VOLUME XXVII                            - February 15, 1951 - Grand Rapids, Michigan                             NUMBER 10

                                                                       daar te vinden meerdere genade om geholpen te wor-
                   IW'I-AT'1                                           den ter bekwamer tijd. _          --.
                                                                                               c/SC--a
                                                                        ' Ge hebt het zeker -we1 gemerkt,  dat als David hier
                                                                       ,spreekt  van een worm  hij beeldspraak bezigt?  Dat
                                                                       vindt ge b zoo vaak in den Bijbel. De .Heere gkbruikt
              "Maar   ik ben een worm en geen  man, een  smaa,d        aardsche beelden om ons de hemelsche dingen van Zijn
            van menschen en veracht van het  volk. Allen die           Koninkrijk af te malen.  Zoo ook hi&. David, en late*
            mij  zien bespatten mij, zij sAudden  het hoofd, zeg-      Jezus, want Davit spreekt  hier als Profeet,  noemt zich
          gende: Hij heeft het  pp  den  &XIX gewenteld: dat
            Hij Hem nu uithelpe, dat Hij ?&SIT i%dde,  detvijl  Hij    een worm en geen man. Dat is levendige beeldspraak.
            lust  aan Hem heeft." '                                    Een ieder kent den worm. Hij kronkelt elken dag, en
                                            - P s a l m   223-g.       een Jeder ziet hem.
    We mochten gerust Matth. 27 :43' ook hierbij aan-                     De' worm nuji is beeld van datgene wat zonder ver-
halen, want daar wordt een gedeelte van onzen tekst                    dediging is, van het hulpelooze. De worm heeft noch
door den Heiligen  `Geest. aangehaald. Daar  Gordt                     wapenen van verdediging, noch voor den a&r&al. Hij
duidelijk aangetoond, dat onze huidige tekst wei zeker- heeft ook geen "stel van beveiligende beenderen, zooals
lijk Messiaanseh is. Daar staat dit: "Hij heeft op God                 vele dieren. Een worm heeft net maar een capaciteit
betrouwd: dat Hij Weni nu verlosse, indien Hij Hem                     om  tc lij'den, om vertrapt te  wokden; zo'odat er niets
~61 wil ; want Hij heeft gezegd : ?k-ben Gods Zoon."                   overblijft dan een verpletterde  smeer van iets wat
    Vreeselijke  goddeloosheid ! Wat hoon en wat smaad                 vroeger een worm was. Maar er is nog meer  ifi de
heeft onxe Heiland geleden ! Het blijft een eeuwig won- sprake van den worm. l!Iij behoort tot de dieren die
der, dat `God, dit schouwspel kon zien, Fen niet komen                 verafs'chuwd   worden  en verfoeid:  .hij behoort tot de
om het gansche menschdom ite verwoesten in grim-                       kruipende  dieren. Als men een worm ziet, de&t men
migen toorn. Maar daar schitt,ert Gods ondoorgronde-                   onwillekeurig aan de slangen en adders. En het schijnt
lijke genade. Hij Wilde goddeloozen rechtvaardigeq.                    wel, dat deze laatste gedachte op den voorgrond staat,
Hij  Wilde Zijn Verbond gestand  doen. Hij  Wilde het                  want we hooren immers verder yan smaad, verachting,
gansche menschdom doen zien hoe liefelijk het Godde-                   eri bespotting? Toen God Zijn vloek uitsprak over de
                                                                                     ,*
lijke  Wezen is in Zijn  zondaarslGie;fde.  Daarom  blijft             slang, is het beest gaan kruipen, en van dien tijd af
Jezus  a+n het  gruis  hangen, en lijdt den smaad. en                  aan wordt de slang, en al het kruipend gedie@e veraeht
hooti.                                                                 door den mensch. En let er op, dat de Christus in en
    We gaan heden wat zeggen van die vreeselijke  din-                 door David Zich een worm noemt, maar dan zooals dit
gen, en op den achtergrond van die vreeselijke dingen,                 beest een contrast vormt met den" man die rechtop ga%t.
zullen we zi!en' de onbegrijpelijke liefde Gods tot Zijn               Ikloen een fivorm en geen man!
`verkoren volk, hetwelk is tot prijs Zijner genade. Want                  En  d,e worm is ook beeld van vernedering. Hij
God moet geprezen tot in alle eeuwigheid.                              kruipt  op den grond. En men kan moeilijk lager gaan.
    We beluisteren heden de sprake vari een worm en                    Hij  kronkelt  zich.   aan  Uw voet met zijn buik in  he2
geen man ; we zullen ijzen  ?ran het  $_chouwspel   van                stof. qij is eigenli;`k altijd gereed om' door U ver-trapt
smaad, verachting,  bespotting en hoon. .Geve de Heere ,, te worden.                Het beeid is compleet. De Worm:  voor-
het aan U .en aan mij. Om dan, door diezelfde  genade werp van vernedering.
te  kn&len  bii  bet kruis van  den  Lijdenden  l&er,  pm                 En d& is vervuld in den Christus Gods. ;Ta, en dan


                                                                                                           a
c+            "     ,,:p'      .,-.            ;.
                              .::  _  `_'  :  : .,THE..-STAND,.ABD'BEARE'B                                      ~
                                        _..          /  :.
n&et ge ~61 verstaan, `Lit dit-beeld, maar ze&' flatiw en                                    I.(  :.  .
                                                                      hoe Hij Zijn weg op dkq.Heert wentelde, en nu zullen
vaag tot .$J spreekt van'$%jn veknedering. Er  iS  nie-               zij, Hem' dm die lieflijke `deugd bespotten. En als ge
niand., d$ God alleen, die weet t-&b volle hoe diep Jezus de edit$e van Matthetis' erbij wilt raadplegen, dan had-'
Zicb `veT$ederd  &eft tot ., den yersmadelijkefi  dood,  d&:` den -aij uit Jezus' mend gehoord hoe Hij zichzelf God;
1Gruises.   " IUaar.-. we zikn uit  dit  beeldj dat  .door  den' Zoon rioemde. Maar nu `moei Hi j diezelf de getuigenis
Hqiiigen  `,Geest  g2bruikt  wor&,   hoe God wil, dat we              in~hobn enspot beltiisteren  aan het kruis. Hij maakte
er tech wat van zul1e.q en moeten weten.
 :                                                                    ZiFh.;$en Zoon van God, welnu, laat Zijn Vader Hem
 !. Jezus is  de  `H&and  di&:Zichzelven  niet  `verdedi& @an tedden, dat wil. zeggen, als het waar . is dat Zijn
I?i~,is  de worm.' Hij droeg geen  verdedig$nde,   no"ch" God 6eri lrst tian H&i heeft. Maar, zoo gaat dit ge-
opk .aanvallende wapentin. En toen men eenmaal  pro- boefte voort, het is natuurlijk niet waar. Het is ijdele
bfjxde om vopr Hem het zwaa$ te trekken,  toen heeft                  taal geweest van dezen snoever.. Cod heeft nooit een
Hi3 zulk eenen &xeng berispt.. Hij is de woi&%n Hi-j                  iust dan Hem gehad, anders zou Hij daar nu n.iet .h&-
kwam om .net inaar te lijden. , En Hij heeft een ver-": gen aan het kruis. En ioo ging men vodrt te schreeu-
s&~Ykkelijke  capaciteit om te lijden. Wie zal die Ca;"- w-en en  te'.joelen  rondom dat kruis, al  hon&de  den
paciteit   nieten? En Hij lijdt als  die  Zich niet  veri             Zoon van den levenden God.
dedigt zonder te spreken, te klagen, te roepen in Zijn                                                               c
verdriet. ,O ja, Hij heeft we1 geroepen, maar Hij deed                             .         --
dat in-den nach$, in `de woestijx$  tot Zijn God. Maar                 . . En `wie  waren  dat.. geboefte?  Waren  zij het  af-
anders?  Dan leed Hij als een schaap, .dat stemmeloos                 schrapsel der aarde? Blinde heidenen uit de achteraf
is. v`oor het aangezicht zijne? scheerders.                           liggende @nden,?  %Iiss'chien  het volk uit de bosschen
      Jezus .is degene die men verfoeit en veracht, zooala            van Zuid-Africa? tie&, mijne vrienden, zij waren het
de  tiorm veracht  ,en verfoeid wordt. Alle vuilheid; b$ste wat de aarde ooit kon leveren.: ze zijn de histo-
zonde en ongerechtigheid kwam als  schuld op. Hem, en; rische kerk Gods.: Zijn zijn het Israel van'Jezus' da-
zoo weid Hij de verachte bij uitnemendheid. En noemb'. gen. Zij zijn het volk, dat de Wet en de Profetie had.
zich'dan ook :een worm en geen man. .                         >.      Hij kwam iqxiners' tot:&.& Zijne ? Maar ze hebb& Hem
                                                                      niet aangenomen. Ze hebben Hem ecn b"eetje:meer  dan
                                                                      dertig jaren op aarde geduld,`en to& hebben zij Hem
 -,: -,En zoo spreekt de Gereformeerde ,Dogmatiek  van                aan een kruis van de aarde verhoogd. Luistert naar
J&us in Zijn vernedering, en dat is  goed. Er is                      Jezus : Allen die Mij zien, bespotten Mij ! Dat was ook
nooit ie&tafid, en. er Zal nooit- iemand 266 vernederd                waar van Rlatus en van Herodus, en ook -van de fzo-
warden als die. Jezus. En let wel, ,Hij deed dat zelf. meiqsche  soldaten.  ;En  toe&  bet gruwelijkste  he.eft
Ge%illiglijk  kwam Hij in de plaats te.staan die door                 Hij geleden van Zijn eigen volk. Hoe dichter  de men-
God van  natuke.  slangengebroed genaamd warden. En sehelijke n&uur bij Jezus komt, hoe gruwelijker gloeit
zoo .kunt ge oak verstaan . hoe Mazes' een `slang ver-                de  haat.
hoogde  op dien staf in de woestijn. Jezus, d.e diep-vey-,               Hoe zit .dit.?. Kan dat vreemde feit ook eenigzins
nedbrde.            -.        i .                                     xerklaard  worden? 0 zeker.  #God heeft er  vuor  ge-'
" Nu komen we tot het kapiktel van den smaad, want zorgd, dat  zul,ks klaarlijk geopenbaard  is. Ziet ge,
daar spreekt de tekst van. Hij was een  smaad  va& Jezus openbaarde de antithese. H.ier was een mensch
&&&hen en  `-veracht van het  .volk.  Allen, die Hem                  die Zichzelf God noetide,  en dat konden de Farizegrs'
zag&, bespotten Hem, zij stak(en de lip uit, schudden                 niet verkroppen. Hier was een Overwinnaar die aati
bun hoofd, en .goten eq stroom van honende woorden                    het kruis terecht komt om de nederlaag te lijden. Hier
oveY Zijn arme hoofd.                                                 was een Bevrijder vah .de geborideneri,  `en Zelf wordt
 :-.%ti dat is erg. Elk men&h .wil als een mensch be-                 Hij gebonden.. en aan. het kruis gehecht. Hier was
]iande$l  wordeli.   bat zit'in ons  wezen  in; Een  ieder            iemand die oi God vertrouwde en .God verliet Hem;
h&t om uitgelachen en  bespot te  worden.  En niets                   En da&om begon men te lachten en te honen. Wat de
menschelijks  was den Heere Jezus vreemd.                           I' mensch niet verstaat,  bespot  hij. De dwaas! Knikt
      Ma& daar hangt Hij aati het'kruis'. Men verdriti& gij het  hoofd, mijn vriend? Maar weet ge. wel, dat
zich om dat kruis, want `men wil Hem zien, en Hem be-" gij, die rdit leest, van nature niets beter zijt dan die
spotten en &tlachen. Wat een verschrikkelijk schouw-                  joelende  massa rondom het kruis van Jezus?
spbl is dat geweest. Hoort! zij lachen Hem Ct. Hem,                      De tweede reden waardm. men Hem haatte is dit :
cli.e:tot  in alle eeuwigheid het gezang van &gelen en` Hij was h$ Licht der wereld. En de wereld haat het
ikienschen  zal zijn. En luistert met beving;  want men licht. Hij  scheen te  midden van de stikdonkere duis-
b&pot Hem in de innigste en  he@rlijkste  Zijner  ge- -ternis der zonde en der vuilheid  en  der ongerechtig-
wa.$r.yordingen. Men heeft bet, over Zijn vertrotiwen heid. En dat  bq$lt de wereld niet. De wereld  haat
C$ God. `Zij hkbben Jez~s in vroeger dageq beluisterd,
                                                     ^                het licht," Light; is inbegrip van alle ware detigd.
                                                                                                _-                            EQ


                                             #THE  3.TANDDR.D   B E A R E R                                                                219
                                       _.
   i
dat was Jezus. Al, Zijn doen en laten voor meer dan               alIe menschen, hebben het  verzondigd..  En de straf
dertig  jaren was enkel  lichti  .,En  `daarqn werd Hij           op de zonde is ,de eeuwige dood. Daar is nu eenmaal
tot op het laatste oogenblik van Zijn kevei gehaat.               geen uitzondering op. De ziel  di.e gezondigd  ,heeft                                    .
        En de derde" reden is, omdat Hij een worm was en zal sterven. God komt daar tot in eeuwigheid niet,van
geen  man. De mensch der- zonde bewondert het grdote, iterug.                       `I
het massale,  het sterke,.het  behendige. Maar van een                Evenwel, diezelfde God heeft Zieh een  volk  ver-
mensch die' zichzelf wil geven vooi anderen, en zoo               koren van voor de grondlegging der wereld, hen lief-
`aan een `kruis gaat hangen, van zulk een mensch, walgt `hebbende met een eeuwige liefde. En  toen dat volk
men. Let er op, dat alle discipelen voor Hem willen ..in: den tijd goddeloos.  werd en' verdiende om tot .in
sterven. En  P.etrus  nam het zwaard  .om voor  Hem eeuwigheid verdoemd te worden,  toen is God Zelf ge-
en met Hem te strijden. Maar als zij zien, dat Jezus komen in den' ioon Zijner eeuwi&  liefde, & toen is
Zich gewillig wil geven, Zijn  .handeti uitsteekt om              God uit God .e& worm gewqrden, en heeft' Zich over-
gebonden  te  worden,  dan  worden  zij  allen  aan Hem `gegeven in de mensehelijke natuur  aan de  gerechte
ge&rgerd, en dan vlieden zij.                                     straf ,die wij anders hadden moeten dragen.                            `:  `*
  En de vierde reden waarom zij en `de geheele wereld -.`I` God  aan bet kruis !                                                                   (I ,
Hem haten is de ergste van allen, en ze. is deze: Zijn                    Dat iS bet hart van het %vangelie.                  En dat, voor
kruis en Zijn lijden  -verkondi,gt,  dat wij van nature. ,-zondaren, voor uitverk"oren  zondaren.
waard zijn om verdoemd te worden.  De bloed-theologie
is niet. populair,  dat weet ge wel. En we mogen hier ji En  zbo ziet `gij Jezus ten  diepste vernederd  a&
ook nog ye1 noemen de andere. reden waarom Hij zoo                het kruis, onze smaadheid en hoon dragende, die wij
geh&at  werd, en zij is deze: Hij lijdt voor Zijn eigen,           anders hadden moeten dragen  in de buitenste duister-,
particulier volk: de uitverkorenen. Jezus kwam niet               nis.
om de geheele wereld, hoofd  `voor hoofd  lx! redden.               Endaarom zegt de uitverkoren kerk van Christus :
Maar Hij kwam om Zijn `schapen  te redden.                        `Gode  zij  z&k, dat Hij niet Van dat kruis  afkwam,
                                                                   dat `God Hem niet uikhielp of redde, want dan $vare
                            d-                          .       I onze zon ondergeggan, en hXdden wij zelf, alle smarten
                    i                                              der verdoemenis geleden.
        Dit leidt ons tot `de laatste gedachte. Hij is de
R,edder, en Hij werd  d,at en is dat juist, omdat Hij                     Maar nu : Jezus is gekruist,  en opgestaan ten d&de
gewilliglijk ,een worm werd, en bespot en gehoond.                 dage. En Hij voer naar den  hemel  heen in triumf.
        De bende gilde vobr dat kruis: Dat ,God .Hem nu            En Hij zal de Zijnen redden met eefi volkomene.  uit-
redde, dat God Herb nu uithelpe! Ik zou willen zegi                redding. Toit glopie van God tot in der eeuwigheid.~
gen : eeuwiglijk `gelukkisg,  dat God, het niet de&d. Als           ,O,  btiigt U  tech voor dat kruis in aanbidding  tes
God bet gedaan had,- daar dp die Hoofdschedelplaats,              neder ! Amen.                          '
                                                                                          .
dan  had. Zijn. volk gelijk een  worm  moeten kruipen                                                                            G. Vos.
tot in alle eeuwigheid in de hel. Als God Hem,uitge-
holpen had, dan waren w?j allen verloren  gegaan, en                                               -:-
dan waren er geen menscben  gered geworden.
        Neen, de weg tot een eeuwige, r,edding  en zaligheid                                     ANNIVERSARY  '
en heerlijkheid lag over dat kruis, en langs den nederi-             On  (February  22,  1951,`@r beloved parents- and grand-parents
gen  `weg van  den worm.  Lee&   Filipp. 2 :6-8. Daar
staat : "Die (en dat. is Jezus) in de gestalteniq  Gods                              Mr.  &nd   Mi%.   Rich&rd Dykstra-
zijnde, geen roof geacht heeft Gode evengelijk te zijn.,          hope to celebrate their fortieth wedding anniversary.
Maar heeft Zichzelven  vernietigd, de gestaltenis eens               We-thank our heavenly Father, Who has so graciously spared
dienstknechts aangenomen hebbende, en is den me,n- -them for each other and. for  us these many years, and  pray
schen gelijk geworden ; en in gedaante gevonden als                that He .will  continue to bless them in the years to come.
een  menseh,  heeft Hij zichvelven  verned,&rd,   gehoor-                                      The grateful children:
zaam geworden zijnde tot den dood, ja, den -dodd des                                               /Mr. and Mrs. Arie Dykstr.a
kruises."                                                                                           Mr. and Mrs. Simon Dykstia
        En weet ge nu we1 w+ de diepste reden is waarom                                             Mr. and Mrs. Clarence-J. Cole
Jezus dezen weg moest bewandelen? Dan zal ik het                                                    Mr. and Mrs., Jacob Nyenhuis
U ,zeggen:  al die spot en hoon, al dat `verachten en                                               lI!tr. and Mrs. Ben Huizenga  '
bespotten,  al  di,e vreeselijke  rrernedering  die Jezus                                           Mr. and Mrs. Jacob Postema
ervoer, is de uiterlijke vorm van een diep innerlijk                                               Mr. and Mrs. Clarence Klinge
lijden, dat niemand U ten voile kan schilderen.                                                    Mr. and Mrs. Richard Dykstra Jr.
        Ziet g,e; `God is een rechtvaardig God, en de' mensch, , .,Gr+pd Rapids, Michigan             and  tw,enty-six   grandchildre+b:c   a,


