24 Jul GS 2013 art 125

Posted at 16:03h in CanRC, GS 2013 by

GS 2013 Article 125 – Book of Praise – Confessions and Church Order

Committee 2 presented a proposal. With a few changes, this was the result:

1.         Material:

  • 1.1.      Report from the SCBP, Section 9.0 (8.2.4)
  • 1.2.      Letters from the churches at Grand Valley (8.3.4.1), Ancaster (8.3.4.7), Carman-West (8.3.4.12a), Cloverdale (8.3.4.14), Burlington-Ebenezer (8.3.4.15), Hamilton-Providence (8.3.4.25), Burlington-Rehoboth (8.3.4.30), Spring Creek (8.3.4.36 and 8.3.4.37) and Edmonton-Immanuel (8.3.4.44)

2.         Observations:

  • 2.1.      Heidelberg Catechism Preface/Introduction
    • 2.1.1.   Presently the introduction reads that the National Synods of the sixteenth century adopted the Heidelberg Catechism “as one of the Three Forms of Unity, …” The SCBP recommends (9.4 and 9.4.1) to change this to read: “The National Synods of the sixteenth century adopted it as one of the doctrinal standards of the Reformed Churches, …” The committee argues that this is more accurate historically since “the Three Forms of Unity did not exist at that time (the Canons of Dort were added in the 17th century).”
  • 2.2.      Heidelberg Catechism Answer 115
    • 2.2.1.   The SCBP recommends (9.4.2 and 9.4.3) a change in the second part of Answer 115 as follows: “Second, so that we may constantly apply ourselves and pray to God for the grace of the Holy Spirit to be renewed more and more after God’s image, until after this life we reach the goal of perfection.” The SCBP acknowledges that this is “more than a linguistic change” and explains its recommendation in more detail:
      • 2.2.1.1.            The SCBP has over the years received requests to change this part of Answer 115 and had also received advice from professors of the Theological Seminary to make the change it proposes.
      • 2.2.1.2.            The original German is somewhat ambiguous and this has led to Answer 115 being changed several times over the years.
      • 2.2.1.3.            The current formulation is problematic for several reasons: First, the order of the main verbs have been reversed, contrary to the original German; second, praying is now subordinate to striving, whereas in the original they stand side by side; third, the current formulation may give the impression that to be renewed after God’s image is our work because we have to strive to do it.
      • 2.2.1.4.            The ambiguity of the original German allows the striving to refer either to doing good works or being constant in prayer. The SCBP prefers to leave the original ambiguity rather than interpreting what we have to strive for.
      • 2.2.1.5.            The proposal of the SCBP also makes clear that it is the Holy Spirit who renews us. “We are applying ourselves, not renewing ourselves.”
    • 2.2.2.   The church at Ancaster recommends that Synod 2013 “retain the wording of Answer 115 as we presently have it.” Ancaster argues that:
      • 2.2.2.1.            “it is not that the order of main verbs is reversed [in the current wording] but that one of the two is identified as the key verb. The current version takes its cue from the German, in which … the verb ‘pray’ belongs to a parenthetical expression and therefore has a subordinate and supplementary role. … In short, it is not a matter of incorrectly reversing the order of verbs but of effectively using a participle to prevent any confusion about what the original German seeks to convey.” And: “when it makes the praying subordinate to the striving, the current version seeks to do full justice to the original German text and at the same time renders it unnecessary to perpetuate any unintended ambiguity.”
      • 2.2.2.2.            “Answer 115 does not say that we must strive to renew ourselves but that we must strive ‘to be renewed.’”
    • 2.2.3.   The church at Cloverdale proposes that “the present wording of this question and answer should be retained.” Cloverdale argues that the amendment proposed by the SCBP “does not constitute an improvement. Even grammatically, it is problematic.” And: “we find that the proposed revision is ambiguous and confusing; the present wording is good.”
    • 2.2.4.   The church at Hamilton-Providence is not in agreement with the recommendation of the SCBP regarding Answer 115. Hamilton-Providence argues that “fidelity to Scripture is far more important than fidelity to the German original of the Catechism.” And: “We would rather have a clear expression of what the Bible teaches than an ambiguous rendering of the German original.”
    • 2.2.5.   The church at Spring Creek asks Synod 2013 “to take this entire matter of revising Answer 115 of the Catechism off the table.” Spring Creek argues that the SCBP has “exceeded its mandate,” and “appears to have taken this matter up on its own initiative,” pointing to the words of the SCBP: “we feel the time is right to have a look at Answer 115 again.”
    • 2.2.6.   The church at Edmonton-Immanuel recommends that Synod 2013 “not accede to the SCBP proposed change to Answer 115 HC.” Edmonton-Immanuel, like Cloverdale, argues that the proposed change is “too ambiguous … and that the current wording is clearer to understand and teach.” Further, it states that “the current wording also matches better the Canons of Dort Chapter V. Art.2, as well as the proof texts for that answer.”
