Office Bearers | GS 2007 art 172

27 Oct GS 2007 art 172

Posted at 16:28h in CanRC, GS 2007 by Roy Janssen

GS 2007 Article 172 – SCBP – Other Matters Dealing with Changes in the Book of Praise

The advisory committee presented its proposal:

1. Material

1.1 SCBP Report 13
1.2-7 Letters from the following six churches:
- London, Carman West, Fergus Maranatha, Orangeville, Fergus North, Ottawa

2. Observations

2.1 The committee, in keeping with its mandate to be the address to which any correspondence regarding the Book of Praise can be directed, submits several proposals for changes.
2.2 Lord’s Day 27, Answer 74, “… adults. Therefore, by baptism… they must be grafted into the Christian church.”
- 2.2.1 The committee notes that here the image of “grafting” is used, which probably has been taken from John 15. This gives the impression that a foreign element is included. The original German text is slightly different: “they, by baptism, as the sign of the covenant, also must be incorporated in the Christian church and from the children of unbelievers distinguished.” Here the difference is made between “belonging” to the covenant, and being “incorporated” in the covenant. The word “belonging” indicates the status, while the words “being incorporated” refers to the action that makes the status official. Children of believers are from the beginning in God’s covenant. However, through baptism they are officially included in the covenant and registered as such.
- 2.2.2 The committee therefore proposes to use the word “incorporated” rather than “grafted,” reflecting the original text.
- 2.2.3 The committee notes that if the above proposal is adopted, then the phrase “by baptism ingrafted into” in the form for the excommunication of communicant members (2nd line of the first announcement and 3rd line of the second announcement) should then be changed to “by baptism incorporated into.”
2.3 Proposed phrasing of Lord’s Day 37, A. 102 (13.2 of report):
- 2.3.1 The committee opines that the current phrasing “calling upon God” is linguistically problematic. This phrasing was compared with the original German while also proper language flow in English was considered. A literal translation does not work in this instance. In addition, the committee is of the opinion that the last line also requires changing. As it stands, “creature” receives the emphasis while the intention is to emphasize “honour.” The committee recommends that synod adopt the reworded Answer 102: “No, for a legitimate oath is an appeal to God, who alone knows the heart, to testify to the truth, and to punish me if I swear falsely. This honour does not belong to any creature.”
- 2.3.2 London is not convinced of the argument of the committee. The confessions, whose language and content is on the hearts and lips of the members of the churches, should only be changed when there is good and convincing reason to do so.
- 2.3.3 Fergus Maranatha opines that our current formulation is adequate and need not be changed. In fact “calling upon God” is preferred over “an appeal to God” and is more in line with the previous question and answer.
- 2.3.4 Orangeville is not in favour of the committee’s proposal to change the last line of the answer to “This honour does not belong to any creature” since this proposal removes the emphasis from the fact that no creature is worthy of such honour.
2.4 Proposed changes to the Lord’s Supper form (13.3 of report):
- 2.4.1 Regarding the paragraph, “From the beginning… eternally. By His perfect obedience He has fulfilled for us all the righteousness of God’s law. He did so especially when the weight of our sins and the wrath of God pressed out of Him the bloody sweat in the Garden of Gethsemane”:
  - 2.4.1.1 the committee opines that in the phrase “fulfilled for us all” the word “all” refers to the righteousness of God’s law and should not be read as “us all.” The committee recommends that synod adopt the following as a better formulation: “He has for us fulfilled all the righteousness of God’s law.”
  - 2.4.1.2 London and Carman West point out that the committee’s proposed phrasing “He has for us fulfilled all the righteousness of God’s law” has already been incorporated in the latest edition of the Book of Praise. Carman West suggests either “He has fulfilled all the righteousness of God’s law for us” or “He has fulfilled for us all the righteousness of God’s law.”
- 2.4.2 Regarding the phrase “He did so especially when the weight…”:
  - 2.4.2.1 The committee opines that this phrase gives the wrong impression that ‘fulfilling the righteousness of God’s law’ is limited to Christ’s suffering. The committee therefore recommends that synod adopt the following formulation: “We remember in particular that the weight of our sins and the wrath of God pressed out of Him His sweat like drops of blood falling to the ground in the Garden of Gethsemane.”
  - 2.4.2.2 Carman West opines that the phraseology “the weight of our sins and the wrath of God” sounds as if there are two distinct elements involved in the burden that Christ bore. The connection could be made stronger by this phraseology: “We remember in particular that the weight of the wrath of God caused by our sins pressed out of Him…” This would be consistent with Answer 17 of the Heidelberg Catechism which speaks of “the burden of God’s wrath,” and with Answer 37 which indicates that “Christ bore in body and soul the wrath of God against the sin of the whole human race.”
- 2.4.3 Regarding the adverb “innocently”: The committee opines that in the statement, “He was innocently condemned to death that we might be acquitted at the judgment seat of God,” the adverbial form “innocently” is not correct. The committee recommends that synod adopt the following solution as this best captures the original meaning: “Though innocent, He was condemned to death that we might be acquitted at the judgment seat of God.”
- 2.4.4 Regarding the structure of the paragraphs:
  - 2.4.4.1 The committee reports that while studying this section it was also discovered that where it reads (top of p. 597): “First of all, let us…” it is not anywhere followed by “Secondly” to complete the thought. In the original German version it essentially reads as follows: “We are to remember in the following manner first of all.” In this way it can exist without a “secondly.” This can best be corrected by altering the paragraph structure slightly as follows: “(Par.1) Let us now consider… (Par.2) First of all, let us fully trust… (Par.3) We remember in particular that the weight…” The committee recommends that synod adopt the above paragraph restructuring.