 220                                                             / 2; T H E S `T. A N % A `R D `B `E A `R % R

                      The Standard Bearer  .'
        Semj-Monthly,  except Monthly in July and  Au&&                                                                           E D I T O R I A L S   .
                                                                                                                                                             3
                                   Plkblished                                       B'y
                The Reformed Free Publishing Association
               : Box 124, Sta. C., Grand Rapids,  Mich.                                                             Dri Schilder And The Demclaration
                     E D I T O R : - Rev. H. Hoeksema.
. Communications relative to contents should be addressed to                                                            In.several  issues of De Reform&e my friend Schil-
`REV. H. HOEKSEMA, 1139 Franklin St., S. E., Grand Rapids,                                                         der  (0 yes,  :he is still my friend, although I do not
Michigan.
. Communications relative to subscription Should be addressed                                                      agree with him on the question of the covenant and
to  .Mr: J. BOUWMAN,  1359 Giddings  SE;, Grand  RapSds  7,' the  firomise)  wrote about  the. Declaration of  Prin-
Mich.  Announcements and Obituaries must be mailed to the                                                          -ciples.
above address and will be published at a fee of $1.00 for each                                                          I first planned to let him finish his series of articles
notice.
Renewals:-Unless a definite request for discontinuance is re-                                                      and not to interrupt his argument. But seeing that
ceived, it is assumed that the subscriber `wishes his subscription                                                 some of us are .getting impatient (see Periscope in the
to continue without the formality of a renewal order.                                                              last S. B., tYhieh is hardly peri-scope) an,d almost sug-
Entered as Second Class Mail at Grand Rapids, Michigan.                                                            .gest that I intend to ignore what my colleague in the
                                                                                                                   old country wrote on. the matter, I will reply now `to
                                                                                                                   his criticism, and ask the printer to send him an air-
                                                                               i                                   mail copy of this issue of The Standarcl Benrey.
                                                                                                                       Much of what Dr. Sbhilder wrote is not to the point,
                                                                    ..-                        .                   and we, therefore, can safely eliminate it `.from  our
                                                                                                                   discussion. To this belongs, in my opinion:
                                    C O N T E N T S                                                                     1. All that the brother wrote about supralapsariani
                                                                     t                                  r          `ism. . The confessions are  defmitely infralapsarian.
IvIEDITATI~N-                                                                                                      And although I personally am supralapsarian  (which
        De Sprake Eens Worms ____________________...~..~........  __.. ______________ 217                          is my privilege), yet the Declaration is based, not ,on
             Rev. Gerrit Vos                                                                                       any private conviction or conception, but on the tioh-
                                                                                                                   fessions  only.  ,'     .
EDI.TORIALS-                                                                                                            2. All that he wrote about his repudiation of the
        Dr. Schilder and The Declaration .:.......... . . . . . .._..._ ye..: . . . . .._ 229
        Let .Us Be IBrotherly . . . . . . . . . .._..._.......~.~.  _ . . . . .._.._.__.__.._.____________  222    greparatory  grace theory of Heyns.`,We have never ac-
        The Declaration Of Principles ___i ______.___.________________  _ _______ _ ____ 226                       cused `the-Liberated  of teaching this particular heresy.
            -Rev. H. Hoeksema                                                                                      Yet, we maintain that their view of the covenant and
                                                                                                                   of the promise is Heynsian,. and that it implies the
        Van .Boeken _.._... _ _._..._...._..._.._.____________________...~.........~.~.~.  _ ________ 230 teadhing of common grace applied to the covenant.
            Rev. H. Hoeksema                                                                                       See one of my editorials below.
        Hamilton's Letter ,To All Our Gonsistories ___________ _ ________ 231                                          3. All that he wrote about theologians in the past
        The End Of Hamilton _______ _ _______________ .: ________________:  ______________ 232                     `that taug2it that faith is% condition. I .grant all of it.
            Rev. H. -Veldman                                                                                       And I can quote `some more of other theologians. But
                                                                          :                                        we are not concerned with private opinions, but with
        Rev. Petter's 6th and 7th Instalments . . .._.._..._._______________  234                                  the Declarations of Principles. This is based only on
            Rev. G. M. Ophoff                                                                                      the confessions.       And these teach plainly (1) that
                                                                                                                   faith is not a condition but (2). a means or instru-
CONTRIBTJT~ONS~~                            :       ' .                                                            ment whereby -we are ingrafted into Christ and ap-
        Another Gospel _._........-...........~~~ _........_......_....~... i _._..._.... _ ._._ 237               propriate all `his benefits.
            Kryn Feenstra,                                                                                             I challenge my esteemed friend and colleague to
        Letter to the Editor ._....._._._.__________ _ . .._________________________________  238                  `deny this.
            Kenneth Ezinga .                                                                                          There remains really only two items in the articles
                                                                                                                   of Dr. Schilder to which.`1 must reply.
        Letter From Menko Flikkema __________.  _ _______________ _ _.______________  23,9                             The `first zoncerns his criticism of our use of the
            M. Flikkema                                                                                            term  zause  nncl fount&n  of  OUT  snlva~~o~. The  De-
                                                                                                                   ellaration of I?rindiples states that "election . . . is the
        Een Brief van IJ. R. VanderWal  __________________________ _ _____________ 249
            J. R.  VanderWal                                                                                       sole fountain and cause of all our salvation."           -("
                                                                                                                       To this  Dr. Schilder objects.
                                                                                                                     Writes he (De  aeformatie,  vol. 26,no.  6)::


           `%`irst of ail, h u-di item. The piece l(Deolarahon,                    place, if the  ~beneplucituum  Dei,  the  ezcclo@ti   Theo.&,         '
       H.H.) cornme&%% with the de&ration : `that elenrtion                        the good pleasure of God, is the sole cause of election
       . . . is the sole fohntain and cause of all our salvation'.                 (causa vero hujus- gratuitae .electionis) , election is
           `<Is this correctly expressed-a binding piece 1~ -`. `1                 -sur@ly the cause, of all our salvation. And, secondly,
           "Naturally, ive probably exp@&~d ourselves i3 the                       to maintain, as does colleague, Schilder, that fountain
       same way; in a loose article,  &  lit;tle  t&  WC, will                     and cause fall in time certainly is, not confessionally
       blame no one, if he ,expresses it that vV%y,                                Reformed language. The confessions place cause, not ,
           "But when you  eitablish something  &bd  m&k~?  ?A                      in time, but in eternity.
       binding, we say : wait a minute. Is if, indeed, pr~&~~~                         I challenge my friend and colleague to disprove
       expressed, when it ia said : election cause aqd f ountaifi?                 t h i s .
           "I do not believe it. If you want to be .precise; it                        I am afraid that, not the Declaration, but he him-
       should have been election is the grbuncl. A decree is                       self was writing rather, hastily and thoughtlessly when
       never the came ,of `its execution nor the fountain of ,it.                  he wrote the above quoted sentences.
       %&use snd foilntaiti fall in time, and are also them-                           We are, however, more interested in what Dr.
; solves implied in  %O  deoree." ,                                                Schilder writes about the promise  and about faith as a
          Thus far Dr. &hziidef,                                                   condition unto the proynise.
          It would be easy' to correct the Declaration in this                        Writes he (De Reformatie, Vol. 26, No. 5) :
       fashion, if it were, indeed, a coryiection, All we would                      "A . Do you mean," by `condition', something that,
       have to do wbuld be to substitute grour$Gk  for cause and would  b&cl Gocl? `Then we say. unconditionally: un-
  f ount&iri.                                                                      conclitionally be the slo:gan.
          Atid it would, indeed, have been a loose and thought-                        "B., Do you mean, by condition, something  for
       less way of  fotiulating a Declaration of  P&ciples                         which God must zuait, before He can go further? Then .
       by a whole synod, if they had not carefully distinguish:                    we say unconditionally : `unconditionally be the slogan.'
 id between ground on the one hand and fountain and                                    (`C. Do  you  mean, by dondition: something that
       cause 6n the other.                                           _             we must fulfill to merit something? Then we say
          But this is not the case.             0                                  unconditionally : "&conditiohally be .the slogan."
          My friend Schilder must not have the impression                              "D. Do you mean, by condition: something  that
  that %he delegates to the synod of 1950 were slouches,                           Gocl firmly linked with something else, to make plain
  that did. not know the rheaning of terms, or tliat -did                          to us, that the one thing cannot come without the other,
  nbt car,efully  weigh them before they employed them.                            and that we cannot be assured of the one thing, unless
       E.ven though it is true !that it did not take- long to draw we have also become` assured of the other? Then we
       up and to adopt this proposed .declaration,  do not for-                    say uncon$tionally  : `conditionally be the slogan'."            /
       get that it represents *years  of Protestant Reformed                          At the close of his article Dr. Schilder writes :
  thought, and that the tern?s are very carefully chosen.'                          "I think, that colleague Hoeksema will' agree with                        1
          The same is true with regard to the terms fountain,                      US in all this.
       cause, a.nd..gtiound.       .                                                   "But for. this reason we appeal to him. He is a
          The `ground -of all our $alvation is Christ.                             keen theologian (thanks, amice ! H.H.) , and he hates,
          The fountairz and cause of all our salvation ii the                      when it comes to the point, all foolish binding. Let
       decree. of election.                               `,                       him cooperate to' prevent -all ambiguous and imprac-
 I.       This. is the language o-f our confessions, and the                       tical declarations as so many impediments on the way
       Declaration of Principles means to speak $hat .lan-                         to unity, etc."
  guage, and nothing else.                                                             And  jret, I cannot agree with my esteemed colleague,
          For proof of this, I ref.er to Canons I, A. 6: "That                     and that exactly because I want to avoid all "ambigu-
  some receive+he gift of faith from God, and others do                            ous and impractical declaratio+s".       I want to be very
  not receive it, proceeds from God's eternal decree                               clear, sharp, and to the point, when it concerns the
       (id ab aeterno decreto provenit). Now, it ought to                          definition of theological terms.
  be plain that something does not proceed from a                                   0, how sorry I am, that all these things were not
  ground,  .but from a source or fountain.  Hence,  we                             disctissedj  between- us as deputies for correspondence,
  maintain, with the declaration, that the decree is not rather than.to  confer, behind our back, with the Revs.
  the ground of the gift of faith, and, therefore, of all                          De Jong and Kok, who were not authorized, neither,.
  our salvation, but the source or fountain.                    .                  judging `from the .letter  of Prof. Holwerda, cap~able to
          And as to the term catise, I refer to #Canons  I, A;l.Q.                 speak for our churches! Tl<e Lord willing, we are                     i
  There we yead: `"The good pleasure of ,God is the sole                           calming next summer, if the world situation permits.
 cause of this. gracious election," Now, in the. first                             We have reservations on the boat-for the twenty-fourth