    • 2.2.7.   The church at Grand Valley requests that Synod 2013 not adopt the proposed revision of Answer 115. Grand Valley argues that “the proposed revision makes it sound like we are to pray that the Holy Spirit is to be renewed when it is us who are to be renewed. Therefore the proposed revision is not an improvement.” Grand Valley goes on to provide a possible alternative revision.
  • 2.3.      Heidelberg Catechism Answer 4
    • 2.3.1.   The church at Carman-West proposes that the full reference to “Matthew 22.37-40” be provided in the text of Answer 4. Carman-West had interacted with the SCBP which decided not to take over this proposal. Carman-West argues for consistency: in other answers of the Catechism full references are included (e.g., Answers 10, 18, 71).
    • 2.3.2.   The SCBP had responded to Carman-West that “Matthew 22” (without the verse reference) is part of the original text of the Catechism and this was a common way to reference Scripture in the 16th century. The SCBP replied further that it was willing to put the full chapter-and-verse reference in a footnote after Lev.19.18. Carman-West is not satisfied and asks, “wouldn’t it be good for Catechism students to memorize this important Scripture reference?”
    • 2.3.3.   Carman-West recommends to Synod 2013: “Provide the full reference to Matthew 22.37-40 in Answer 4.”
  • 2.4.      Heidelberg Catechism Answer 10
    • 2.4.1.   The church at Carman-West proposes to replace the word “displeased” with “angry” in Answer 10. Carman-West had brought this to the attention of the SCBP, which did not take over this proposal. Carman-West had argued that the word “displeased” is too broad and is a “weaker term”; the word “angry” better reflects what is used in the original versions of the Catechism.
    • 2.4.2.   In response to Carman-West, the SCBP decided to retain the word “displeased” for the following reasons: the word “displeased” in Answer 10 is 1) now familiar to a couple of generation of catechism students, 2) not a mistranslation of the original and 3) found in other North American translations. With respect to the first point of the SCBP, Carman-West points out to Synod 2013: “Such an approach would essentially outlaw any improvements to the wording of the catechism.” With regards to the second point, Carman-West points out to Synod 2013: “while ‘displeased’ may not be a ‘mistranslation’ it is certainly not the best translation of the original.”
    • 2.4.3.   Carman-West recommends to Synod 2013: “Replace the word ‘displeased’ with the word ‘angry’ in Answer 10.”
  • 2.5.      Heidelberg Catechism Answer 23 and the Apostles’ Creed
    • 2.5.1.   The church at Carman-West had approached the SCBP to include the word “And” at the beginning of the second article of the Apostles’ Creed as found in Answer 23 of the Catechism: “And in Jesus Christ ….” Carman-West had argued that this is 1) consistent with the original versions of the Catechism and the original wording of the Apostles’ Creed and 2) “properly reflects the teaching of our Lord, who exhorted his disciples, ‘Trust in God; trust also in me’” (John 14.1).
    • 2.5.2.   The SCBP did not take over this proposal, reasoning: “Carman-West is correct that our translation of the Catechism is out of sync with the original at this point. But since our churches have decided to use, as a basis, the ICET texts of the ecumenical creeds, we should have consistency between the Apostles’ Creed, as printed in the ecumenical creeds section and the same Creed, as printed in the Catechism.” Carman-West remarks to Synod 2013 that the ICET text “besides overriding more than 1,500 years of ecclesiastical tradition … arbitrarily departs from the original formulation that is backed up by Scripture.” Further, Carman-West notes, “we do not follow the ICET text consistently anyway.” Carman-West is seeking a “correction back to the original wording on this point” in both places where the Apostles’ Creed appears in the Book of Praise: in Answer 23 of the Catechism and in the ecumenical creeds section of the Book of Praise.
    • 2.5.3.   Carman-West recommends to Synod 2013: “Restore the word ‘And’ at the beginning of the second article of the Apostles’ Creed as it is found in the original versions of the Catechism in Answer 23 and in the Apostles’ Creed.”
  • 2.6.      Heidelberg Catechism Answer 43
    • 2.6.1.   The church at Carman-West had asked the SCBP to consider replacing the word “death” in Answer 43 with the word “power”: “Through Christ’s power our old nature is crucified.” Carman-West had argued to the SCBP that “power” is found in the original German and Dutch versions of the Catechism, whereas the word “death” had come through a preference for the Latin version. Carman-West notes that by diverting from the original German and Dutch text of the Catechism, the parallel between Answer 43 and Answer 45 is lost (Answer 45: “Second, by his power we too are raised up to a new life”).
    • 2.6.2.   The SCBP responded to Carman-West that while both “through his death” and “by his power” are represented in the original and in the translations, there is no compelling reason to change this. Carman-West points out to Synod 2013 that the SCBP did not interact with its concern that “by diverting from the original German and Dutch text, the connection between Answer 43 and 45 is lost”; and is “puzzled as to why the committee is unwilling to budge on this point.”
