# Question about the URCNA



## Hamalas (Feb 16, 2017)

I’ve got a question out there for my URCNA brothers. My understanding is that one of the distinctives of the URCNA is that all communing members (not just offices) are required to subscribe to the 3 Forms of Unity. So my question is two-fold:


1) Is that true?

2) If so, what are the reasons for such a requirement?


----------



## Guido's Brother (Feb 17, 2017)

I'm not URC, but since no else is answering and since I am familiar with them, I hope it's okay if I step in. 

In confessionally Reformed churches with a Dutch heritage like the URCNA (and CanRC and Free Reformed Churches of Australia), only the office bearers technically subscribe to the Three Forms of Unity. Regular members of the church do, however, express a verbal commitment to the TFU when they make public profession of faith. Our form says, "Do you wholeheartedly believe the doctrine of the Word of God, summarized in the confessions and taught here in this Christian church? Do you promise by the grace of God steadfastly to continue in this doctrine in life and death, rejecting all heresies and errors conflicting with God's Word?" 

The subscription form for office bearers is quite a bit more detailed.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## JOwen (Feb 17, 2017)

The same holds true for the Free Reformed Churches of North America, signed subscription to the 3FoU for office bearers, and verbal for confessing members. This is also the practice of the Heritage Reformed, Protestant Reformed, and Netherlands Reformed.


----------



## Jake (Feb 17, 2017)

How specific of an adherence is required? Is it generally accepting the system of doctrine of the church or would you need to mark out specific disagreements with the text as an officer would, even if its verbal?


----------



## Guido's Brother (Feb 17, 2017)

Jake said:


> How specific of an adherence is required? Is it generally accepting the system of doctrine of the church or would you need to mark out specific disagreements with the text as an officer would, even if its verbal?



I don't know how it would necessarily go in a URC, but in a CanRC or FRCA church, if someone has a difficulty with anything in the Three Forms of Unity, they would not do public profession of faith until they can find themselves in full agreement. So, for example, we would not admit a person holding Baptist views to communicant membership. We have "confessional membership," which means that our confessions express our unity in doctrine. This is why they are called "Three Forms *of Unity*." 

This was a point of discussion between the CanRC and OPC in the years leading up to full ecumenical relations between the two. Eventually an agreement was reached -- you can find it here if you're interested.


----------



## arapahoepark (Feb 18, 2017)

Guido's Brother said:


> I don't know how it would necessarily go in a URC, but in a CanRC or FRCA church, if someone has a difficulty with anything in the Three Forms of Unity, they would not do public profession of faith until they can find themselves in full agreement. So, for example, we would not admit a person holding Baptist views to communicant membership. We have "confessional membership," which means that our confessions express our unity in doctrine. This is why they are called "Three Forms *of Unity*."
> 
> This was a point of discussion between the CanRC and OPC in the years leading up to full ecumenical relations between the two. Eventually an agreement was reached -- you can find it here if you're interested.


So it would basically be the difference between a good faith subscription and a strict subscription?


----------



## timfost (Feb 18, 2017)

You could add the RCUS to the list...


----------



## Guido's Brother (Feb 19, 2017)

arapahoepark said:


> So it would basically be the difference between a good faith subscription and a strict subscription?



Not really. In neither case do we allow for exceptions. The difference is that office bearers promise to "diligently teach this doctrine and faithfully defend it without contradicting it publicly or privately in teaching or writing." They also promise to not only reject errors conflicting with Scripture (as do regular members), but also "to oppose, refute, and help prevent such errors." So the responsibilities in subscription are far greater -- that's the real difference.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## JOwen (Feb 21, 2017)

Guido's Brother said:


> Not really. In neither case do we allow for exceptions. The difference is that office bearers promise to "diligently teach this doctrine and faithfully defend it without contradicting it publicly or privately in teaching or writing." They also promise to not only reject errors conflicting with Scripture (as do regular members), but also "to oppose, refute, and help prevent such errors." So the responsibilities in subscription are far greater -- that's the real difference.



Same in the FRCNA.


----------



## mvdm (Feb 21, 2017)

Our Synod 2014 received a report and adopted affirmations regarding the level of doctrinal commitment required for membership. From the report, the URCNA distinguishes between "assent" to the standards vs. "subscription" to the standards:


“assent to the confessions of our churches” is not the same thing
as confessional subscription. Our forms and practice understand that there is
a qualitative difference in the level of doctrinal understanding between the
office-bearers, who literally _subscribe _their names to the Form of Subscription,
and believers, who give a _verbal _assent to the doctrine of the church.
For example, our Church Order recognizes that not every male confessing
member in the local church is eligible for being nominated to the offices of
elder and deacon, but nominees must “meet the biblical requirements” as
well as “indicate their agreement with the Form of Subscription” (_Church
Order_, art. 12).

Second, “assent to the confessions of our churches” does not mean full
comprehension or even awareness of all the nuances of our doctrine nor the
ability to defend our doctrine. If this were the case there would be no need
for teaching, which is clearly commanded in the Scriptures. What this does
mean is that an educable spirit by those who desire communicant membership
includes the expectation to read, to understand to the best of their ability,
and to have “unity of mind” (1 Peter 3:8) with our confessional documents."

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Hamalas (Feb 21, 2017)

So could a decided Reformed Baptist or Arminian be a member in good standing in one of your churches?


----------



## mvdm (Feb 21, 2017)

You use the term "decided". If that means they express an unwillingness to be taught and are set in their ways, I doubt as a general rule they would be admitted. Having said that, I could envision unusual circumstances (e.g., no other biblical church for them to attend, giving promise not to promote their views, and some evidence of willingness to be taught) under which after some serious examination a consistory could admit them into membership.


----------



## py3ak (Feb 21, 2017)

The "assent" formula allows a significant leeway to the individual consistory. I've walked 5 people into membership in the URC, and in each case I thought the consistory did very well in seeking an appropriate level of knowledge and commitment from the people being interviewed.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------