                                                                          1  :-


     222                                     THE  STAN`IjARD:.BEA'RER

0    of `June and plan to `remain in the Netherlands till the
     beginning of September. That isi if they. still want                   ._    1 Let Us Be 
                                                                                              `"      Brothixly
     to see us, and if they stili desire correspondence in
     spite of our doctrinal differences.            Ot&erwise,  they        The Rev. L. VeY'meer  writes in' Conco?*clia, Jan.18,
     better let us know, and we bill cancel our reserva- ' 1951:
     tions.                                                                 "`f&d  please reply "m brotherly spirit and tolera-
            Noti, let me return' to the subject.                         tion, such articles as, are mentioned above. Meet the
            In the first -place, I want~$o say that, of course, I        arguments sqbarely."
     agree with the negative `propositions A, B, and C.                     With this I pelfectly agree.
                                                                            We-should  alwayr; preserve a brotherly spirit, not
            But I want  to add  one' more' proiosition.   It is          only in ansdering  such articles as the Rev. Vermeer
     similar to C with this difference that' I want to stop              has in minp, but in'al! ou'r writings. And surely, we
     at "fulfill" and omit, `90 merit something". The propo- should always meet arguments with arguments, square-
     sition then reads: "We do not  believe  in conditions               ly. And I challenge the Rev. Vermeer to show that
     virliich we must fulfill." Period.                                  in my writing about the Liberated, or about  condi-  ,
            I will presently explain the reason  fbr this negative       tions,  or about` the Declaration of Principles I have
     proposition.                                                        ever violated that brotherly spirit, or have ever failed
            But, first, .I must criticize my colleague's own defi- to meet the .arguments squarely.
     nition of "condition".                                               But how about his own brotherly  spiTit,  as  mani-
            To my mind it is ambiguous. It can denote differ-            f&ted in  the above article  in  Cowcorclia?  And how
     ent notions.,                                                       about his own weighing of arguments honestly?
       The brother writes that a condition "`is something                   In the ,same  article he writes as follows :
     which God has firmly linked to something else" etc.                  "I   DEPLORE  A N D   P R O T E S T   A:GAINST:
       Very well.  Let us test this definition.  Cause and                   "1. First,' ihk wild  way in which the charge of
     effect God has firmly linked together.                 Colleague    Heynsianism is thrown at `people,  and especially  _
     `Schilder surely does not.mean this by cqndition. Hence,            against the  Liber$ed leaders . . .       Throwing that
     the definition is ambiguous. Yet it is important that               charge around wildly, we htirt innocent people, and
     we use clear terms.                                                 lay ourselves open to the charge of dishonesty."
      Work and reward are -also firmly. linked togethei.                     I maintain, that in -these sentences the Rev. Ver-
     by God. Yet, my friend Schilder does not mean that me& is' guilty on both counts; He does not preserve
     faith is a work rewarded by  aGod.  H,ence,  the defi-              a  ,brotherly spirit in this `language, for it is not in
     nition is guilty of ambiguity. '                                    ha;rmony with fact; that I ever was guilty of throwing
            Means and end are also firmly linked by God. Yet,            the charge of Heynsianism wilclly at anybody. And it
                                                                         is a very unfounded and  unbrothe+ly accusation to
     brother ;Schilder  does not want this implication of this' accuse us of dishonesty. Nor does the Rev. Vermeer
     definition, for then faith is a means (according to our
     confessions) and  Got a condition at all. Again, the                meet the arguments  squarily, for he does not even
                                                                         investigate the many articles 1' have written' in the       _
     definition lacks clarity. Yet, we must cl@rly define
     our terms.                         1                                past about the Heynsian vi6w of the Liberated. Still
                                                                         less does he. attempt to contradict what I have written
            After all, is there any definition of' "condition" that      on this score. It therefore will be brotherly if the
     is clear, not only, but that also is-conveyed to the mind           Rev. Vermeer apologizes for these wild accusatiotis.
     of anyone that hears the term, &cept the following :                    In the same article the Rev. Vermeer writes:
     "A condition is a preraruisite  which one must fulfill                  "Now,- many of the arguments used also by the
     or comply with in order  to receive something or- to                Rev. H. Hoeksema and the Rev. ,Ophoff, in favor of
     have something. d&e unto him'!?                 -                   the `Declaration of, Principles' are based on the reck-
            Now, apply, this to faith,, and I claim that you sail        less charge that the Liberated are all Heynsian.`:
     in Arminian waters, and are not Reformed.                               Also in this sentence the ,Rev. Vermeer is guilty
            We must, therefore; have a clear definition of terms         on both counts. It is a false accusation that we hurl
     before I can agree with my -colleague  across the                   a reckless charge at, the Liberated, when we say that
     ocean.                '                                             they are Heynsian, in their covenant .view. And again,
                                                                         `the Rev. Vermeer  does not put forth any argumetit to
            But `what about a conditional or  unconditionai              prov& the contrary. I therefore say again that he is
     promise.                                                            guilty on both counts.
            About this,next time, D. V,                                      Once more, in the same article, the Rev. Vermeer
                                                          H .   H:       writes  :      :


                                              ,THE  S T A N D A R D   B E 'A R E R                                                 223
                                                                                                  `----. -- . .._. -.I ..-
      "Now it SEEIMS  to me that men like Rev. H. Hoek-            .The accusation means, of course, that the Rev. Ver-
 sema and Rev. `Ophoff do not even TRY tq understand             meer thoroughly `understands the view of the Liber-
, the position .of the Liberated as it is expounded by           ated, while I do no!, .anh do not even try to understand
 Schilder."                                                      it. It implies too, of course, that the  RFV. Vermeer
     Also h&e i consider that the Rev. Vermeer is guilty         has in his possession aqd has studied the sources in
 on both counts. For this see my next editorial.                 which their views can be found; and that either I have
      To quote, no more, I call attention to the follow- -not `these sources, or have not studied them, or have
 ing :                                                           deliberately falsified them.
      "3. Thirdly, I deplore and protest the foolish and             Now let us meet argument with argument, shall
 ra$h haste in formulating and adopting the `Declara-            we?           .
 tion' by the last Synod, as well as the foolish ,and rash           In the first place, I have studied literally dozens of
 haste of some who even now push for its ratification            pamphlets and books, both from the Liberated and                         o
 by the consistories."                                           from  the Smodicals, concerning this question of the
      It is certainly `not brotherly to accuse an entire         covenant, conception. I believe I gave a list of these
 Synod, who invoked the. guidance of the Holy Spirit,            sources one in the Starxla~cl  B<earer, which the Rev.
 and who adopted the Declarati&  of Principles virtual-          Vermeer   tiay look up.         Now, how many of these
ly without opposition, unanimously, of fpolishness and           sources did the Rev. Vermeer study, from which he
 .rash haste. N?r-is it brotherly to accuse those whose          draws the conclusion that the conception of the Liber-
  conviction it is that this Declaration must be adopted         ated is not the same as the Reynsian conception, ex-
 by the next Synod of foolishly and rashly, pushing the          cept, of course, the Heynsian conception of preparatory
 thing.                                                          grace, cdncerning  which see my next editor&l?
      Wild throtiing of charges? Dishonesty? `Reckless               Besides, I read and still read many papers of the
charges?  Not even trying to  unders&nd  ? Foolish-              Syno,dicals as well as of  the  Liberated,  including, of
 ness and rash haste?                                            course, the  Reformatie.  How many of these  papePs
      All these accusations the Rev. Vermeer flings at us        and magazines did the Rev. Vermeer read to  sub:  "
 without any rhyme or reason.                                    stantiate the charge that I do not understand. and do _
      Yet the Rev. Vermeer .admonishes  us to write in d         not even try to understand the iliberAted view of the
  brotherly spirit and to meet arguments squarely !              covenant?
      0  tempera! 0  mo/r;es!                                     Besides, I  have had  c'orrespondence  with several
                                                  . .            of the Liberated mini&eTs,  both private and public,
                    Not Try To Understand?  I . as the Rev. Vermeer can verify if he only consults the
      The Rev. Vermeer also accuses' us of not even :try-        Standard  BeaTer,  vol. 22, ff.,-a correspondence which
  ing to understand the position of`the Liberated.               uniformly substantiates my conviction that their view
                                                                  of the covenant is Heynsian.
      Carefully he adds : "as it is expounded by Schilder."             Finally, as to the attempt on my part thoroughly
      This last phrase tiay mean several things. It niay         to understand their view, I may refer the Rev. Ver-
  mean that the Rev. Vermeer never read much about meer to the questions I' put to Dr. Holwerda and to
  the Liberated and their view of the covenant except             Prof. Veenhof, which he may read in the  Stanckyd
  Schilder. It may also suggest thgt according to him             Be&&?r,: vol. 26, pp. 7, 8. For the importance of the
  Schilder's  view -differs principally from that of the          issue  betwem the Rev. Vermeer and myself,. i.e.,
  rest of the Liberated churches. .If ,either  of the& sup- whether I try to understand the view. of the Liberated,
  positions is correct,, I can only say that the Rev. V&r-        I repeat these questions here. They are as follows:
  meer is very unfair to the Liberated. #For he certainly
  cannot obtain a correct conceptioin  of the. Liberated           "a. Is it true, or is it not true, that according to
  view of the covenant by reading only the writings of            your  theoloky  <God  establishes His covenant equally
  one man. And betiides,  I think it is also unfair to Dr.        with all the children`that are born  pf believing parents,
  Schilder, for he has never yet suggesteci  that his view - head for head and soul for soul?
  of the covenant differs from  that of the Liberated                ."b. IS it true, or is it not true, that according to
  churches.                                                       the theology of th& Liberated the promise of. G&j is (
                         :
      But what about the accusation that we, the Rev.             equally for all that are born in the historical line of
  H. Hoeksema and Rev.  Ophoff, do not even try to               the covenant, elect and reprobate alike?                     _
  understand their view. I consider this a rather heavy                 "c; Is it true, or is it not true, that according to
  accusation. For it really implies that we deliberately the theology of the Liberated God gives that promise
  f a l s i f y   t h e i r   c o n c e p t i o n .   -          to-all, elect and reprobate, in His grace and in His
      But let us meet argument with argument, to see             loye? ,
 whether this accusation is true or false.                              `td. Is it true, or is it not true, that God seriously


2 2 4                          .j  i\`THE `S T A N D A R D   `B E A R E R   ~-                        '
                        _-
says to all the children that are born in the historical. duces to substantiate ,this charge is that the Liberated
line of the covenant that He gives them a right to all          evidently' dp not adopt the Hemsjan view of pre,para-
the blessings of the covenant?          _-                      tory grace.
    "e. Is it true, `or is it not true, that according to          If -the Rev.  V&meer will consult the  Standard
the covenailt theology of the Liberated God assures all         Bearers of the past, he will discover that I never ac-
.the. children that are "born  of believing parents in the      cused them of this particular Heynsian tenet. He will
historical line of the covenant that He washes them in          find that at first, when I started to criticize the Liber-
the blood of Christ?                                            ated view of the covenant, I merely  poliiely asked them
    "f. Is it true, or is it not true, that according to        whether they also accepted this Heynsian view of pre-
the covenant theology of the Liberated God assures all          paratory grace. When Dr. Schilder,  was here, it was
the children of believers that he will give them His. we that called his attention to that theory, as it is
Holy Spirit to- dwell in them and to make them par-             gxpounded especially in Heyns' Cateclhetics.  And.after
takers of all the blessings of salvation in Christ; Jesus ? we had called his attention to this, he carefully wrote
    "g. Is it true, or is it not true,. that iti answer to -an article in the Ref ormatie repudiating this particular
the question why many of the baptized children are              elenient of the Heynsian conception. But for the rest,
not saved you say that their corrupt nature prevents            he did not repudiate the-Heynsian,view  of the covenant
the grace-of God from operat.ing  in their hearts?              whatsoever.
    "h. Is-it true, or is it ilot true, that in the case of        Now, although this theory of preparatory grace is
those baptized children that are lost you teach that it.        peculiar to Heyns, yet it  .is by no means the main
is their unbelief that bars the way of God's grace?"            principle of his conception of the covenant.
    To this I added the following:                                 The. conception of Heyns is that the  c&en&it  of
    "A few years ago I was in correspondence with one           <God is p~inc~~lly and essentially His promise. That
of your Liberated ministers concerning this very ques-          promise is a bequest on the part .of God to all that
tion., He told me that in his preaching he said to all          ake baptized. God bequeaths upon all the children of
the children of the covenant, that is, head for head and        believers all the blessings of salvation. He gives them
soul fdr soul, that are born in the historical line of the      the right by testament. to the riches of grace. And
covenant, that they had a check in their pocket and all         He solemnly seals His bequest, this testament,. this
they had to do was to go. to the bank and cash the              objective .rig,ht to' the forgiveness of' sins and eternal
check. I asked him just what was written on that                life, to them all by baptism. But this promise is con-
. check : did the check read thus : `I, Jehovah #God, prom-     ditional: And the condition connected &th.the prom:
ise to all that believe eternal life?' ,Or did it state,:       ise is.faith and repentance. All have the promise. On
`I, Jehovah God, promise  you all, John, Peter,  a@             the papt of God the.bequest  is made to all by promise.
`Clarence, eternal life?' He apswered me that it was            God swears to all in baptism that their names are writ-
the latter. Again I asked him how God could issue ten in His testament. But the blessings prom.ised  are
such checks, seeing there was "not sufficient capital in        applied only to those that~ accept.`the  promise by failth.
the bank, tit least according to the truth of particular           That is Heynsianism.
atonement. `The answer was : that is a mystery. Now,               And this conception of the covenant is accepted uni-
professor, does that fairly represent the abc of the            formly by all the Liberated.
covenant theology of ithe Liberated, or does it not?`,             To substantiate this contention, I quote, first of ill,
   Now let us meet arguments with arguments, square-            from the Reformatie, vol. 20, n0. 51. In th'is number
.ly. And let the  Rlev. Vermeer prove that I did not            of the Reform&e Dr.. R. H. Bremmer writes.:
even-try t,o understand the view of the Liberated con-             "What'foilows.  from this for the practical life of
cerning the coven+&,                                            faith, may easily  `be  surmishd.  To make this clear,
    Let him  answ?r in the same brotherly spirit in
which I am writing these editorials.                            we will not now appeal to men like Woelderink and
                                              And above all,    Van Dijk, but to the American piofessor Heyns. He
let us have the truth.                                          is, we believe, not as yet, suspected of being `remon-
    On' my part, I am afraid that the Rev. Vermeer              strant': Dr. H.  Bouwman  wrote a  preface for his
did not know what he w,as writing about.                        qGereformeerde Geloofsleer' in which he says : `Prof.
                                                                Heyns gave us, in this.Refoimed  C'bnfession of Faith,
                     Noit Heynsian ?            ,               a book which is not only thoroughly Reformed, but
    The Rev. Vermeer also accuses us of dishonesty              which, because-of its consecrated style and lucidity of
and of wildly hurling charges .at the Liberated when            presentation, makes pleasant reading, and is easily
we say that they adopt the Heynsian view of  -the               understood.
covenant.                                                          "Now, cthis'prof.  Heyns writes on page 206.: `Then,
    The only argument whiCh the Rev. Vermeer pro-               when all support for our. faith threatens to collapse,


                                        T`H-E  STiNDARD  BE-AiER  I                                                           225

  the Foprn (of Baptism) means to say, the support  of             He sprinkled i@ with water, when we were only a few
  0ti.r bZ@@i% ,iB .&ill left us as ah undoubted testimony.        days old, He keeps, so to speak, that, water always
  $hiiti  the  Fokiikl  call  &peak  only by ascribing to  bap-    fresh and living and powerful upon our forehead. And
  tism an objesitive  significance, valid .for all, for never      the words which He `spoke then for the first time He
  eotrld  baptism be such an undpubted testimony for               continues to speak throughout our whole life ! Every
 688  th+t is fallen into sin, if it  were  a real baptism         second Jehovah repeats: Charles, William, Marie, I
  and if it really sealed those benefits only for the elect        baljtize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Sqn,
  or for the regenerated. One fallen dnto sin, who is in           and of the Holy Ghost. ,C>r rather : Jehovah -does not
  danger of despairing of God's mercy, will doubt, first           repeat that word: He continues' to speak it, it con-
  bf all, his election or his being regenerated, and thus          tinues to come to us  out of His heart in unbroken
  he  would  f.%Ql  mi support at all for his faith in  his        power, seriousness, and grace."'
  baptism.'                                                           Arid in the same  pampl$et, p. 5, the Professor
      "A little  fiirthor the  p&`e~s,or   writes: `Baptism        writes : "To -understand clearly what the  sentence
  seals tinto tis thij! B$QU%ST (8CHENKING)  as being means (Baptism is a `seal upori the. promise of God,
  a  matter of  fact,  mob the  ,%MPARTATLON   (DEEL-              H.H.) we must thoroughly know and ever maintain, "
  ACHTIGMAKING)l  "1~ izzlvilig taken place ; it seals             that the Lord was pleased in His wonderful love to                ~
 '  khe  benef,its  OS  BEQUaATHED  (GESCFONKENE)                  give to all the children of believers His promise. Or,
not as  SUBJECTIVZLY IMPARTED  (ONDGFWER-                          to say it diifferently : It pleased Him to give a glorious
  P%LIJK DEELACHTIG gemsakte), That this is the                    pledge to those children. He says.namely to all those
  meaning of the Form for Baptism is, among other                  children, head for head, day in day out, well-meaningly
 things, evident from the ,expression : &p&&g urnto us             and uprightly: I  tirn the Lord  ydur God. I  establish-
  that which we  hccve. in Christ.  That which baptism             my covenant with you. I wash you .of all your sins
  seals  unt.0 us as being in our possession is-the objective      in the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. My Holy Spirit
  having in  0&r& in  virtue of the bequest.  l&t this             will dwell in you. Briefly: I pledge to  -you the full
  cati pnly acquire a saving character through the appli-          forgiveness of tiivs and eternal salvation : all the treas-
  cation of the Holy Spir.it,  and, in reference to this the       ures and Fiches, -which I will and am able to give `to
  Holy Spirit again' seals imto all equally, not that He           men."                            1
  has done this or shall d,o this, but that He WILL do                This is Heynsianism. .
  this'."                                          ,                  Thiis is common grace applied to the covenant.
                                                                      And this is the general view of the Liberated.
     It is clear, therefore, that in their covenant con-              Now let the Rev. Vermeer prove, squarely facing                     .
, ception the Liberated' churches admbittedly  aglee with          my  argutients (and I can quote much more), that I
  Hejms.  Obj8ecltively all the blessings df the covenant          wildly hurl the charge of Heynsianism against the
  are for all that  a& baptized. To all they are be- Liberated.
  queathed. Their bequest is sealed tQ all in baptism..               And if he c_annot- prove  this, let him apologize for
  But whether this bequest is to be realized unto them,            his wi;ld accusation in a brotherly spirit.
  whether they shall actually enter upon the possession               I expect an answer.
  of the solemnly promised' inheritance depends upon                                                          .,     Ii.  H .
  the questio'n whether they accept this inheritance  or
 .this promise by faith, yes or no.
     With this view of the covenant and of the promise,
  the Liberated agree, as far as 1 know, without excep-.                            .      *                             I
 <ion.                                                                                    I  CLASSIS EAST
     I will also quote ,from the well-known "AppBlT' of            will meet in special session Wednesday, February 28,
  Prof. Veenhof. Writes he, on page 4 : "For when God              at 9 -00 A.M. Th& meeting will be a continuation of
  gives His baptism to a htiman being; He bestows upon             tlie January meeting for the purpose of treating the
  him a very particular` proof of His love." Again :               Declaration of Principles.
  "When a child is being baptized, the L,ord Himself +p-                                                 D.  Joriker, (S. C.)
  proaches  that  little  child. He Himself sprinkles the
  water on its little head and says very really and very                                                 -
  personally : John, Marie, Anna, I, the Lord Himself,
 `baptize thee, irnmefse thee, in my holy name. Thou
  now belongest to me." And again: "Baptism given                                           A T T E N T I O N   !
  us by the Lord iemains ever a power, eTiery  day, every
 hour, even until ,OUY' death, yea, unto all eternity. `Fact                       CLASSIST  W E S T
 is really ithat the Lord continually baptizes us. After           meets in `Hull, Iowa, Wednesday, March 7, 1951