    • 2.6.3.   Carman-West recommends to Synod 2013: “Replace the word ‘death’ in Answer 43 with the word ‘power,’ as found in the original German and Dutch versions of the Catechism.”
  • 2.7.      Heidelberg Catechism Answer 75 (A)
    • 2.7.1.   The church at Carman-West had suggested to the SCBP to insert the words “and broken” in Answer 75: “so surely was his body offered and broken for me.” Carman-West had argued that as it stands, Answer 75 is “incomplete, missing a few words that do occur in the original versions.”
    • 2.7.2.   The SCBP decided not to take over this suggestion, arguing from the Scriptures that Christ’s legs were not broken (John 19.33): “So to say in the HC that his body was broken for me, seems to contradict Scripture and does not instill confidence in the confession. Answer 75 is stronger without ‘and broken.’” Carman-West points out to Synod 2013 that the original text of the Catechism does not refer to Christ’s legs being broken, but his body, bringing to mind “how brutally his body was flogged and then nailed to the cross.” Carman-West finds it arbitrary “to depart from the original text without informing the churches about it. Following the committee’s line of reasoning, our Lord’s Supper form should then also be revised!” Further, Carman-West points out that the original wording of the Catechism has support in the majority of Greek manuscripts for 1 Corinthians 11.24 (cf. KJV).
    • 2.7.3.   Carman-West recommends to Synod 2013: “Restore the words ‘and broken’ to where they belong in Answer 75: ‘so surely was his body offered and broken for me.’”
  • 2.8.      Heidelberg Catechism Answer 75 (B)
    • 2.8.1.   The church at Carman-West suggested to the SCBP a change from “everlasting life” to “eternal life” in Answer 75. In the original languages, the same expression underlies both Answer 75 and 79 but is translated “eternal life” in Answer 79. Carman-West would like to see consistency, “since both answers deal with the Lord’s Supper.”
    • 2.8.2.   The SCBP decided to leave Answer 75 unchanged. It argued that our present English translation sees a more frequent variation in the translation of the original German expression (Lord’s Days 15, 16, 21, 23, 25, 28, 29). “There is indeed a slight inconsistency in translation here, but variety in translation is not wrong.” Carman-West does not agree and points out to Synod 2013 that “while variety in translation may not be wrong, it is very confusing for Catechism students when they have to memorize … unnecessary variations.” And: “We should … do what we can to avoid making memorizing … unnecessarily complicated.”
    • 2.8.3.   Carman-West recommends to Synod 2013: “For the sake of consistency and to enhance memorization, it is preferable to use the expression ‘eternal life’ both in Answers 75 and 79 of the Catechism.”
  • 2.9.      Heidelberg Catechism font size
    • 2.9.1.   The church at Burlington-Rehoboth recommends using the same font size for the Heidelberg Catechism as is used for the rest of the confessions, since this would improve legibility. The church at Spring Creek makes the same point, asking Synod to mandate the SCBP to investigate this matter.
  • 2.10.    Belgic Confession, Preface/Introduction and Article 3
    • 2.10.1. The SCBP requests (9.5 and 9.5.1) that Synod 2013 concur with its suggestion for three corrections to the Belgic Confession.
    • 2.10.1. The SCBP recommends to remove the word “symbolical” from the last line of the Preface/Introduction to the Belgic Confession (p.501, APV Book of Praise). The SCBP argues that while the word “symbolical” is derived from “symbol” as in “confession,” this meaning of the word has become obsolete and obscure. The final sentence would read: “Its excellence as one of the best statements of Reformed doctrine has been generally recognized.”
    • 2.10.2. The SCBP recommends to remove the words “In the following year” from the Preface/Introduction to the Belgic Confession since this reading is historically incorrect—it was the same year not the following year. The committee proposes to start the sentence with: “A copy was sent to King Philip II…”.
    • 2.10.3. The SCBP proposes to change the word “impulse” to “will” in Article 3 of the Belgic Confession: “…did not come by the impulse of man…” to read “…did not come by the will of man…”/ This would take care of some lingering RSV language (cf. 2 Pet 1.21).
  • 2.11.    Canons of Dort, Chapter 1, Rejection of Errors introduction
    • 2.11.1. The SCBP requests (9.6 and 9.6.1) that Synod 2013 concur with its suggestion to correct the error in the introductory words of the Rejection of Errors section of Chapter I of the Canons of Dort (on p.563, APV Book of Praise). The reference to “the perseverance of the saints” is incorrect and ought to be replaced with “election and reprobation.” Thus it should read: “Having explained the true doctrine of election and reprobation, Synod rejects the following errors…”.
  • 2.12     Church Order, Article 59
    • 2.12.1. The SCBP requests (9.7 and 9.7.1) that Synod 2013 concur with its correction of Article 59 of the Church Order. The word “engrafted” should be “incorporated”. This would bring the wording of the Church Order more in line with what Synod Smithers 2007 decided in Article 172 (when that Synod dealt with Answer 74 of the Heidelberg Catechism).

