The Organic Relationship of All Things

To understand the doctrine of the antithesis in the Reformed creeds, we must first have before our minds the organic idea. When we speak of the organic idea, we refer to God’s creation of all things especially in the light of God’s counsel regarding man. It is election and reprobation that cut through the generations of man and separate the world into two parties: the party of God’s friends and the party of God’s enemies. The organic idea permeates the entire Bible. In fact, one cannot understand scripture whatsoever without a sound understanding of this organic idea.

The original principle of the organic idea is found in article 12 of the Belgic Confession.

We believe that the Father, by the Word, that is, by His Son, hath created of nothing the heaven, the earth, and all creatures as it seemed good unto Him, giving unto every creature its being, shape, form, and several offices to serve its Creator; that He doth also still uphold and govern them by His eternal providence and infinite power for the service of mankind, to the end that man may serve his God. (Confessions and Church Order, 34–35)

The creation was and still is one organic whole that has its central point of life in the heart of man. As created, man stands before God as prophet, priest, and king. These are the “several offices” that God gave to man. Indeed, all creatures serve God the creator. This is God’s purpose with the creature. And all creatures are for the service of man to the end that man may serve his God.

When man according to the good pleasure of God fell into sin, this did not change the essential organic unity of all things with God’s purpose of government by his eternal providence and infinite power. Man’s fall into sin introduced no interruption to the control of God’s power, which upholds, works through, and rules all things. Eternally it was not the will of God that man should rightly function in his offices of prophet, priest, and king; but rather it was the will of God that man should suppress God’s truth, consecrate all things to man, and rule for himself. By means of the fall, man organically became God’s enemy. But God’s grace, out of the same original organism, destroyed the enmity in the heart of man through Jesus Christ. What then is the result of the division of sin and grace? The antithesis. After the fall, man continued to develop in opposition to the original creation ordinance and opposed those who bear the fruits of regeneration. On the one hand, there are the elect, those who are chosen in Christ from the foundation of the world, merely of grace, that they should be God’s friend-servants in the midst of the world. On the other hand, there are the reprobate, those who are appointed to wrath in eternity, that they should be God’s enemies in the world.

Dr. Abraham Kuyper gave expression to the organic-antithetical view in connection with the elect-reprobate world in this way:

God first makes this organism a part of all created things. Then it finds its higher expression in the world of mankind, as the noblest part of the entire work. Further, through sin the world changes into an instrument that is deliberately used against God. And finally, through Christ, it becomes both a false and a true organism, of which the first must be put down and the other must be placed over it…

That is the reason why sometimes I find the world in the service of God, and at other times I hear it spoken of as an organically formed power that stands opposed to God…This is all in harmony with what Jesus and His apostles have in mind. The judgment of the curse rests upon that sham world that must be put down, but the entire world is upheld so that the nucleus of the organism of the world may be saved and glorified. Thus it appears, on the one hand, that Jesus is the Savior of the world, but on the other hand, that He says, “I pray not for the world”…At one time, “I am the light of the world,” and on another occasion, “The world cannot see me.” Or if you will, in one place, “The Lamb of God that bears the sin of the world,” and in another place, “I have overcome the world!”…

When Scripture speaks of the large Christian organism, which we call the mystical body of Jesus, or the living church, as it still lives in this present world, then the church stands diametrically opposed to the world. Then the world hates her, and she must fight the world. She must be crucified to the world, and the world to the church. It is a life and death struggle, a struggle that must and will end with the world subdued by the church, condemned by it, and conquered through Jesus…

And, conversely, Scripture points out that in that church the nucleus of the world is saved. God’s plan, which appeared to be defeated through sin, still continues and comes out right, and the organism of the world, though from a different point of view, still operates as God had intended…Then, obviously, we see the opposite: that the world is not judged, but is saved; not conquered, but rescued; not damned, but reconciled.¹

Thus you have the organic idea as it is found on every page of scripture as a permeating theme and an interpretive rule that forms the basis of the doctrine of the antithesis.

The Sharp Divide

The Reformed creeds share the viewpoint above. Though they do not contain a section on the antithesis per se, the Reformed creeds speak from the viewpoint of predestination, of God’s counsel governing all things, and thus upon the antithetical position that the Christian must have over against the world.

It is very evident that the creeds approach the matter of doctrine as black and white. The Reformed creeds insist on the truth positively and necessarily condemn the lie negatively. Especially the Canons of Dordt is divided this way. There is always an antithesis. The truth on the one hand, the lie on the other. Lord’s Day 11 is a perfect example. The question is asked, “Do such then believe in Jesus the only Savior, who seek their salvation and welfare² of saints, of themselves, or anywhere else?” (Confessions and Church Order, 95). The beginning of the Lord’s Day positively sets forth Jesus as a complete savior. Jesus alone saves us and delivers us from sin so completely that salvation cannot come in any other way. But it is not enough to say that. The Heidelberg Catechism goes further. The Catechism brings us to another question about which many of us do not dare to think. There are many who say that we may not judge others, especially someone’s personal faith. They say that if someone says that he believes in Jesus, even that Jesus is a complete savior, then that one is a Christian. The Catechism says no sir. The creed demands a doctrinal judgment upon a person’s own confession and life. When men say that they believe in Jesus but insist that they are saved in the way of obedience, that their acts of faith precede God’s blessing, or that they must do something to be saved, then they deny that Jesus is a complete savior! How so? They seek their salvation in something other than Jesus Christ. The Catechism therefore calls them unbelievers. On the basis of this Lord’s Day, dear reader, would you say that to your Protestant Reformed family members and friends? The antithesis between the truth and the lie, between the true Christ and the false Christ, demands that we make this our public confession for God’s glory.