     226                                      \THE  S T A N D A R D   B E A R 'E R   -

            The ,`Decla+ation  Of Principles. j formed,, to say that faith is not a condition unto the
                                                                     I promise, but that God promises faith.
                                                                             And this is `certainly traditionally Protestant  Re-
            As to the Declaration of Principles, we will first           f,ormed,  ever since  1924. Everyone may know that
     `of all discuss what is found under I, D, 2 : "That &e              we as `. Protestant Reformed Churches have always
     promise of the gospel is not a  .&racious  offer of sa!.-           sounded the same  n.ote in this respect. `The promise
     vation on the. part of God to all men, nor a conditional            includes all of salvation, and faith is not a condition
 - offer to ill- th& are born in the historical dispensatio:i            unto that promise.
     of the covenant, that is, to all that are baptized, `but                I quote and translate from "Het Evangelie", pp.
     an oath of `God that He will in$allibly lead all the elect          142,' ff. :       -.
     Unto `salvation and eterilal  glory through faith."                     "A promise rests only in the one that promises,
      : The first part of this p`aragraph is directed against the promise of the gospel rests $or its certain fulfill-
     the First Point of 1924. In  th.at- First Point it was              ment only in,the eternal and' faithful God;  the gospel
     declared by the synod that God is gracious to all that              of the ,promise,  is therefore eternally certain. For a
     hear the gospel as a well-meaning. offer on the part. of            promise is a written or verbal declaration, whereby he
m God, in other words, that the preaching of the gospel                  that  p?omises  is bound to do  or to grant something.
     is `grace to all.        "                                          The gospel of t&e. promise therefore is the glad tidings
            The second part, natiely, th,at the  .prom&e  of the. that ,God ha% hound Himself to give unto the heirs .oi'
      gospel is "not a conditional offer to, all that are born           the promise eternal life. And this-leads me to the
      in the historical dispensation of the covenant, that-  is,         second point of difference: an  offer; is in its very
     to all that are baptized, but an oath df God that He will           nature general and indefinite.; a promise is particular
     `infallibly lead all the elect unto salvation and eternal' and definite. If the gospel is an offer, it is a glad
      glory through faith", is virtually directed against the            tidings to ail- men without distinction ; if the gospel
      same error. `The ,erYor-ii  common grace appli,ed  to the          is-a promise, as the Scripture teaches, it is glad tidings
      sphere of the historical line of the covenant. This is             of Gcd only to the heirs of the promise,
      Heynsianism. And it is at the same time. the theory                    `"This idea, this Scriptural id& of the gospel, also
      of tlie Liberated.                                                 determines the c&tents  of the gospel. If according to
            The question therefore is chiefly what is meant by           its idea/ the gospel is glad tidings `concerning the prom-
      the.`promise of God.                                               ise to Abraham and his seed, it follows that the gospel
                                                                         -cannot be anything else than the proclamation of that
      `: They say that the promise is cbnditional. We main-              promise.       The promise is the contents of the gospel.
      tain that it is  uncbnditional. They. claim' that the              It is nothing else. It is nothing  niore. It is  nothi.ng
      promise  of God is for all that are born in the historica!         less. Whoever pr:eaches the gospel has to speak ac-
      line of the covenant. We insist that it is f,or the elect -cording. <to the contents of his proclamation nothipg \
     ' alcjne and that it is an `oath of God that He will'infal-         else than of this promise of God. Whoever proclaims
      libly lead all the elect unto salvation and eternal-glory          something else is sitiply no minister of `the gospel.
-through faith.                                                          A Verbi Dei Minister is a proclaimer of the gospel of
            It will be evident that ac'cording tom the conc?ption        God, or he is an intruder. And not .only is it impossible
      of the, Liberated faith is excluded from the promise.              that his proclamat?on  can have ahother content than
      I am well aware that ,on- the other hand also <the Liber-          the promise of God, but he is also called to present
      ated teach that faith is a gift of God, and that man df            t&at gospel as the glad tidings of a pro&&e  which God
      himself cannot believe, and that. ther@fore reaily they            stir&ly fulfills. Whoever makes of the promise of God
 also teach that faith is included in the promise. But                   an offer which for its fulfillment' is dependent on the
      on the other hand, thejr plainly insist that faith is a            &ill of kan distorts the. gospel of God. . And finally,
      condition which we must fulfill in &der to obtain the              th'is proclamation must be thecglad  tidings of a certain
      prorriise.    And therefore' the - promise, according tQ           prqniise of Go& to the heirs of the promise. He who
      them, does not  &elude faith. This is really the old               presents it <differently, who presetits.  the matter as if
      double-track tlieolqgy .which we have always rejected.             the,promise  ,of -`God is m&ant for ,a11 men,' makes God a
      Repeatedly I have asked `them to explain this contra-              liar. For He. does not realize His promise to all men;
diction, but thus far they have never succeeded.' '                      tier did He.  eirer  prori?ise anything like salvation  to,
            Let us clearly see this difference.                          till men ; but He promises the inheritance only, to the
i           Is fait+ a condition which we musit fulfill in order         heirs, Abraham and his seed,  atid this promise He
      to obtain the promise? `Or is faith included in the                Himself realizes as the faithful and unchangeable
      promise, s'o that `Go1 also promises faith?                        God.`,'
      I Both cannot be true. It is either . . . or.                           "If the gospel is according to Scripture the glad         ~
            Now  St  certainly   `is  Refnrmed,   Confessionally  Re-    tidings concerning the promise; it lies In the nature

                                                                                                          .


                                            T H E   S T A N - D A R D   B E A R E R                                         227

      of th'e case, that the contents of- this promise of God       kingdom assumes a spiritual, ethical character, alid
      is also the contents of the holy gospel: From this ., that we are subsumed in the whole of the work of
      po,int of view we may-distinguish the co&ents of the          ,God unto salvation as rational, moral creatures. If
      gospel according to its objective and subjective aspect. .the work of salvation were merely a deliversnce  from
      Objectively speaking, the central contents of the prom-       hell and a receiving-into heaven, it could be accom-
      ise and .therefor,e  also -of the gospel is Christ and $1 ,plished without us in the sense that the inner life pi"
      His benefits. Christ is the realization of the promise,       our soul, our moral consciousne&,  had nothing to do
      because God realizes  His eternal  ..covenant  in .and        with that salvation. But now it is different.. Through
      through Him. For that reason through the gospel               the work-of salvation we are translated from darkness
      Christ must be proclaimed in all His significance, in         into light, from death into life.  Thro,ugh that work
      His incarnation, His person and natures, His &ices            a -very fundamental change takes place in the very
      and HiS relation to the covenant 9f God and His king-         root of our life and of our person. It is a change in
      dbm, in His Word, in which `He revealed to us the             our judicial and spiritual, ethical relation to God! .
      whole counsel of- `God cbncerning  our redemption, in         For that reason this salvation comes to us as rational,
      His work, His suffering and deathj His resurrection           moral creatures. For that reason it comes to us through
       and  exiltation at the right hand of ,the Father, His        the' Word of God. Through that Word  -God speaks
      dominion and power over all things, and His re;turn           unto us. Thrdugh that Word He carries the sal.vation
      to judgment, in order to make all things, new.. and $0        into our consciousness. He addresses us. He dir&s
      subject them unto the Father.                                 that Word to our intellect. Through that Word' He
          "B, there is also a subjedive aspect of the gospel,       addresses our .will, ' He teaches, illuminates, inst&ts,
      which  accordilig to its contents is the realiiation of       reveals, warns, demands, admonishes,  cal$s unto. the
      the promise. It also belohgs to  the, contents of  the        obedience df the gospel, invites, draws, ey&n prays,
      promise that God makes us really partakers of all the         encourages and comforts,  exhorts' and  _ c&. to t@e
      benefits of salvation in IChrist Jesus, and that, tdo,        fight of faith unto the.end. Never ate we stocks &d
      through the Spirit of God as the Spirit of Christ. For blocks. Also the pro&nation of the gospel ever places
      the promise is, also the prbmise of the Holy Spirit.          us  before the inevitable: Yea and No! And  se&g
      And this promise of the Spirit is first of all and ken-       that. this proclamation of the gospel reaches .m+ny
      trally fulfilled in our Lord Jesus Christ,  And in and        more persons than the elect, the ungodly reprobate are
      through Him also in the church which is His body.             also compelled to say zjes and `120, sin is revealed as
      He received th;e promise of the Holy Spirit and poured        being really sin, and God is being justified when Hke
      out that.!Spirit in the chqrch on the day of Pentecost.       judges. -But this does not change the fact, that the
      And through that Spirit He came to dwell in His own.          preaching of the gospel`is not a gener_al offer of God-
      And ibis through that Spirit that He imparts Himself          to all'men, but the proclamation 02 the contents of the
      afid all His benefits to .the church. Hence also all the      promise,.. which God certainly fulfills only to the heirs
      work bf the Holy Spirit belongs to t&e promise, to the        of the promise."
      contents of the  gospel and to true gospel teaching.             This, a,nd not the theory that faith is a Condition
      Regeneration aizd the .efficacious calling through the to  .obtain  the [promise, .is .Protestatit  Reformed lan-
      Word unto true life and light, justification and sanctifi- guage. It has &ways been Protestant Reformed since
       cation tog&her with perseverance unto the very end i924.
      and the final glorification, life, love, faith, .and hope,       Nor can anyone deduce.a  different sound from a
      and all that belongs to the life of the Spirit of Christ      quotation from my "Abundant Mercy", p. 171,  to
       as  tie realizes it in the church,-all this belongs to       which also the Rev. Blahkespoor  refers.
      the contents of the promise of God to His people .and            Let me offer the full !quotation:       `.
      must be proclaimed as the work' of CGod, the certain
.~                                                                     "Nor is the relation between faith and justification
      work of God in us through His grace,. in the preaching to be conceived and presented as that of a benefit on
       of the gospel. You certainly detract from the work of ,God's part and a  colldition  on our part. This, too,
       God if ayou would present all this as `an uncertain o$       is often alleged. Go.d' saves and .justifies us on con-
       conditional o;fer. God, Who cannot lie, has also prom- ,dition  tl@t we believe. Superficially considered,  it
      ised these benefits to the heirs `of the promise and          might seem as if there were truth in this assertion.
       swore tiith an oath that He would grant them unto' Is it not. true that we must believe in order -to be
      them. That God fulfills the promise of the Holy Spirit        saved?  If  we believe in  the4Lord   J&SUE?  Christ, we
      to the  $leet,  just as  surely as He centrally  sulfilled    shall be justified ; if not, we shall be danined. It ap-
      t&m in Christ, must be proclaimed in the -Freaching           pears, then, that justification is conditioned by fa"lth.
      of the gospel.                        -.                         "Yet this  cannot be the  r,elation. First  pf all, it
          "We  under$and very' well,  that the -contents of should be. remembe+ed  that objective justification is
      salvation, that the blessing of God's covenant and
                           i                                        befo?e faith,  IObjectively,  we are justified  regardlesg


      228                               :  3    T H E   S T A N D A R D   B E A R E R

      bf our faith. .In eternal election all those given Christ proved.           This we do in II, A, of the Declaration.
       by the Father are righteous before God forever. And There we read:
      this righteousness `-cannot  be contingent upon faith,             . "That election, which is  -the unconditional and
      even though it is true that we cannot appropriate this            unchangeable decree of  ,God to redeem in Christ a
       gift of righteousl!ess  except by a true and living faith.       certain number of persons, is the sole cause and fomi-
       Besides, long before we believe, the justification of all tain of all dur salvation, whence flow all'the gifts of
       the elect i's accomplished forever in the `cross and             grace, including faith. This is the plain teaching of
       resurrection of Jesus Christ. And, secondly, although            our confession inthe Canons of Dordrecht, I, A, 6, 7.
       it is true that justification in the subjective sense is            "Art. `6. That some receive the gift of faith from
       contingent upon faith, we must never forget that faith God, and others do not receive it, proceeds from God's
       is not ,of ourselves, it is a ,gift of God. It is therefore      eternal decree, (by the way, t&is plainly shows that
       not a condition which we must fulfill in order to be
0                                                                       the decree of God is the fountain from which all the
       justified : God Himself fulfills all the`conditions of sal-      benefits of salvation, including faith, flow), `For
       v a t i o n . "        d                                         known unto God are all his works. from the beginning
             How anyone cdn ' deduce from these paragraphs              of the world', Acts 15  :8. `Who worketh all things
      -Ihat I teach that faith is a condition unto justificaiion, <after the counsel of his will', Eph. 1 :ll. According to
       whether in ihe objective or -in the subjective sense of          which decree, he graciously softens the hearts of the.
       the word, is a mystery to me.  It is true  that I say' elect, however obstinate; and inclines them to believe,
       that justification in the subjective sense is contingknt         while he leaves the non-elect in his just judgment to
       upon faith. But in `the first place, it is very plain their own wickedness and obduracy. And herein is es-
       that I teach here th%tt faith is not a condition even of pecially displayed the profound, the merciful, and at
       justification in the. subjective~  sense. And secondly,          the same time the righteous discrimination between
       although the word contingent is probably not a happy             men, equally involved in ruin ; or that decree of election
       term, it certainly does not have the meaning of co&              and reprobation, revealed in the Word of God, which
       dition in this connection. I' take it here iii the sense though men of perversk; impure ,and unstable minds
       of dependence upon a cause khich is beyond our con-              wrest to their own .destruction, yet to holy and pious
       trol:  Alid that cause is faith which God  works  in eso~~ls  affords unspeakable consolation."
       our hearts by the Holy  Sljirit.` When God fulfills
       all. the conditions, there are certainly nb conditions            `h And again:
       which we must-fulfill ai all.                                       "Art. 7. Election is the unchangeable purpose of
                                                                        .God, .whereby,  before the foundation of the world, he
             Once more I want to emphasize that this is Pro- hath out of mere grace,  decording to the sovereign  '
       testant Reformed language,`and  has always been.                 good pleasure of his own will, chosen, froni the whole
             But the Declaration' of Principles ddes not. claim human race, which had fallen through their own $a&,
     to be based on Protestant Reformed tradition; but on from their primitive state of. rectitude, into sin and
     the Three Forms of Unity pure and simple. And                      destruction, a certain number of persons to redemp-
       therefore the'question is further, whether this truth, tion in Christ, whom he from eternity appointed the
       that the plyomise'of God is an oath of <God  that He will        Mediator and Head of the elect, and the foundation of
       infallibly lead all the elect unto salvation and eterhal         salvation."
       glory through faith, is Reformed in the confessional'               A n d   a g a i n :
       sense of the word.                                                  "This elect number, though by nature neither better
             Iti parentheses let me en-iphas,ize  that this Deciara-    nor more deserving thap others, but with them in-
       tion `of Principles was not composed as a certain fourth         volved in the  commcm  misery,  .God hath decreed to
       form for our churches, but that it was simply meant give to Christ, to be sayed by him, and effectually to
       as a basis for the work of our  mission&ies in the               call and draw them to his communion by his word
       organization of new churches. In our `discussion this            and Spirit, to bestow upon them true faith, justification
       has almokt been lost sight of, but it is  neverthele?s * and sanctification ; and having powerfully tireserved
       true.     And it is,  wel! to be reminded of  ( this fact.       them in the fellowship of his Son, finally, to glorify .
       NeveY'theless,  also such a basis for the arganization                                             .
                                                                        them for the demonstration of his mercy, :and for the
       of prospective Protestant Reformed Churches must, ' praise of his glorious grace ; as it is written : `Accord-
       of course, be based fo&r-squarely  on our (Confessions.          ing. as he hath chosen us in him, befor,e the foundation
       And therefore the, question is certainly whether this            ofi  the world, that we should be holy, and' without
       statement, that the promise is an oath of God `which             blame before him in love ; having predestinated us
       He infallibly fulfills unto all the elect, is based four-        unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to him-
       squarely on the Three Forms of Unity.                            self, according to the good pleasure of his will, tq the
             `That  t&is is indeed the case can be very easily praise of the glory of his grace, tiherein he hath made