3.         Considerations:

  • 3.1.      Heidelberg Catechism Preface/Introduction
    • 3.1.1.   The correction of the SCBP to make the Preface/Introduction of the Catechism historically accurate is fully warranted. As the SCBP suggests, the relevant section should read: “The National Synods of the sixteenth century adopted it as one of the doctrinal standards of the Reformed Churches…”.
  • 3.2.      Heidelberg Catechism Answer 115
    • 3.2.1.   The SCBP acknowledges that in the matter of seeking a change of wording in Answer 115 it is proposing more than merely a linguistic change. In connection with this, the church at Spring Creek does not wish Synod 2013 to deal with the matter because it arises out of the SCBP and does not come from the churches. It could be noted that the SCBP had previously received requests to look into this. The mandate of the SCBP does not appear to be clear on the matter of what sort of requests the Committee is to consider and potentially make suggestions about to general synod. This matter should be clarified before going forward.
    • 3.2.2.   Of the churches which do address Synod 2013 with thoughts on the proposal of the SCBP, none are in favour of making changes to Answer 115. And one of the churches (Ancaster) comes with a well-argued endorsement of the present formulation of Answer 115, noting that the present Answer 115 more accurately reflects the original German, which apparently does not have the inherent ambiguity as the SCBP suggests. Therefore, since the desire for a change does not arise out of the churches to Synod 2013 and, in fact, the churches addressing Synod 2013 on this matter are fully in favour of the present formulation of Answer 115, there is no need to pursue the change proposed by the SCBP.
  • 3.3.      Heidelberg Catechism Answer 4
    • 3.3.1.   When the church at Carman-West recommends that Synod 2013 provide the full reference to “Matthew 22.37-40” in the body of Answer 4, it makes reference to other occasions where full Scripture references are found in the text of the Answers of the Catechism. However, there is a subtle difference: in the comparison Answers cited by Carman-West (Answers 10, 18, 71), the text references function much more like footnotes at the end of direct Scripture quotations. Such text references are brought into the body of these Answers (and not placed in footnotes) because of the direct Scripture quotations to which they are attached. Presumably, such references in parentheses attached to direct Scripture quotations are not for memorization purposes anymore than are the footnotes of the Catechism.
    • 3.3.2.   In Answer 4 the text reference Matthew 22 does not function as a footnote after a text, but in a more deliberate way to introduce a direct Scripture quotation. This text reference belongs in the wording of the Answer and has no footnote-like function. For memorization purposes this is also a much easier way to reference a Scripture text that must be memorized because it functions as part of the wording of the Answer.
    • 3.3.3.   In response to Carman-West’s concern about good memorization practice (i.e., include the full Scripture reference: “Matthew 22.37-40”), it seems that memorization practice was exactly what the authors of the catechism had in mind (i.e., keep it simple—“Matthew 22”). The church at Carman-West states elsewhere in its letter: “We should … do what we can to avoid making memorizing … unnecessarily complicated” (cf. last part of Observation 2.8.2 above).
  • 3.4       Heidelberg Catechism Answer 10
    • 3.4.1.   The church at Carman-West is correct that the word “displeased” in our Answer 10 is a broader and weaker term than the word “angry.” Carman-West is also correct to point out that while “displeased” is not a mistranslation of the original, it is certainly not the best translation of the original. The arguments of the SCBP against the suggestion of Carman-West are not convincing. “Angry” is preferable to “displeased”.
  • 3.5.      Heidelberg Catechism Answer 23 and the Apostles’ Creed