Appeal is made to Canons 3–4.15 to support the false idea that we may not judge other professing Christians. Men say that the Reformed confessions teach us not to condemn other Christians and other denominations. Let us hear the article in question. The article reads,

With respect to those who make an external profession of faith and live regular lives, we are bound, after the example of the apostle, to judge and speak of them in the most favorable manner. For the secret recesses of the heart are unknown to us. (Confessions and Church Order, 169)

Who does the Canons have in mind here? “Those who make an external profession of faith and live regular lives.” First, we must agree that there is no contradiction in the three forms of unity. The Canons cannot say something different than the Heidelberg Catechism and the Belgic Confession. The forms are all one united whole. If the Canons says that we must “judge and speak of them in the most favorable manner,” and the Catechism calls us to pass a sharp judgment upon those who boast of Jesus in words but are in fact unbelievers, then we cannot posit a contradiction between the two Reformed symbols. We must say therefore that the Canons have in mind here the man who outwardly professes the Reformed faith as it is summarized in the three forms of unity. This fact can be demonstrated from the context of the Canons, which was dealing with the heresy of the Arminians. Do not forget that the Canons was written primarily against members, pastors, theologians, and teachers who were all in the same denomination, so to speak. The men at the Synod of Dordt were not attacking the lie as it was “out there” but as it was in the midst of their own Reformed churches. The Canons was not bound to speak of the Arminians “in the most favorable manner.” While indeed “the secret recesses of the heart are unknown to us,” it is also true that out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks (Luke 6:45). What was spoken out of the mouths of the Arminians? Was it the truth? They professed their faith, but their faith was the faith of the devil. Their faith was exactly what the Heidelberg Catechism calls false faith, for the Arminians indeed boasted of Jesus in words, but their entire system of doctrine was a complete denial of Jesus. Throughout the creed, the Canons describes the lie of the opponents as “a fancy of men’s minds,” “injurious error,” “untrue,” “the teaching of Pelagius,” “opposed to the doctrine of the apostle,” “repugnant to the entire Scripture,” “absurd,” “despising of the wisdom of the Father and of the merits of Jesus Christ,” bringing “again out of hell the Pelagian error,” “destructive poison,” and “the denial of all the efficiency of God’s grace.” The Reformed creeds set forth the truth antithetically over against the lie and condemn not only the lie but also the persons who believe that lie.

The Concrete Application

The Belgic Confession states that our church membership has practical bearing on those with whom we have fellowship. According to article 28 of the Confession, it is the duty of all believers to “separate themselves from all those who do not belong to the church” (Confessions and Church Order, 61). The Confession has in mind a spiritual separation that God has already formed in the hearts of his elect, whereby the believer is crucified to the world, and the world is crucified to him. There are some who like to sound pious and say that you should not “cut people off” or “shun” people because they do not believe the same as you do. Such terms like cutting off and shunning are vividly harsh terms used to hyperbolize and even mock at the confessional calling to separate from those who do not belong to the true church. Of course, all would agree that we are separate from a church membership standpoint. They will say, “We are separating from those who do not belong to the church by having our church membership elsewhere.” How can the believer say that he is separate from his family or friends as far as his church membership is concerned, but as far as his communion, fellowship, and relationships with his family and friends in the false church that everything is hunky-dory? The Confession does not divide up our lives, but it simply states that “those who do not belong to the church” are those from whom believers are to “separate themselves.” The believer is called to manifest the separation that is already there. This is done concretely by the believer who refuses to pretend all is well with the people whom he knows do not belong to the true church. The separation spoken of here is not a carnal, physical separation, although often the antithesis works out in such a way that there is no physical contact between two parties after a time. How does the believer spiritually separate himself from those who do not belong to the church? He does this by unceasingly calling attention to why there is a separation. Furthermore, the believer says loudly to them, “You walk contrary to the ordinance of God, and outside the true church there is no salvation.” In a word, the believer calls his family and friends to repentance. By this antithetical testimony, the Christian has no fellowship with those in the false church but is really separate from them.

The antithetical calling in the creeds is not only negative; there is also a positive motivation behind the calling to separate. In Belgic Confession article 28, we find this phrase: “That this may be the more effectually observed” (Confessions and Church Order, 61). Over against the false church and the members thereof, the Christian is busy maintaining the unity of the church, submitting himself to the doctrine and discipline thereof, bowing his neck under the yoke of Christ, and serving to the mutual upbuilding and edification of the brethren. The Confession links the believer’s separation from the false church with his calling toward the true church. The Christian’s duties toward the true church are so entire and all-encompassing that he simply does not have the time, nor even the desire, to fellowship with those in the false church. His delight is with those who fear God!

In conclusion let us be exhorted to be diligent in observing our Christian calling with respect to the true church, to have no fellowship in doctrine or life with the false church and its members, and to persevere in the good fight of faith, confessing that all of this is God’s work alone in the hearts of his people.