                                                                                               ._
                                            T H E   S T A N D A R D   B E A R E R                                         229

   us accepted in the beloved! Eph. 1:4, 5, 6. - And else- and unchangeable decree those that would believe in
   where: `Whom he did predestinate, them he also call-          ,Christ. That is projecting thme condition of faith into
   ed, and whom he called, .them he also,. justified, and        the decree.  And  .that demands, of  cburse, that also
   whom he justified, them he also glorified.' Rom. 8 :30." the promise arid the realization`of the promise is con-
       Now first of all, I want to call the attention of our     ditional.    And this Arminianism we certainly must
   readers to the fact that this has nothing to do with not have. Hence, we claim that the proposition of I, D,
   the question  concer.ning supra or  infya. The, Con-          2 of the Decla@,tion  is certainly `true" and correct and
   fessions, as we al! know,`are infralapsarian,  represent-     based upon our Confessions, namely: "That the prom-
   ing therefore the mildest form of the doctrine  of pre-       ise bf--the gospel is not a gracious offer of salvation
   destination. And that we quote from  the.  infralap-          on the part of God to all men, not a conditional offer
   sarian confession is, plain from the following quota-         bf salvation to all that are born in the historical dis-
   tions : "And herein is especially displayed the  pro-         pensation of the covenant, that is, to all that are bap-
   ?ound, the merciful, and at the same time the right-          tized, but an oath of God that He will infallibly lead
   equs discrimination between men equully GwoLved in            a& the elect unto salvation and eternal glory through
 min." And again,  nc:pd  has  "chosen,..from the whole          faith."
   human race; which had fallen thpough their own fault,            But theri is more proof for this proposition.
   from their primitive state of rectitude, into sin and            The Declaration of Principles also quotes fr0m'th.e
   destruction." And once more: "This elect number,              doctrinal part of the Form for Baptism as follows :
   though by nature neither better nor more deserving               "For when we are baptized in  the name of the                ,
   than others, but with them involved in the common             F&her,~,God the Father witnesseth  and sealeth unto us,
   mis,ery, God hath decreed to give to  ,Christ." These         that&he  doth make bn eternal covenant of grace with
   qubtations  abundantiy show  that the confession is           us, and adopts us for his children and heirs, and there-
   infralapsarian. And as far as the Declaration of Prin- fore will provide us with every good thing, and avert
   ciples is concerned, w,e are Iquite  willing to lea& them `all evil or turn it to our profit. `And- when we are
   thus. Hence, the question of sbpralapsarianism  and baptized in the name of the Bon, Jhe.Soti sealekh  unto
  infralapsarianism has nothing to do with the Declara-          us, that he doth wash us in his blood from all our sins,
   tion of Principles.                                           incorporating LIS into the fellowship of his death and
      Yet these quotations, especially the last  one, plainly resurrection, so that we are freed from all our sins,
   prove that the promise of God is an oath that He will         and accounted righteous before God. In like manner,
  insallibly lead the elect, unto salvation in Christ through    when we aie baptized in the name of the Holy Ghost,
   faith, and that it is uncoliditional;                         the Holy Ghost assures us, by this holy  sacratient,
      You say, perhaps, that these quotations do not that he will dwell in us, and sanctify us to be members
   speak of the promise, but of the decree of God con-           of Christ, applying unto us that which we have in
   cerning the promise.                                          Christ, namely, the washing away of our  sins,`.and
      A;nd that is certainly true.                               the daily renewing of our lives, till we shall' finally
     .But surely.you  cannot separate the realization of the     be presented without spot or wrinkle among the as-
  promise from the decree of the promise., When our fath-        sembly of the elect in life eternal."
   ers say in Art. 7 of the Can&s that "he hath decreed to          All thi`s is God's part of the covenant, not ours.
  give to Christ, to be,saved by Him, and `effectually to           AndLthat it is sure and unconditional is very evi-
  call and to draw them into his communion by  His Word          dent from the langdage  of this part of our Baptism
 I and Spirit, to bestow upon them true faith, justification Form throughout.
  and sanctification; and having powerfiilly preserved              God the Father witnesseth and sealeth unto us,
  them in the fellowship of' his #Son, `finally, to glorify      that is, the' elect, that He doth make an eternal cove-
  them` for the demonstration of his mercy, and for the          nant of grace, that He adopts us for' His children .and
  praise of his glorious grace," it means, of course, that heirs, that He wilJ provide us with every good $ing
  this is th.e promise of God to the elect and to no one         and avert all evil or turn it to our profit. This cove-
  else, an oath of God based upon His secret decree that         nant God establishes alone. It is absolutely a unilat-
  He will lead His people infallibly .unto salvation in          eral covenant. He establishes it not dn condition ,of
  Christ. The moment you speak of conditions in the              faith,  but unconditionally. .             -
  Y;ealization  of the promise of God .you certainly must           Then, in baptism the Son sealeth unto .us that He
: project those conditions in the decree. This'is  inevi-t-      doth wash us in His blood from all our sins, He in-
  ,able. And the moment you make the promise, and                corporates us into .the fellowship of His death, and
  also, therefore, the decree of God concerning the prorn-       r,esurrection,  so that we are freed from all our sins
  ise cdnditional, you have become Arminian. The Ar-             and accounted righteous before  <God. All this is the
  minialis teach that God has chosen with an infallible
        b                                                        part of the covenant which the Son seals unto us.


 2    3    0                             T H E   .STANDARD   B E A R E R

  And He does so without any bondition on the part of
 man. In other words, baptism seals the complete and                                 Van  Boeken
 full promise unto the elect.
      Finally, according to the Baptism Form, baptism             Wnt is  Calvizistische  Wijsbeg.eierte?,  door Ds. J. M.
  also seals unto us that. the Holy Ghost will dwell in us             Spier. Uitgever: J. H Kok, N.V. Kampen, the
  and sanctify  us to -be  menibers of Christ, applying                  Netherlands. Prijs f. 1.95.
  unto us that which. w,6 have in Christ, the washing                  Dit boekje tT;an 78 paginas bedoelt een soort van
  away of bur sins and the daily renewing of dur lives,           bekndpte uiteenzetting te geven van de hoof dmomenten
  till. we shall  .finally be presented without spdt or           der Calvinistische wijsbegeerte der wetsidee in, popu-
  wrinkle ainong'the  ass&mblji  of the elect in life eternal.    laire taal  6n  srtijl. De sehrijver is  zich  bewust, dat
  We know how Heyns, also quqted by the `Liberate&                `"niet ieder calvinistisch christen lust, gelegenheid en
  evades the stringency of this plain language by separ-          bekwaamheid  heeft om zich te verdiepen in de gedach-
  ating  in the Baptism Form the work of the Father               ten van de calvinistische wijsbegeerte".  Maar  tech
  and the Son from that of the Holy Spirit. According             meent hij, "dat velen in onzen kring w,el iets nad,ers
  to him, when the Father as,sures  us that H,e establishes begeren te weten van deze phil{sofie." Daarom heeft
  His covenant with us and adopts us for His children             Ds. Spier dit bbekje geschreven.
and heirs, and when the Son in baptisin seals unto                _     Misschien zijn er ook onder ons in Amerika, die
 `us that He washes us in His blood and incorporates              van deze philosofie gaarne kennis zouden nemen. Bij
  us into the fellowship `of His death and resurrection,          hen bevelen we deze benopt& uiteenzetiing  gaarne aan.
  this- must be .regarded  as an objective bequest t&all                Ik kan het niet eens (zooals ik reeds broeger heb
  that are baptized, -and nbt only to the elect. But when         opgemerkt  t.a.v. ,cle wijsbegeerte der Wetsidee) met des
  in the la& part of this same passage- of the B&ptism            schrijvers omschrijving van "hart" en "ziel".  En'hoe
  Form we r,ead that the Holy .Ghost assures' us by this , kan hij schrijven, dat in de Heiiige Schrift de Be1 (ne-
  holy sacrament that' He will dwell in us, he wants to           phesh, psyche)  meestal.het  hart (lebh, kardia) wordt
,, emphasize that word `WILL: implying that this is not           genoemd, ver&a  ik ntet.                         H.-H.
  sure tit all, but that it depends on the question wh&h&r
  we will accept our covenant obligation by faith. Hence,                                 *     *     *     :k
  also Hejms wants to exclude faith from the promise.
But this, of  tiourse,  is a. distortion of the meaning  df       De  B,&eering,   door Dr. G. Brillenburg  Wurth.  Uit-
  the Baptism Form, as ought to be  plain to all. We                     gev& : J. H. Kok, N.V. icampen, Nederland.
  cannot so separate the work of the Father and the Son                 Dit werkje over de  Bekeering  bevelen we gaarne
  from that of the Holy Spirit. Besides, when the Bap-            bij ons nog Hollandsch lezend publiek aan. I-Iet werd
  tism Form says that by baptism the Holy  ,Ghost                 geschreven  voornamelijk met het oog op het evangelle-
  a.sszLres us that He w.ill dwell in .us and sanctify us         satie-werk.' De taal, is eenvoudig en goed verstaanbaar
  to be metibers of Christ, applying unto us that which- voor ons  Hollandsch sprekend volk in Amerikd. En
  we have in ,Christ, it certainly means that in baptism          het gehalte is gerefdrmeerd.
the elect have the indubitable promise that the Holy                    Het is van belang h.et oordeel van den schrijver te
  Ghost will give them the true and living faith. Faith,          lezen over de "revivals", zoqals die ten onzent zoo dik-      L
  therefore, is not presented as a condition  at all, but is      wijls voorkomen. Ofsch6on zijn oordeel niet bepaald
  included in the promise. Faith i,s not a condition unto         gunstig is, zou lnijn persoonlijk oordeel tech nog on-
 :$he promise, but God promises unto us the ,entire  realiz-      gunstiger uitvallen.
  ation of the covenant, including faith.                               H&telijk aanbevolen.                       `H. H.
      `knd therefore, we claim that  we teach nothing                                     :!z *,,  *  4:
  new, nothing extra-confessional,  but  onljr that. which
  is based four&quarely on our Three Forms of Unity,              De Hcmdelingen-  Der Apostelen, door Dr: F. W. Gro,&
 when we claim that. the promise of God is -not an                       heide, twee  deelen. Uitgever :  j. H Kok, N.V.
  off.er of kalvation,  nor a conditional offer  td all that             Karnpen, Nederland. Prijs per deel f. 4.50.
  `are baptized, but an oath of God that He will infallibly
  lead- all the  .elect unto salvation and  eterrial  glory             Deze  comrnentaar behoort bij  d'e bekende serie-
  through faith.                                                  "`Korte Verklaring der Heilige Schrift". ,Ook deze vey-
   _ we have more to `say about this question, especially         klaring van Dr. Grosheide bevelen we hartelijk aan.
 ,also in connection with the. promiscuous declaration            De exegese is degelijk,  de taal is eenvoudig, de stijl is
  of the-promise to all that hear the gdspel.                     glashelder. Zij, ,die op onze vereenigingen de "Hande-
                                                                  lingen der Apostelen" besprek&  of in de toekomst  j
      But about this next time,%he  Lord willing.                 denkeh te behandelen, zul.len we1 doen aieh deze ver-
                                          n        I& H.          klaring aan te-schajff&.                         H. H:

                                                                                    --


                                       T H E   S T A N - D A R D   B E A R E R                                     231

      Hainiltim's Lhter To All 8 !Our                          and also in this strange, la.nd." He was deposed from
                                                               office because he said this. This is meant with the
                     Con&to&s  . `"attitude'of brother Reitsma". The clerk @f the con-
                                                               sistory here, L. Wapwijk, confirmed this last night
                                                               when Reitsma and I met briefly with them to dispose
      Each consistory of our `churches has received a          of certain matters that had to be treated.
   letter from the consistory of what was the Protestant          L. Van Huizen read in the afternoon. Incidentally,
  Reformed%hurch  of Hamilton relative my suspension           I attended both services. In- his' prayer he accused
   and deposition and their departure from  .our com-          our churches of "barring children of  Gqd from- the
   munion of churches. --In this letter these men d~eclarej    table of the  ILord." If this matter had never. been
   o.a., that-my attitudg and the attitude of S. Reitsllla     discussed with these men I could understand this as-
  the Sunday of Jan. 14 are partly responsible for their       sertion of Van Huizen and would not' have criticized it.
   decision Do leave our churches.                             But such is not the case. Repeatediy' these men at
      At' first I wondered whether it was necessary to         Hamilton have been told, by the undersigned alid the
   answer this bit of slander, especially ,in the light of     church visitors' and the classical committee, th& it
 the fact that I have written another article in which         is not a matter of "barring children of God from the
   also this particular detail of Hamilton's history ap-. table -of. the Lord." If this were true, then the Liber-
s pears.    However, on the  one hand I do not  know           atkd churches of the Netherlands would be guilty `of
= whether this article will appear in the Standard Bearer      the same sin when they' refuse synodicals' into their
   and, secondly, I do not know when it will appear. It is     fellowship because th.ey cling to their conceptions but
   probably b&t, therefore, that I answer .this r,emark of     concerning whom one must say that they are children
   the letter which has been sent to all our consistories.     ,of God. The, sole.issue  liere in Hamilton was that we
                                                               may not permit brethren to be accepted into our fellow-
      Again I say, judging this particular remark in the       ship who are and intend to remain Liberated, who will
   light of the <entire article, my answer should not be therefore not hesitate to destroy our Protestant Re-
   necessary. The brethren will surely have noticed that, formed cause. Van ,Huizen knew this. Yet, he prayed
   at the same consistory meeting ,of Jan. 16, 1951, my        as he' d<d. I told him.after  the afternoon service that
   suspension  was lifted, and that brother Reitsma and        I could not pray his prayer, inasmuch as he had nbt
   the unhersigned were deposed (no longer acknowl-            spoken the truth before God and the Ghurch. How-
   edged as the .legal office bearers.). The brethren must     ever, I also told him to his face that he had been de-
   also have noti.eed  that a copy. of this decision of the    ceitfL;l  and hypocritical. Last summer, when-the sub-
   consistory was sent to Reitsma and the undersi.gned,        ject of "binding" was.a burning question and the con-
  Ithat we, therefore, were not even present at the meet-      sistory refused td enforce their "binding" decision of
   ing. And the brethren must also understand that we          Julie 5, the consistory told me that: we have the truth,
   were.not even notified that this particular meeting of      the pure preaching, yea, that ocir preaching is puirer
   the consistory would be held that evening. We simply        than that in the Netherlands, that I must preach that
   <id not know that a consistory meeting was being held       pure truth, that we  must not bar  pkople from the
   in which brother Reitsma and the undersign,ed  were         fellowship of our church because they- then would not
   "read out" of the consistory.                               come underneath our pl;eaching, that the preaching
      Nevertheless, I do wish to say something about our       must and would `drive dut the undesirables. At `that
   attitude-that particular Sunday of  ,Jan. 14, 1951. That    time I replied that the result of what they wan&d'to
 , was !he Sunday when my suspension was announced,            do wbuld be that instead of the preaching driving out
   a suspension, mind you, based upon my refusal to sub-       th.e undesirables these undesirables. would  `driv&' out
   mit to the co+istory upon tlie basis as willedjby .the      the preaching. However, the co'nsistory insisted that
   consistory. When I asked L. Van Huizen, `one of the         we had the pure preaching and' that I must by all
   elders, tifter  the ;Sunday afternoon service why I had     means preach that truth. Now I have been suspended.
  .been deposed he answered'that  I had not been deposed       Because I  re"fused   tb submit to the will of the  con-
   upon ariy ground which appears in t$e Church Order.         sistory.    But this is not all.  van Huizen also de-
   When I'answered thereupon that then 1,had not been          clared, eat the consistory meeting %hi.ch suspended me,
   suspended, he replied that I was surely suspended,.  and that I had offended the congregation, liot personally
   that the .`ground of my suspension does dot appear in       (so he emphasized) but because I had'emphasized  that
  the pChur&h Order is not surprising, inasmuch as the         the promise is not general but only foi the elect. He,
 . fathers were not aclquainted with everything either.        too, found fault witli the fact that I had been emphasiz-
   Brother Reitsma read a sermon in the morning service        ing the Protestant Reformed truth. Can anyone har-
   and  meitioned in his prayer that "faithful  `offi,ce-      monize this with that which they -told me last summer
  bearers had been denied the pulpit in the ,Netherlands       when the matter of binding was discussed, . .For this