    • 3.5.1.   The SCBP was correct in pointing the church at Carman-West to what our churches have decided for the text of the Apostles’ Creed. This is not simply a matter of linguistic changes, with the SCBP going back to the original version and lining up with a 1500 year ecclesiastical tradition, but rather it is a matter the churches have previously given some careful and deliberate thought to and made decisions about (e.g. Synod Smithville 1980, Article 107). We have the ICET of the Apostles’ Creed as basis, with variations from the basis, by Synod decision and changes to the wording are not left to the SCBP. If Carman-West wishes to see a change, it should interact in the appropriate way with past Synod decisions.
    • 3.5.2.   The SCBP is correct to hold to the principle of consistency, so that the text of the Apostles’ Creed is the same in both Answer 23 of the Catechism and in the ecumenical creeds section of the Book of Praise.
  • 3.6.      Heidelberg Catechism Answer 43
    • 3.6.1.   The church at Carman-West has not given sufficient attention to the immediate context of the word “death” in Answer 43.
  • 3.7.      Heidelberg Catechism Answer 75 (A)
    • 3.7.1.   The church at Carman-West, pleading for the addition of the words “and broken”, cites 1 Corinthians11 as rendered in the KJV. The text of our Catechism is based on Synod-approved translations of Scripture which do not support that rendering.
  • 3.8.      Heidelberg Catechism Answer 75 (B)
    • 3.8.1.   In the case of preference between “everlasting life” and “eternal life” in Answer 75 of the Catechism, the SCBP is correct to point out that there is already variation throughout the Catechism: sometimes “everlasting life” and other times “eternal life.” However, it is worth noting what Carman-West points out, namely, both Answer 75 and Answer 79 have to do with the same subject matter (the Lord’s Supper) and this could warrant similar wording in both Answers. Since memorization of this part of the Catechism is complicated enough, it is warranted to avoid unnecessary variations that may make memorization of the Catechism unnecessarily complicated. “Eternal life” in both Answer 75 and 79 is preferable.
  • 3.9.      Heidelberg Catechism font size
    • 3.9.1.   Synod agrees with the recommendation of the churches at Burlington-Rehoboth and Spring Creek regarding font size. The SCBP should look into increasing the font size of the Heidelberg Catechism, to bring it into conformity with the font size of the other confessions in the Book of Praise.
  • 3.10.    Belgic Confession Preface/Introduction and Article 3
    • 3.10.1. The corrections presented by the SCBP for the Belgic Confession are all warranted and the changes should be made:
      • 3.10.1.1           The final sentence of the Preface/Introduction should be changed to: “Its excellence as one of the best statements of Reformed doctrine has been generally recognized.” The SCBP is correct to note that the word “symbolical” is not generally understood in the way in which it originally was meant here.
      • 3.10.1.2           In the Preface/Introduction to the Belgic Confession, the words “In the following year” should be removed and the relevant sentence begun with: “A copy was sent to King Philip II ….” This corrects a historical inaccuracy.
      • 3.10.1.3           In Article 3 of the Belgic Confession, the word “impulse” should be changed to “will” as the SCBP suggests in order to bring this in line with a previous Synod decision to use NIV (as well as the newly-adopted ESV) text and wording for the prose sections of the Book of Praise.
  • 3.11.    Canons of Dort, Chapter 1, Rejection of Errors introduction
    • 3.11.1. The SCBP should make the necessary correction so that the introductory words to the Rejection of Errors after Chapter 1 would read: “Having explained the true doctrine of election and reprobation, Synod rejects the following errors…” (emphasis added).
  • 3.12.    Church Order, Article 59
    • 3.12.1. The SCBP is correct to point to the decision of Synod Smithers 2007 when it suggests a change from “engrafted” to “incorporated” in Article 59 of the Church Order. What Synod Smithers 2007 decided with respect to the wording of Answer 74 of the Catechism would pertain also to the wording of Article 59. See also the Form for the Baptism of Adults which uses the word “incorporation” (p.590, Book of Praise).

