visitors appointed by the classis.
    • 3.     It is not in the jurisdiction of the general synod to do what a consistory and classis should do. A general synod cannot exercise discipline over office• bearers who contradict their subscription to the Scripture and the Three Forms of Unity, but it can and should decide ii certain doctrinal matters con­tradict the Subscription Form or not.
  • C.    Doctrinal Considerations.
    • 1.     Re the confession about the church.
      • Scripture and the confessions  speak about the church in a general way and a more specific way. On the one hand, there is the general aspect of Christ’s work of gathering all those whom the Father has given Him and whom He regenerates. This gathering-work of Christ is broader than the local, true churches. It is therefore  within the bounds of Scripture and the confessions to say concerning the holy, catholic church that it is the gathering of those who are chosen and by regeneration are ingrafted into Him. Calvin calls this the church as God sees it, cf. Eph. 1, 5:32; Col. 1:10, 24; Art. 27, Belgic Confession;
      • Lord’s Day 21 (Q. & A. 54). There is also the more specific aspect of the holy, catholic church as it is gathered locally by Christ in true churches, in the unity of the true faith, according to the norms to which we are bound for the gathering of the church. Although Scripture and the confessions place the church-gathering work of Christ on the foundation of God’s decree of election, of which regeneration is a fruit, this does not mean that they teach that election and regeneration as God’s invisible work are now the norm for the gathering of the church (Deut. 29: 29). The norm is and remains what God’s Word teaches, namely, that Christ gathers it in the unity of the true faith, according to the marks of the true church. When Art. 27, B.C.. speaks about the holy, catholic church as congregation and assembly of the true Christian believers, this church is gathered locally by Christ – the word “ec­clesia” indicates a visible assembly of believers. These believers are bound to the norms which Christ has given regarding the gathering of His  church, cf. Arts. 28, 29 of the Belgic Confession. By taking election not only as their starting point but also as their norm, the appellants  neglect the true norms for the gathering of the church as confessed in Art. 29, B.C., and they also neglect the norms for church membership as pointed out in Art. 28 of the Belgic Confession and in L.D. 21 (54) with the words, “by His Spirit and Word in the unity of  the  true faith”  (cf. John 17:20; Acts 2:42; I John  1: 3: II John 9-11; Ill John 5-8).
    • 2.     Re The Plurality of the Churches.
      • When Scripture speaks of churches in the plural, it speaks of a plurality of local, true churches (e.g. Rev. 2 & 3). A plurality of churches does not mean a plurality of differing beliefs and confessions. Christ does not work for a plurality in the latter sense, but for unity and purity. For example. Christ  in His seven letters maintains the purity of doctrine, calls for godliness of life, and exercises  discipline against  some churches, even  warning  one that  if it does not repent, He will remove the  lampstand .  When Rev. DeBruin  in his “hand-out” applies the term “plurality,” he applies it to different local churches within different denominations or church groups (p. 10, cf. Observation E, 6). This is a consequence  of his use of election and regeneration as a starting point for his definition of the church. Since, according to him, regenerated people reside in various “churches” and “church federations” and thus have various confessions, he consequently arrives at this conclu­sion. But thereby the norms for the church, as we read them in Christ’s seven letters, and as confessed in Art. 29, Belgic Confession, and in Q. & A. 54, Heidelberg Catechism (“in the unity of the true faith ” ) are again neglected, and the congregation becomes confused.
    • 3.     Re The Communion of Saints.
      • The Apostles’ Creed further characterizes the church as the communion of saints. The Heidelberg Catechism explains this communion of saints as having two sides. There is the participation in Christ, which makes the com­munion of saints a gift, and there is the fellowship of believers who are to be a hand and foot for each other. This latter aspect shows that the com­munion of saints is a normative description of the church. In order to be gathered, defended and preserved, the church is bound to Christ’s norms, and these same norms apply to the communion of saints, cf. Arts . 28, 29, Belgic Confession. The communion of saints must be exercised and has to function there where the true church of our Lord Jesus Christ is gathered in the unity of the true faith.
      • Rev. S. DeBruin and the consistory of the Immanuel Church at Edmonton state that the communion of saints “is as broad as the holy, catholic church,” defining the church as those who are elected and regenerated, i.e. saints, who are by faith ingrafted into Christ. Rev. S. DeBruin also states that the “communion of saints is not just a legal relationship or entity, but it must also be (and become) a functioning relationship” (“hand-out” , p g. 12). These views do not take into consideration that the gathering of local, true church­es is essential to the gathering of the holy, catholic church. Thus Articles 28-32 of the Belgic Confession are again neglected.

VI.  RECOMMENDATIONS

On the basis of the above considerations , General Synod decides,

  • 1.    that the explanations and applications (as pointed out in the above consider­ations) of Rev. S. DeBruin, as supported by the consistory of the Immanuel Church at Edmonton, concerning:
    • the confession about the church
    • the issue of the plurality of the churches
    • and the confession about the communion of saints
    • are not in harmony with the Scripture and the Three Forms of Unity, and are therefore to be rejected;
  • 2.     that Art. 166, Consideration 6, of the Acts of the 1983 General Synod of Clover­ dale was inconsistent and is hereby rescinded:
  • 3.    that the appeal of the Canadian Reformed Church (Immanuel) at Edmonton is hereby answered. General Synod beseeches all the office-bearers of the Immanuel Church at Ed­monton to bring their views, their preaching, teaching and ruling in harmony with the Scriptures and the Three Forms of Unity, and thus in line with their or­dination vows and their signature under the Subscription Form.

The recommendations are ADOPTED .