  232                                          ~  T H E   S T A N D A R D   B E A R E R                        .__-_  ..~ --..- --
   reason, I accused Van Huizen and John Ton (the only
   consistory members present that Sunday afternoon                            The End Of Hamilton
   besides Reitsma and the undersigned) that" the con;
   sistory had been d,eceitful because, in the first place,            ~ Stich is indeed tie case. This week, the t~&k 0f
  they never intended to bar anyone that tvas Liberated,             January 14-20, has witnessed the end of this songreg%
   and, in the second place, because they, iri connectibn            tion as a  Protestant  Reformed  ,Church. The  underi
   with my suspension, had begun to attack my Pro- signed has `already written two articles for. the Stan-
   testant  R,eformed   pi-caching. This, our  reade!rs  must dard Bearer in  cotinection  with the  hist@y  of  OUT
   understand, did not occur publicly, `but only in the              church in this Canadian city, last Dec. 15 and in Feb.
  presepce  of  cdnsistory  members. And it should also              153  19,51. These were lengthy articles. However, much
  be borne in,mind that this was the first time, as long has happened in Hamilton since .-our return from the
   as I have been minister of Hamilton, and in spite of              January, 1951 Classis, with which our pesple'ottght  to
  the many difficulties'which we experienced here, ever be acquainted; Besides, in the light of  the  insinti-
   since the month of June and July, that -1 ever had                ations against and attacks by these Liberated "b&h-
  anyth.ing personal with any consistory member ex- ren" D upon the undersigned, I have decided to write
  cept Hart of whom even the consistory said that he                 another article which will enter somewhat in d&$1
  was guilty of backbiting and slander, and who- left into these things. We will name persons and dates.
  us Dec. 5. Yet, the first time that I become thus in-              We-do this for the sake of the record, in order  that onr
  volved with these consistory members,  they have`the people as well as the churches in the Netherlands may
  boldness to write as they .did to all our tionsistories.           know the things that have happened in Hamilton. Be-              ~
   When I say that this is  the first time I  became in-             si,des, when the undersigned asked the consistory of
  volved in personal diffictilties  with this consist'ory of         Hamilton during the week of January 14-20 for the
  Hamilton, this is the testimony of the consistory it-' privilege of addressing- the  dotigregation after the
  s e l f .                                                          afternoon service of Jan. 21 (he had been suspendeh)
           For the r&t I can be brief. This consistory meet- for the purpose of giving the congregation all'the facts
  ing was held Tuesday ev&ing,  Jari. 16 last. Reitsma               in the case, this-privilege was denied him by the con-
  and I were not notified of the meeting. Yet, they had              sistory. Therefore this article, also for the. sake of
  the boldness to "read us out" of the consistory at this            the record, however.                      \
  illegal  ,meeting, illegal  -because Reitsma and I were
  not notified. They never discussed the matter with us,                    Was Hamilton  Org&ixecl  With&t  Any
_ never brought an accusation' against us,  simply  rid                              Binding Stipulation?
  themselves of us and then had the boldness to an-                     It mdy be necessary, for the sake of the yecord, `to
  nounce, themselves as the, "legal eonsistory" of, the repeat some things here which have appeared in tiy.
  First Prptestant  Reformed Church of Hamilton. Two                 previous articles of last Dec. 15 and Feb. 15. Hoti-
  elders deposed, !at. an illegal consistory meetirig  and           ever, I wish to begin with my experiences here before
  without  the advice of the  nbighboring cdnsistory or              I became the minister- of Hamilton. I first preached;
  the classis... ,Seldom' pave I read any;thing more bier-           in Hamilton in the month of January, 1949. Also in
  arc&al than this action.  Klapwijk, not present at the months of .February; May, and August of that year.
  the conclusion of the January 14 afternoon service ,Strange as it mtiy. be, I was already under a cloud be-
  when I revealed fiy -indignation and anger at Van fore I made my first appearance in Hamilton. I do
  Huizen and Ton, particularly the former, simply ac- not say this to cast atiy reflections upon anyone who
   cepted the word of Van Htiizen Jan. 16, signed, his               may have put me under that cloud, but because I .wish
  name.to  the letter which was sent to all the consistor-           to emphasize that the-people of Hamilton knew of my
ies, without asking that I `be present at this meeting stand qn< convictions tiefore I ever made `an appear-
  and without giving me an dpportunity  to defend.my-                ance  there: And, I never failed`to  dis&ss with  these
  self. This is  the'happening  of  th@ Sunday afternoon             people the things which distinguished us as Protestant,
   of Jan. 24, 1951, to which the letter  of; the present            Reformed Churches from the Liber_ated  Churches. Be-
   "legal" consistory refers. ' 1. now leave this matter sides, I always stressed the point that I was not speak-
  to the judgment of our readers. Besides, in conclusion,            ing fdr myseff, *as not merely giving them my per-
  what right does any consistory have to send a docu-                son"& ideas or opinions, but that I was emphasizing
  me&, such as this letter .of Hamilton, to all the con-             that which bharacterized us as Protestant Reformed
   sistories without addressin.g  it first to the classis?           Churches. I discussed with them the covenant, bap-
                                                 _  H; Veldman.      tism, the promise, infra- and supralapsarianism..  I say
                                                                     this because I wish to emphasize that: they called a
                                 $  .*  *  *                         mipister  concerning whom they knew what he would
    `f.                                                              preach and teach. Our people must understand that,

                                          _
                           .^


                                  I

                                        T H E   S T A N D A R D   B E A R E R                                           233

    when our missionary activity began in Canada; I be-         they will remain free to agitate against the doctrine
    longed to those skeptical ones who were apprehensive        of that church, not notify that church that they wish
    of this, work in Canada because of the differences be-      to join upon that condition? The immigrants of
    tween our churches and the Liberated. And it was            Chatham under`stodd  this in the autumn of 1949 when
    always my conviction that we owed it to these people        their first request for organization -was refused.
    and also to our churches that, in all our labor among
    them, we draw the lines tightly and without compro-             ' The Attitude of Van Huizen  and  Ha@
    mise. This I did whenever I discussed the truth with                 D             i n   -April,  1 9 5 0
    them during the year of 1949. They, I am sure, will            This,.. in the light of subsequent happenings, now
    never. deny this. ,And this is' all: the more striking in becomes important. It was in the  j month of April
    `the light of the fact that I was under a cloud, as far     that I, returning from one of my missionary tours:'
    a$ these. people are concerned, before I ever made an       was told that Van Huizen had said that, if they enforce
    appearance in  Hamiltoiz.  I may also add that I en-        binding, the congregation of Hamilton would disinte-            .
    joyed these discussions very much-members of our            grate. In the qame month the uridersigned. visited a
    Kalamazoo church will verify this.                          newly arrived family with elder Hart. When I asked
       Bearing the `above in mind, please note that, when       these people whether they wotild  promise to be further
    I received the call, the consistory ,promised  me that      instructed in our doctS& and whether .they also prom-
I  ' they would fully support me in all my Protestant Re-       ised not to agitate and their answers to these questions
    formed preaching and teaching. Can there be any             were favorable, Hart asked me, while I- was driving
    doubt in the hinds of `our people what I meant when         him home, whether the King of His Church required
    I placed that consistory before that question, or wheth-    of the  cqnsistory  to ask these newly arrived immi-
    er they understood me when I asked them that ques- -grants such quesfions. Bear in mind, please,, that the
    tion? And this receives the more emphasis in the            elders  L; Van Huizen and T. Hart expressed these
    light of what happened the Sunday of Nov. 6, 1949,          sentiments long before there was any mention of any
    when I led a, congregational meeting after the after- .Declaration. I assure'our readers that the Declaration
    noon service. Mind you, the consistory, had promised        is not the cause of their ofipositioti,  but. that their re-
    to support me fully the preceding  ebening. At this         jection of the Declaration is simply the fruit of the
    congregatioqal meeting one of the, members asked me         fact that they have no intention to bind themselves
    what my attitude would be toward newly arrived liber-       to the  Protestafit  Reformed Church.
    ated immigrants, and I answered him: When I see an                        .
    immigrant I will-say to myself :' you must become Pro-                         Deceitful Dealings.
    testant Reformed: Is it possible that these people             First, I refer to the backbiting and slander against
    could have misunderstood m'e when they promised to          ihe undersigned of elder T. -Hart. `On the one hand I
    support  tie fully in all my Protestant Reformed preach-    have every reason to believe that he worked against
    ing and teaching ? How I worked and that I proceeded        me, behind my back, from the `mol;lth  of August on.
    cautiously, after I became the minister of Hamilton,        A certain member of the congregation once told me,
   ,i's fully-set forth in`my article last Dec. 15. I write     late in 1950, that she wa,s irked because of what he
    this because I wish to emphasize that, binding them-        said to the children about their minister. However,
    selves to my preaching and teaching, they were bind-        he not only worked against me withih the congrega-
    ing themselves to the Protestant Reformed truth.            tion of Hamilton, but also slandered me outside the                  *
       `There is more. Let no ,one s'ay that the question       congregation. This was so clearly slander that the
    of binding was not in the minds of the& people when         consistory of Hamilton, when I told them about it after
  I accepted the call to Hamilton. I make also-this clear       Hart's departure, did not hesitate to say that the broth-
    in my article last Dec. 15, when I refer to the article     er had made himself "guilty of backbiting and slander.
    which appeared in the Reformatie as an answer of the        I brought the matter to the attention of the consistory
    consistory of,Hamilton to the slander of a certain M&s.     only after I had personally visited the man atid he had                   .
    Klaver of Hudsonville.     Nevertheless, although the       left  ou? church. Of this matter I could write  m&h
    question of binding was ,disturbing the minds of these      `more. If these remarks may surprise certain people
    people, and I emphasized that I would preach and teach      who were present at our October, 1950,  classis and who
   the Protestant Reformed truth, no one voiced a single        were amazed because of the fact that, in.spite of diffi-
    objection to me when I was considering the call of          culties in Hamilton, no personalities were involved,
    Hamilton.                                                   permit me to say that at the time af the lOctober classis
       Finally, what society permits a person to jdin its       I knew .nothing of all these things.
   f,ellowship  upon the conditi'on  that such person may          Secondly, I refer to the dealing of Mrs. L. Van
   agitate against said society? Should not inembers who        Huizen.  Thi,s  may surprise many people. And then
   intend to join a certain church upon the condition that\ I wish to say that there was none in the congregation
                                            .


                                                                                                       I

 234                                  T H E   S T A N D A R D -   BEARE.R                                   -

 of Hamilton whom I held in higher esteem than Mrs.           1650, `the last Sunday prior to our going to the States,
 Van Huizen. She was always so Protestant Reformed,           and the last time I sati Mrs. Van Huizen before the
 always enjoyed the sermons immensely, never failed Sunday of. Jan. 14, 1951, she said to me that I did not
 to express her admiration for odr` churches and the          probably know how many of the people of this congre-
 things we procltiim and teach. And yet she declared,         gation loved me .and relished to retain me as their min-
 immediately before the close of 1950, `that  hatred ,ister. What do our readers noti think of the dealings
 sizzled through. my teeth and that the reason why th@ `of Mrs. Van  Huizefi? Were  they.d.eceitf.ul?
 elder Van Huizen never prayed for me wq because                                    (To be continued in the next issue)
 I had said at the congr,&gational meeting of Nov. 16                                                                   - H. Veldman.
 that the people must not pray for my conversion. Per-
"mit me to shed  liglit on these things. When at the
 congregational meeting of Nov. 16 (the classical com-                                                                          .
 mittee can fortunately verify this because they were                                e-v. Petter's 6th and 7th                           `
 present at this meeting). on'e of the members declared
 that he would pray for my conversion he evidently                                         .'                         &v3tahnents
 meant that he would pray that the Lord would convert
 me to the Liberated thinking. This was understood                        I have not y'et done with Rev. Petter's argument
 by all. When I then declared that they might not pray        of these instalments. Let us again get this. argument
 f,or my conversion I certainly meant (and this, too,         before us. It is this:
 was understood by all) that they had called a Pro-                       ISynod's laying on the churches the burden of appro-
 testant .Reforme&  minister and they they might not bating the Declaration is unjust and dishonest and `on
 therefope pray that I becon& Liberated.' To this Mrs.        this account hierarchical, for.
 Van Huizen  ref,ers. To this must be added that, as          A. It was not the best'that the churches assembled in
 long as I was the minister of Hamilton and whehever                     Synod could produce, for,
 I was absent because of' a classical appoititment, the                  11. The Declaration had not first-been corrected, im-
 elders Van Huiien and Hart never mentioned me in                               proved alid developed in the Cdnsistories and the
 their congregational prayers when they were in charge                          Classes.
 of the services. And now this Mrs. Van Huizen de-
 clares that the reason why her husband did not men-                     21 It was at best but two days in  piocess of con-
                                                                   /
 tion me in his'prayers was because it was useless inas-                        stru,ction in Synod's enlarged  committe  of  Pre-
`much as I myself had said that they miglit not pray                            advice.
 for my conversion.     Do our people  understalid the                   3. Synod read the Declaration' and immediately
 deceitfulness of such doings?                                                  thereupon adopted it without any discussion.                  _
        However, there is more in connection with the                     This,must be considered aniazing, for, .
 dealings, of Mrs. V&n Huizen. She also declared that                           x. `The material of the Declaration is involved,
 hatred sizzled thrdugh my teeth. Now I would like to                              a r g u m e n t a t i v e   m a t t e r .
 have `our readers bear the following in mind. First,                           y. It is thirteen. typewritten pages long.
 prior to Nov. 16 I had never been personal in the pulpit               I Let  us once  &ore take notice. Rev. Petter's main
 excep't once, ahd that was in connection wi'ch the slan-     proposition-the one to which all thk other proposi-
 derous dealings of elder H&--when I- learned of his          tions are subordinate and must prdve-reads: Synod's
 dealings against me, the evening of Oct. 27, had visited     laying on the churches the burden of approbating the
 him personally in vain, I could no longer endure him.             l+claration is unjust and dishonest and on  this ac-
 1 mention Nov. 16 because at that meeting dne of the              count hierarchical.
 members held this on,e thing against me. And after                      , Inherent in this proposition are two fallacies. They
 Nov. 16 I -avoided all personalities in the public ser-      qre :                                                             '
 vices  and confined myself strictly to preaching, al-
 though I will say that I emphasized our truth, as `I                     1. Synod has  I the  pow%r  to lay  b"urden  on the
 stated at our January classis in connection with my                            churches.
 sermon on. Luke 1:68-69. Even so, I did not, proceed                     2. In commanding (should be advising) the church-
 from the purpose, be it then in my emphasis upon our                           es to approve (or disapprove) the "`Declaration"
 truth, to offend the people. This the consistory con-                          Synod had reference to the "approbation" .of
 firmed as late as the `evening of Jan. 12, `1951. Second-                      Art. 31 of the Church Order.
 ly, except for my dealings with elder Hart, I never had                  With the first of these two fallacies-synod has the
 anything personal with the rest of the consistoEy  until     power to lay'burden on the churcheg-I,  have already
 the Sunday of Jan. 14, 1951; to which I will pres,&tly            death. Let us then concentrate on the second `of the
 refer: gnd, thirdly, as late as the Sunday of Dec. $7, ' two fallacies inherent in the. propositiqn that Rev.
                                                              I                            .-                    i