4.         Recommendations:

That Synod decide:

  • 4.1.      Heidelberg Catechism
    • 4.1.1.   To adopt the recommendation of the SCBP to change the relevant sentence in the Preface/Introduction to read: “The National Synods of the sixteenth century adopted it as one of the doctrinal standards of the Reformed Churches…”
    • 4.1.2.   To not approve the proposal of the SCBP to change the wording of Answer 115;
    • 4.1.3.   To not approve the proposal of the church at Carman-West to include the full text reference “Matthew 22.37-40” in Answer 4;
    • 4.1.4.   To adopt the recommendation of Carman-West to change the word “displeased” to “angry” in Answer 10;
    • 4.1.5.   To not approve the recommendation of Carman-West to change the wording of the Apostles’ Creed in Answer 23 of the Catechism and in the ecumenical creeds section of the Book of Praise;
    • 4.1.6.   To not approve the recommendation of Carman-West to change the word “death” in Answer 43;
    • 4.1.7.   To not approve the recommendation of Carman-West to add the words “and broken” in Answer 75;
    • 4.1.8.   To adopt the recommendation of Carman-West to change the words “everlasting life” to “eternal life” in Answer 75;
    • 4.1.9.   To mandate the SCBP to increase the font size of the Heidelberg Catechism to make it the same as the other confessions;
  • 4.2.      Belgic Confession
    • 4.2.1.   To adopt the recommendation of the SCBP to remove the word “symbolical” from the Preface/Introduction;
    • 4.2.2.   To approve the correction of the historical inaccuracy in the Preface/Introduction as the SCBP proposes;
    • 4.2.3.   To adopt the recommendation of the SCBP to change the word “impulse” to “will” in Article 3 of the Belgic Confession;
  • 4.3.      Canons of Dort
    • 4.3.1.   To approve the SCBP’s correction of the introductory words to the Rejection of Errors after Chapter 1, to read “election and reprobation” instead of “the perseverance of the saints”;
  • 4.4.      Church Order Article 59
    • 4.4.1.   To adopt the recommendation of the SCBP to change “engrafted” to “incorporated” (Article 59 CO);
  • 4.5.      Mandate Clarification
    • 4.5.1.   To decide that all requests concerning factual errors, grammatical, typographical or other minor stylistic matters throughout the Book of Praise may be addressed by individuals or churches to the SCBP for their consideration and possible suggestion for change to a future synod. All requests concerning other changes to the contents of the Book of Praise (e.g. translation of confessions, changes to metrical psalms, rewording and rhyming of psalms and hymns, changes to liturgical forms) need to arise out of the churches in the ecclesiastical way, namely from consistory to classis to regional synod and general synod.

ADOPTED

Print page