  - 2.4.4.2 London feels that the committee’s analysis is wrong. The point is not that there needs to be a “secondly” to complete the thought, but that the “first of all” is to direct our primary focus on the promises of the Old Testament, that Christ is the fulfilment of those promises, and that we are to have complete trust in that. The final paragraph deals with the suffering of Christ, and should not be truncated, with part placed in the second paragraph, and the rest in the final paragraph. The current division is correct: the one paragraph describes how Christ fulfilled the Old Testament promises and became true man; the other paragraph describes the nature and extent of Christ’s sufferings.
- 2.4.5 Regarding the section on Assurance:
  - 2.4.5.1 The committee states that this section has a problematic expression in that the words “and He declared, saying” indicate that what follows is a literal quote of the Lord Jesus when in fact it is not. The committee suggests that if the statements from the gospel of Matthew are inserted this difficulty is avoided. The committee therefore recommends
    - 2.4.5.1.1 To adopt the reworked formulation of the section on Assurance as follows: “In order that we might firmly believe that we belong to this covenant of grace, the Lord Jesus Christ instituted the holy supper during His last Passover. While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to His disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is My body.” Then He took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.” That means: As often as you eat this bread and drink from this cup, you are reminded and assured of My hearty love and faithfulness toward you.”
    - 2.4.5.1.2 To add the marginal reference of Mt 26:26-28.
  - 2.4.5.2 Fergus North agrees that the current wording in the section on Assurance is problematic, but opines that the proposed change (13.3.3.1) goes too far in that it virtually repeats the earlier section on the institution of the Lord’s Supper. The church at Fergus North suggests the following (changed wording in italics): “In order that we might firmly believe that we belong to this covenant of grace, the Lord Jesus Christ during His last Passover instituted the holy supper. He gave the bread and the cup to His disciples in remembrance of Him, so that as often as you eat this bread and drink from this cup, you are reminded and assured of Hishearty love and faithfulness toward you…”(change the rest of the first person pronouns in this section to the third person pronoun in order that people understand that this is not a scriptural quote from the Lord).
2.5 Introduction to the Form for Public Profession of Faith (13.4)
2.5.1 The committee notes that the Form for the Baptism of Adults has an introductory explanation and that this form contains a section “Public Profession of Faith” for use by those who are baptized as adults. The Form for Public Profession of Faith, however, has no such introduction. The committee recommends that in order to make it clear that this form is intended only for those that were baptized as infants, the following introduction be adopted to the Form for the Public Profession of Faith: (Prior to admission to the Lord’s Supper, those who were baptized as infants must be thoroughly instructed in the Christian doctrine. After having confessed this doctrine before the elders, they may publicly profess their faith, for which the following form shall be used.)
2.5.2 The church at Fergus Maranatha says it has no objections to these introductions, but suggests that to be consistent it should be done for all forms.
2.5.3 The church at Fergus North does not agree with the addition of the introduction since:
2.5.3.1 The form itself has a long history of use in the churches.
2.5.3.2 None of the churches have requested such an introduction.
2.5.3.3 The form itself refers to the prior baptism form. Hence there is no reason to add an introduction to make this issue more clear.
2.5.3.4 If the words of the introduction are strictly enforced, there would be no opportunity for those who are mentally handicapped to profess their faith since many of them cannot be “thoroughly instructed in the Christian doctrine” but may still be able to profess a simple and childlike faith in Christ.
2.6 Correction of Misprints
2.6.1 Correction needing approval of synod: The committee recommends that synod adopt the following proposed change in the Book of Praise: p. Page 459, BC Art. 25: “to order our life in all honour” should be “to order our life in all honesty.” The original edition read: “tout honneur,” but as result of the Dordrecht revision, it became: “toute honestete,” which is clearly intended.
2.6.2 Corrections already provided to the printer. The committee notes for information a number of corrections that have already been provided to the printer, particularly since quite a number have to do with our confessions:
2.6.2.1 Page v of the Preface, the last sentence, “Except for the Nicene Creed,” is no longer true, since the language of the Nicene Creed has also been updated in the 1998 edition.
2.6.2.2 Page viii of the Preface, Under Hypoionian: Ps 99 needs to be added.
2.6.2.3 Page 453, BC Art. 18: “of the seed of Abraham”, for consistency this should be followed by the text: (Gal 3:16)
2.6.2.4 Page 460, BC Art. 26: not as quoted. Heb 4:14,15 should be Heb 4:14-16 2.6.2.5 Page 470, BC Art. 35: the text reference should be to 1 Cor 11 rather than 1 Cor 10.
2.6.2.6 Page 594, the text in the margin at top of the page should be 1 Pet 5:10,11
2.6.2.7 Page 535, Canons of Dort I, 9: should read “or any other good quality or disposition.” It currently is of.
2.6.2.8 Page 631, Form for the Ordination of Elders and Deacons, about the middle of the page, there is a sentence, which reads: To each was contributed according to need. The verb should read, “distributed.” Note that the bottom of the same page correctly states, “They shall gather and manage the offerings and distribute them in Christ’s Name, according to need.”
2.6.2.9 Page 655, third paragraph, 4th line, Introduction to the Church Order, the word Oder should be spelled Order.
2.7 Ottawa expresses appreciation for the improvements to the Lord’s Supper form, both with regards to the actual text of Matthew, and the clarifying language in this form (13.3). This church further notes that in general the age of our forms is beginning to show: they could benefit from an overall updating.