                                                                          `_


                                     T H E   S T A N D A R D   B E A R E R                                         2 3 5

 Petter `sought to prove: In commanding the churches           makes .mention,  is-not, cannot be the "approbation" of
 to approve the "Declaration" synod had reference to           Art. 31 of the Church Order. For if it were, the "De-
 the "approbation" of Art. 31 of the Church  dr.der.           claration" would already be adopted and on this ac-
 That this is Rev. Petter's stand is plain ,from  every-       count settled and biizding. As it is, the "Declaration"
 thing he writes in his latest articles. T6 quote but one is still in process of production in the consistories and
_ statement from, his pen, "But that is only th,e be&inning    in the Classes and accordingly must ,still be adopted
 of the faulty `origination. For also the principle of         by Synod and approbated by the churches. As we have
 Art. 31 was violated.  Tha,t article requires that ,the       seen, Rev. Petter insists that the "Declaration" as yet
 decisions of Synod shall be settled al?d binding unless       has not been `adopted.
 it be proved to conflict with the Word of God or with            But now there is this qdestion: What then can be
 the Articles of the Church Order. . .; .' The implica-        the meaning of Synod's (1950) advice to the effect that
 tion of this part is of course that what the Synod de-        the churches approve (or  disapprovg)  the  "Declara:
 cides is right. And it then,places  the burden of proof       tio&,  for adoption in the.coming synod and for subse-        -
 for, any one differing in opinion from this, upon the         quent "approbation" by the churches,? This is crystal              c
 aggrieved member.      (Notice how true it is that,~ ac-      clear. Synod could have meant but one thing, namely
 -cording to Rev. Petter's  cbnception,  Synod has the         this: that in the intervening year the churches pro-
 power to lay burdens upon -the churches).                     duce, not approbate, a formula. or declaration, that
    Plain iw't it? that, as Rev. Petter sees it, Sypod in      they do so by approving and if need be, correcting,
 advising the churches to approve the. "Declaration" improving, reconstructing, and even, if need be, de-
 had before its mind the "approbation" of Art. 31 (of          velqping  the "Declaration" provided them by *Synod
the Church Order) .                                            of 1950, and that they then again assemble in synod
    However, it is not true that in advising the ch&ch- to adopt for  approbation  the finished product. Such
 es to approve the `"Declaration," Synod (1950) had            are the facts. The "Declaration" right now is under-
 reference to the "approbation" of Art. 31. .An examin-        going- that correcting, improving, developing  process
 -ation of the first two of the three concluding state-        in the ecclesiastical assemblies of Classis East.
 ments of the "Declaration" bears out the truth of my             As we saw, Rev.  Pett& insists that a  synodical
 statements. Let us ,get these statements before us.           deliverance in order not to merit being branded a hier-
 They read :                                                   archical imposition must originate even as to the form
     1. That synod subj& this entire document ("De-            of its words with some, "member", and be corrected,
 claration") to the approval of the churches.                  improved, and  developed in consistory,  classis and
     2. If no objectibn  is offered, to adopt this at the      finally in synod. According,to  Rev. Petter, it is unjust
 next synod.                                                   and dishonest and on this account hierarchical 6f a
                                                               sped to ask the churches to approbate deliverances
    Did not synbd by adopting this adqice,  advise the         that have not passed through these correcting and im-
 churches to approve (or disapprove) the "Declara-             proving processes. But I.ask, if the consistories, office-
 tion"? For take notice, "That synod subject this entire       bearers and common members do their duty by the
 document to the approval-mark you, approval-of the            "Declaration" will not all the reiquiremer$s  layed down
 churches". 60 reads the first of these  statehents,           by Rev. Petter have been met, when finally the ehur- .
 doesn't it? Yes indeed.  Btit the  pdint is this:  `%he       ches will be asked to approbate it?
 "approval" of which the first of these  stitements               The first requirement  layed  down by  Red. Pett'er
 makes mention is not the ""approbation" of Art. 31.           is that such a document as to the form of its words
 And here is the proof :                                       originate with solie "member". This requirement has .
     1) In point of view of  tiine the "approbation" of        been met, dertainly. This "member" is synod's com-
 Art. 31 follows what SynocL clecides, that is, agrees on      mittee of pre-advice in whose meeting the "Declara- :
by majority vote, and this of necessity as it is exactly       tionf' originated.
 synod's  cLecision, what  synocl agrees on by majority           The second requirement that Rev. Petter lays down                    .,
 6ote, tha,t the churches must approbate.                      is that this "member" submit his document to his con-
    2) Synod (1950) did not decide, that is, agree by          sistory for correction and improvement.  .Also  t`his
major%y vote, to  aclopt the "Declaration".        On the      requirement has been met. Synod (1950) submitted                        _
 contrary, synod  cLecicLec1, agreed by -majority vote;        the committee'~s  deliverance for that purpose not. mere-
 merely to advise the churches to approve the "Declara-        ly to one consistory but to all of them.       .
 tion" for acZop$ion on the coming synod and for sub-             The third requirement layed down by Rev. Petter
 sequent approbqtion by the churches (see the second           is that the document be corrected, improved and de-                     1
of the three concluding statements of the "Declaration,".      veloped  in classis and synod. Also this is being done
    3) Conclusion; The "approval" of which the first           with the "Declaration", so  that when the churches
 of the three concluding statemepts of the "`Declaration"      finally will be asked to approbate.  it, all the require-


 236,                                    T H E   S T A N D A R D   B E A R E R   .'

 ments layed down by Rev. Petter regarding it will have           adopt it for approbation. It'is so true what tie?. tier-'
 been met in a measure far exceeding anything that                meer in a recent article  (`%oncordia")  wrote  ZLbOUt
 Rev. Petter had conceiy,ed. For the "Declaration" will, our people. not being blind followers and about their
 have passed through the required correcting and im-              den&ding  calm discussion.  And  haw well synod
 proving processes in all our consistories and not mere-          .(1950) was ?mare df this too. Also to avoid even the
 ly in one of the?. Yet Rev. Petter lodges the heavy              semblance of hierarchy it advised that before adopt-
 charge of hierarchy against synod. I donIt understand.           ing  the "Declaration', the churches take it in study
         It is now clear  how Rev.  ,Petter's  proposition as     for a year. And the motion was Rev. Hoeksema's.
 freed from its two fallacies and how also the rest of               And it is as Rev. Vermeer says, our people demand
 his argument must be made to read, namely as follows :           cabrit--mark you, calm-discussion.       And therefore
         Synod's advising, petitioning (not demanding) the        I didn't like the looks of brother Vernieer's article
 churches to produce a Formula,, Declaration, in rthe             either. There is far too much .of capitalized type in
 intervening year, and advising the churches to do so             it-type indicative of a spirit if not excited than at
 by approving and, if need by, by corretiting,,  improving,       least overly  emphtitic.    Let the  discussiqn be calm
 reconstructing and developing the "Declaration" pro- an,d brotherly.
 vided them by synod (1950) and, finally, advising the               And may I sugiest that alsa .Rev. Vermeer get busy
 churches, when again assembled in synod, to adopt the            discussing. I mean of course the co&rsnt  of the "Q&
 finished product for approbation by the churches was             claration". It's already February. And the  coming
 just (not unjust)  and honest (not' dishonest) and               June is Synod,- And to date the "Declaration" has
 therefbre  anything but hierarchical, for                        been in the possession of the consistories nearly 8 l-&if
                                                                  year. (I learned from the stated clerk-Mr. ja. Jon&r
 A. It will be the best that the churches assembled in -&at as early as June he sent each consistory a r~py.)
    the .coming syribd can produce, .for                          But there is still ample time. For, as I ni)W went to
    1. The Declaration will have been taken into study            make plain, the material of the "Declaration" is not
           by all the churches and both classes; thus it will     involved and argumen`tative.  It is not at all difficult.-
    .- have been corrected: improved and,. if need be,            It is easy `for reasons I shall now name. But, as
           reconstructed and further developed in all the         Rev. Revmeer says: let the discussion be calm and
           consistories and both classes and finally in synod.    brotherly.
    2. It will have been the greater part of a whole year            Indeed, also brotherly. (Our people want this too.
           in process of construction  ih the churches.      ' And therefore I didn't like some of Rev. Vermeer's
 ' 9,. It should be permissable.  for the corn&g  synod to        remark,s either. For example the'.following : "In that
         read the finished product and immediately with .light I deplore and protest the foolish haste and rash
           little discussion adopt it for approbation by the      eagerness of those" who try to have our churches adopt
           churches, for '                                        the "Declaration". We must remember our p,eople  are
           x. If the material of the "Declaration" is involved    no dupes,agd  blind followeys. They are not underlings
              and argumentative. it will surely have been         iyho are like people that dwell under a political die- _
              simplified.                                         tatorship  and can  b`e brought unto hasty subjection
           y. If it is too long, it surely will have `been        with the twist of a man's hand. Thi's can be done in
              s h o r t e n e d .                                 Russia,  ,but not with deliberate thinking Reformed
                                                                  people. They demand calm discu'ssion  of the issues."
    What tie now h&e is an argument strictly agree-                  Of course, I `fully agree with Rev. yermeer  that
able with reality. And with the truth of this argument            our people are not like  ,that. How well the brother
 hearing down on Rev. Petter's charge-the charge .of              knows our people ! But what I do not like is that in
 hierarchy he lodges against synod (1950) -this charge            penning this statement, Rev. Vermeer was striking at,
 vanishes into thin air never to be seen again except by          the undersigned and Rev. Hoeksema. In his article
 such people who are in the habit of seeing things.               Rev. Vermeer mentions our names several times. It
         As,.we saw, Rev. Petter has much fault to find with      means that he hangs up before our people a picture of
 thg "Declaration". Let then the brother, let the clergy          us in whic!I we appear as a couple of dictators even
 in the Churches-Rev. Howerzyl and Rev. Vermeer and               of the Russlan brand. Wew.ant to bring people. under
 the rest of them-then cooperate with us in perfectitig shbjection  by twisting their hands. That, to my mind,
 the. "Declaration", freeillg it of its faults, if it has any.    is not ~-brotherly.  Wasn't it Rev. Hoeksema who pro-
 Let them coop'erate  with us in explaining the "Declara-         posed on the floor of synod (1950) that to avoid even
 tion" to  `our people, its excellencies.  Gt them in a           the semblance of hierarchy synod advise  that the
 word, do right by the "Declartition".  Then our church-          churches, before adopting the  "D&laration"for appro-
 es, when again assembled in synod, will be able intelli- bation, prove and approve it for the. greater part of a
 gently to do right by the. "Declaration", which is to            year? So far from being true it is that we are trying


                                      T H E   ST.AN.DAR'D  B E A R E R                                                           237

to bring our people into` subjection even by "twisting              The Rev. Petter in all his writings has proven ab-
theiir hands." True, we do advocate adoption of the             solutely nothing. For I consid& a' great theologian,
"Declaration" in the coming synod. But' our only -one who. can bring out the' profound trnths so that
weapon is true (not false) argument, calculated to              every one that reads can understand the& `He must
persuade. And this certainly is our good right, and,            be a  poleynic theologian who is  a warrior and goes
such is our conviction-not opinion-also, our solemn             forth into the field of battle to encounter the .adver-
duty. And, as far as we are aware, our argument is              sarieg of the truth. For if we are to have peace it must
not false but true.                                             rest upon the foundation of truth. And the truth is
   But I am a fallible `man. So if `Rev. Vermeer or             that we are absolutely unconditionally saved. Also. do
any of the other brethren, including to be sure Rev.            not do as some of `our leaders do who want to maintain
Petter, has detected in all the criticism that I have           that they are clistitictiv.ely refo+mecP but who in the
brought to bear on Rev. Petter's writings any spurious          meantime never warn tl-ieir congregation against this
reasonings, let Rev. Vermeer point them out to me,              conditional theology, and who go about belittling those
I implore. And I certainly will retract and tender              leaders who oppose faith as a conditipn, and .who by
my apologies.                                                   their actions isolate those that hold to our beautiful,
   As. Rev. Vermeer  says4et  us  be. calm-and bro-             reformed truth., And who openly say, I will never sign
therly. And therefore I  believe that Rev. Vermeer              that  Declaratioh  of Principles, for they  Also are our
should take down that picture of us that he hung up             opponents. Then ,there  are others who isolate, them-
before our people. It isn't true.                   *           .selves.    They are battle-weary. There has been so
                                         G. M. Ophoff.          much trouble already. Why make more, for aren't you
                                                                making a  moutitain out of a mole-bill? You cannot
                       --~                                      talk to them any more about  controve&ies.  And so
                                                                you sit and talk about everything else; for if you would
                  Contributiofis                                mention some article in one of our papers.all  the. ans-
                                                                wer you would get is : If this controversp-does  not:Stop
                 ANOTHER GOSPEL                                 I am going to quit the Standard Bearer, etc. You used
                                                                to enjoy their company but your visits -become-less.and
   Dark clouds are hovering over. us, as Protestant less. `They to6 are our opponents, who call you fanati-
Reformed people. Brothers  stand';over against broth-           cal and judge motives as the Rev. Cammenga, but who
ers, and in some df our' homes families' are arrayed            prove neither. Then there are others who: say $ha,t.all
agiinst each other, on account .of this miserable con-          you did in your articles in th& Standard Bearek;. was to
ditional theology. 0 do not say it is not serious, that         hide behind Rev. Hoeksema's skirts. But.& me.make
it is just a difference of opinion, for it is in reality an-    this statement, that I cannot in words utter how 1. de-
other gospel. If only we had to do with .open  Asmin-           test this miserable conditional  th.eol.ogy.  And,  th% I
ianism this.,controversy  would soon be over, but this          believe in unconditional $alvation -before I ever. knew
conditional theology is brought in und,er the pretence,         of  .a Protestant Reformed church; Nevertheless  -1 main-
that it is in accordance and in harmony with Scripture          tain that Rev. Hoeksema and others have shed much
and auf Confessions. But in reality it strikes at the           light -on this subject, whereby faith. was strengthened.
very heart of our salvation. And the issues are tre-            For I am one of those whb confess that we ark uncon-
mendous. We either stand or fall as Protestant Re-              ditionally saved. Now, the true gospel has it that we
formed churches. And many are. our opponents both               are justified by faith alone without- the deeds: of `the
local and gene&, and a stand we must and do take.               law. The false gospel has it that we are justified by
It is #either*, or. Faith as a condition is the full-orbid      faith but not without the deeds of the Jaw; you' must
gospel, or unconditional faith is the full-orbed gospel., do something. The false gospel is a conditional .gospel.
And the battle 4s on. We cannot tolerate both. ' For            And therefore not our opponents but we:stand `in the
faith as a condition must not have a foot to stand on.          footsteps of the faith of the-.fathers  and our.shield  and
Not even a toehald. It .must be completely annihilated          defense shall be: Gij zijt  hmi roem, de kracht van
and utterly wiped  out among us. And therefore we               huime kracht !"                                       "
must put on the whole artioilr df unconditional sal-                                           Kryn ,Feenstra.-.  .: `;;.,:.
vation so that the fie+y cl&fit's of this miserable con-                                              Redlands, Calif, .
ditional theology may be Utterly smitten in the dust.                                                                      ;.
Therefore do not do as some of our writers in our                                     y:--
church papers, leaving loopholes. Those who can con-
ceive of a justifiable use of the term condition: tight&n       Esteemed Editor :                                          --,
your lines,  Brethren.  There is no such thing as a                 Everyone who has even the slightest interest-in the
justifiable use of the term.                                    Protestant Reformed Churches has certainly .: by this