3. Considerations

3.1 re 2.2 – The committee’s suggestion is convincing.
3.2 re 2.3 –
- 3.2.1 the wording “a calling upon God” treats the verb “to call” as a noun. As such, though not wrong, it is linguistically awkward. The “calling upon God” is more in line with the previous Lord’s Day which is also about the third commandment. London is correct in stating that the wording of the confessions should not easily be changed.
- 3.2.2 The committee’s suggestion that “honour” should receive the emphasis in the last line of A. 102 is not convincing. The answer as a whole highlights the vast difference between God and creatures, and thus our current formulation is adequate.
3.3 re 2.4.2 – Carman West gives a good recommendation.
3.4 re 2.4.3 – The committee’s proposal is sound.
3.5 re 2.4.4 – As the church at London says, the current division is correct: the one paragraph describes how Christ fulfilled the Old Testament promises and became true man; the other paragraph describes the nature and extent of Christ’s sufferings.
3.6 re 2.4.5 – the committee’s phraseology is less awkward and more suitable than that of Fergus North; yet neither are entirely satisfactory.
3.7 re 2.5 – Fergus North and Fergus Maranatha have valid points.
3.8 re 2.6.1 – the committee’s proposal is sound.

4. Recommendation

Synod decide:

4.1 To adopt the proposal as found in observation 2.2.2 and 2.2.3.
4.2 To not adopt the proposals of the committee in observation 2.3.1.
4.3 To adopt the proposal of the committee in 2.4.1.1.
4.4 To adopt the proposal of Carman West in 2.4.2.2.
4.5 To adopt the proposal of the committee in 2.4.3.
4.6 To not adopt the proposal of the committee in 2.4.4.1.
4.7 To not adopt the proposal of the committee in 2.4.5.1.1.
4.8 To not adopt the proposal of the committee in 2.5.1.
4.9 To approve the corrections in 2.6.

ADOPTED

Print page