                                                                                Y


  is3                                    THIX  S T A N D A R D   B E A R E R

  time been awakened to  the fact that strange things are also bear in mind that in the eyes. of God even -this
  happening in,ouk" midst.                                      faith ii unworthy and it is only bec.a&e  df Christ that
     As in every controversy there are two sides, so also. we are righteous before God.
 in our churches at present. W.e must of course be on              In Q. 71 we agree with Rev. Petter `yet again. He
  one side or the other. I, personally, have, as this con- `points-out that.the elect are not even mentioned in this
  troversy progressed been on both sides and also in the        article. on baptism. Naturally he takes it for granted
 middle.                                                        that the believers are the elect and the non-believers
     After careful consideration of both views at long          are the reprobate.
  last I have chosen what I, firmly believe to be the only         Questions 75 and 77 sheik for themselves as long
  side in this  3ssue. -Rev. Petter's article in the Con-       as we bear' in mind that believers and elect are one
  cordia  of Jan. 18, 1951 was actually the deciding factor     and the same. *
  in .my choice.                                                   Here in Q. .84 we find the word "accept" again. Or
     As laymen, we are at a distinct disadvantage in a          rather Rev. Petter findsit. I fpund the word. "receive"
  controversy of a theological nature.. We don't have           instead. We know no% t&s must be just an ove?sight
  the necessary ,-books and knowledge of the Scriptures         on Rev. Petter's part. We know of course and sci does
  to properly evaluate the situation as quickly as our          he naturally that to `"ace&$" meahs to "receive a thing
  lead.ers   dd. We  have to take their word- for  many         offered to  one with a  eonsien.ting  ni+ncl" (Webster),
  things. And we should too, of course. But it is rather        while,to "receive)' means "to coke intb posses&on of,
  difficult, nay, even impossible for us to immediately say,    from' any source outside of oneself,  without  di+ect
  "There, I agree with and understand Rev. So and So            effort" (Webster). If we take for granted' the use of
 perfectly". We should not, and I for one,` wili not            t&e word  `raccept" is an oversight,  th.en we'll agree
  follow a leader blindly just because he was correct in        once more. ,
  the past.
   1 So, I for one, was very happy to see Rev. Petter's            The reference to Canons II, B, 4 really confused me
 ,article in the ,Concordia. Here .were  references I too,      for awhile. Proving'a point by referring to the nega-
could refer to and study. This time spent studying tive is rather n&leading `sometimes. - But I still find
  these references was  not wasted. I have the Rev.             agreement on this point also.
  Petter to. thank for making everything so clear.                 Reading Canons III, IV, 8 we begin to wonder why
     Let's #examine.his  article once. .rOf the Declarations    so much  is omitted in Rev. Petter's explanations. This
he says they are the private opinions of men. I agree           is th.e writer, who, you may recall, once accused the
  with Rev. Petter. Naturally he also knows that the            Rev. H. Veldman of failing to preach a full-orbed
  Confes&&s too are the private opinions of men. Only           g o s p e l .
  the Bible is the public Word of `God.                            Of course God promises eternal life to as many as        .
   `* Again I agree with Rev. Petter when he informs            "come" and "believe". But let's please add that all
  us that.the basic problem &th,the Liberated is that of        who are called must comply and that only the elect oy
 . . terminology. But he also knows of course through his       course are called.
 -`thorough study of the matter that we have different             We can't take Canons II, 5 by itself anymore than
meanings for the same word and who can have a dis-              we can take certain Scripture verses by themselves.
 ~Cussio; of any merit wheti the same words mean dif-           Of course I agree too that this refe;ence  is the final
  ferent things to each side?                                   word but we can't preach only that.               ,
   Now the part we can all refer to. A11 of us surely              You have'gathered by now, `I hope; that although I
 ha've a Psalter in our homes. Turning to Q. 59 of the          agree with Rev. Petter as to what he has quoted, in
  *Catechisti we find agreement when Rev.. Petter tells         actuality I violently disagree with the very misleading
  us we are righteous by believing. Of course we know manner in which hk attempts to direct our thoughts.
  also that only the right,eous in Christ before Go.d and          I feel that I have taken far too much space already.
  heirs of eternal life can be belie+& and thus be right-       Space that could `have been utilized much more effect-
 :eous,          `.                                             ively by far" greater thinkers than mys;clf.
         In Q. 60 we both agree that ,God imputes to me
  righteousness if I have a believing heart.. Somehow,             In closing we can again find agreement when Rev.
  thdugh, `he neglected to mention that we have this            Petter says the authors of the "Declaration" are one-
  righteousness and. believing heart only because God           sided. Let's be thtinkful that they are. By being one-
  "without any merit ,of mine, but only of m&e grace" sided they ar,e in' perfect harmony with the Bible and
  imputes the `same to us. I failed to find the word            the Confessions. ' We, too, should be one-sided in"this
  "accept" in this reference but that's not so important.       grave matter.'                           1
     -In Q. 61 we mtist also agree with Rev. Petter. We                                             Xenneth Ezinga.
  are righteous by faith only. Nothing else. But let's                           - ,             Grand Rapids, Mich.


                                                 T H E   S T A N D A R D   B E A R E R -                                    239

         Letter From &lenko Fl&kema                                  of mogelijkheid  bij ons om deze vooFwaaPden  %e +er-'
                                                                     vullenr buiten gesloten. Dat zou onschriftuurl.ijk  zijn:
                                                                     We spreken  tech  itimers over  voorwaarden  in  <bet
          .'                                     Manhattan, Mont.    Gen.&e  Verbond? En de Heere vraagt van ons niets:
                ,_     .<            ;.  i; :    January 6, 1951     minder dan onvobrwaardeli jke overgave.       Maar daar
      Geacfite  Redakteur :    1'                                    er we1 meer dan k&n gedachte ligt in den term voor-
                                                     .               zocx&e,  moesten we tech, mijns inziens, niet het ge-
         E+nkel,e.  gedacllten -en een &aag betreffende de Ver:      heele woord overboord gooien, alsof de gedachte  voor-
 k1arin.g van Beginselen.                                 . .        waarde niet in ons gereformeerd denken  thuishoort.
 .       ,Daar er de laatste maanden veel over het onder-
 werp con&itions en deze Verklaring van Beginselen ge-                   Zouden.  we  bet  woo&  ni,et noodig zijn? Als we
      schreven wordt in de StaQdard  Bearer en Concordia,            alto& maar voqr onze aandacht houden, dat we kin-
      en velen onder` ons gewone v@k er zat van worden,              dieren zijn in ht$ Verbond der Genncle.
 vooral omdat men eigenjijk niet goed weet waarover                      Enkele gedachten hierover.                      `-  a
                                                                                                        .
      deze strijd gaat, dacht ik o.p;$ierover enkele gedachten           Als we ons Gods beloften indenken,.  zijn die niet
 te schrijven en in verband daarmede pok eenige yragen               10s te denken  `van Gods eisch. 0 zeker, we weten wel,
 aan ,U te richten. Te meer daar de a-s. Synode hier-, dat al de eischen Gods door Zijee beloften gedekt wor-
      over zal  beslissen,  of de' Ve$laring  vati Beginselen        den. De Heere eischt van ons geloof `en  bekeeriqg.
 voor,,ons  als kerken bindende zal worden,  ja- of neen.            Nu iS h.et geloof &en gave Gods. Doch als we spreken
      Nu komt bet mij voor, en `velen met mij, dat er niet           betreffende het geloof als een voorwaarde voor onzen
, duidelijk en eenvoudig genoeg over wordt gediscus-                 geestelij,ken  welstand, .en tot het b&rven van de'zalig- ,
 sieerd zoodat we elkaar begrijpen. Ook meen  i$ voor- heid, dan  denken  we  tech in  bet geheel niet  aan  he!
 eerst moeteti  op te merken, dat de z.g. Verklaring zelf            geloof als een verdienende oorzaak voor onze zaligheid;
 wel, voor mij althans, wat `aan duidelijkheid te w'en- maar als de vireg;  of als een instrument, waardqoi het
 schen overlaat.' B.v., onder III A'verwerpen wij, dat               de Heere belieft om ons het heil in Christus deelachtig
 de beldfte des verbopds voorwaardelijk is. Nti is mij te  maken.  Hij heeft reeds  alles voor ons verdiend,
 dat  tech niet heel  duidel'ijk.  Houdt dat in ook het              doch wij ,plukkeu  zoo door het instru:ment  des geloofs;
 deelachtig tiorden van deze beloftep, waarohder we                  de vruchten van Christus' verdiensten. IOf denketi tie
 verstaan alle heilsweldaden?  Zie, het is me nog niet               eens even  in. de eisch van  zelfveyloochening.  Is ook
 heel duidelijk geworden wat juist bedoeld wordt met                 dat niet een voorwaarde in denzelfden .zin genomen?
 voqrwaardelijk in dit verband. We kunnen dit woord                  Let eens op Matt. 16 :24, 25. Of laten  w,e: even  inden-
 tech .met onderscheidene bedoeling gebruiken ? Als                  ken de  gedachte van de  vergeving.  `van zonden. 0
 hier bedoeld wordt de beloften des verbonds, dan is het             zeker, het iS alleen de genade Gods hetwelk ons tot de
 ons duiclelijk genoeg. Het heil `is ons beloofd niet'aaar           bekeering  leidt, en ons van de overtuiging van de ver-
 verdienste maar door genade alleen. Maar we kunnen geving .onzer  zondei deelachtig maakt, maar tech is
 ook tech spreken van voorwaarden  die in `t geheel niet             bet  bier,, een voorwaarde, dat we het geloof in den
 aan eenige verdienste denken  doen., En ik meen  da) we             Heere  Jezus  d,eeiachtig zijn, en in Zijne wegen wan-
 die  Goorwaarde&   niet'  mibe$n verwerpen. En  ,dan                delen. En is het ook niet alzoo,  dat het geloof, in der$
bedoel ik hiermede  de eisch des Heeren, welke ons bij               zin genomen van onze activiteit iti' bet geloof, ons deel
 de  bevestiging.   van het verbond  herhaaldelijk   wofdt           als redelijke, zedelijke schepselen, waarvede de Heere
 opgelegd. Lezen we eens even dit deel van ons Doops-                werkt, en daarom van ons eischt om Hem lief te heb:
formulier : "Ten derde, overmits in alle verbonden twee              ben van-ganscher harte, enz., een voorwaarde is, om
 deeleq  zijn, zoo  worden  ook wij  wederbm  ddor den               ons de verzekering d,eelachtig ie maken van onze zalig-
Heiligen Doop vermaand en v.erplicht  tot ,een nieuwe                heid ?
gehoorzaamheid; namelijk, dat we`dezen eenigen God,                      0 zeker, ik begrijp wel, dat we dit alles ontvangen
Vader, Zoon,  en Heilige Geest, aanhangen, betrouwen -door <Gods genade,  door Zijne dringen'in orize harten.
,en liefhebben van ganscher'htipte,  van ganscher ziele,             Maar het is tech ook waar als we niet leven en wan-
van ganscher gemoede en met alle krachten, d'e wereld                delen in den weg des geloofs, geen acht geven op `s
verlaten, onze oude natuur dooden, en in een nieuw en                Heeren roepstem, de aandrang des `Geestes  versmoren,
godzalig leven wqdelen." :Nu karx men misschien.wel                  en alzoo den Heiligen Geest bedroeven (wat tech zeker
zeggen : Deze verplichtingen en vermaningen zijn geen                we1 gedaan .wordt) , we de verzekering. der zaligheid
voorwaarden. Wat zijn het dan?  He% zijn  to&  on-                   niet deelachtig zijn.
misb'are voorw&d`&n  in de `beteekenis  van .gesteldheid                Dit alles nu in acht nemende, is het mij nog niet
in ons Ieven des',&?loofs? La& me li&t hier nog even                 duidelijk, waarom onze a.s. Synode het  bekluit   zou.
weer duidelijk zeggen:  als ik hier  #reek van  voor-                nemen als kerken: dat wij verwerpen,  d& de.beloften
waar&?n zij alle  gedachte   +qn  verdienstelijke   werken           des verbondi voorwaardelijk zijn. `-Zou.het niet beter


                                                                                                                       .
                                1                                j                                                             :
                                /                                                                                             !C:
                                I                                                                                                             t
                                                                 I
                                /
-~-- -
      ~~~r-r-~---'                   _        _  "I;.HE:  S T A N D A R D   BET=---------   -

        zijri,:  .dat  ee&t duidelijk  uitgemaakt  woydt, wat we         drijveq. _ D&h
                                                                                       .I  _..- is er f&n doit aan gedacht een .sobrt
      -  jaist verstaan en bedoelen  niet voorwaarden of  con;           van verlengstuk'aan de Drie Formuiieren  van Eenig-
        dities? We hebben tech we1 terdege te rekenen met                heid te  voegen?  Ons niet  ,bekend.  Beide werden in
        onze  v e r a n t w o o r d e l i j k h e i d ?                  de Gereformeerde Kerken geduld, omredeq  de verschil-
                                          v,enko           Flikkerns.    len niet  werdeti beschouwd  81s in  strijd met  aGods
        N;ot&  of the e&or:-1 will answer this brother  in the           Woo& En waar de verbondskwestie zoo'n tee? puntje
                 riext issue of our paper.                               altijd gewee&  is, en volgens ons oak we1 zal blijven,
                                                                         Ginden we het niet wijs broeders en zusters te weren
                      _       -moc=i  OcDc                               die op dat stuk van ons verschillen. Het zal wel. een
                                                                         kwestie blijveri.die  we na dezen zullen verstaan. _
                                                                            We weten waartoe de meeningsv~rschillen  in Neder-
           Een Brief Van J. R. VtinderWal[                               land hebben geleid. Laat ons niet in hetzelfcie  euyel
                                                                         vervallen.                          _                                                  .'  ;
                                                                                                                                                   a'
                                                                                                                                                    ,:
            Al  lang  waren we van plan een paar regels te                  Ons dunkt in deze hoogst ernstige tijden die we
        schrijven over "The Declaration of Principles". Doch             nog nooit zoo hebben beleefd, verl`iezen  we de hoofd-
        de.  vrees  bel;rroop  ons, dat  we niet voldoende op  de        zaken wel. eens uit `t oog, en maken w.e ons druk over
        hoogte zouden zijn met de bewuste zaak, en zoodoende             dingen waai' het eeuvoudfge  volk niets aan- heeft. En
        weerhield ons de pen op  de  vatten.  Doch waar de               dan bedoelen we m&t hoofdzaken : Welke i$ uwe eenige
       , :StaFdard Bearer, Concordia, en zelfs De Reformatie             troost in leven en $terven.
        zich niet onledig houden de zaak telk&s te berde te                                                            J.  R;  VanderWal
        brg!Jgen, en waar die zaak van  ver'schillende  kanten                                                                        Redlands,-Calif  . .
        wok@ ,belicht,  vbelen we ons gedrongen de volgende
        opmerkitig  neer te pennen.
          $Vordt het niet hoog tijd, dat er aan al dit geschrijf
        een meinde komt, omreden dat, volgens onze bescheiden                                                     /          ,.d
 '      meening, veel van' dit geschrijf op mi&erstand berust?                                                              Redlands, Calif.
        .Ons dunkt dat men elkaar: eenvoudig voorbij praat.                                                                 January 25, 1951
        Bijvoorbeeld, Prof. Schilder is volgens De Standard
        Bearer een HeynsmaF, ,en als men de stukken in De                Dear Rev. Hoeksema :
        Reformatie leest van December 1950  (meen ik) van                   Will you please place this article in the Standard
        Prof. Schilder,.  dan is hij net zoo min e&p Heynsman            Bearer ?                                                       _t
        dan Ds. 7130eksema of Ds. Ophoff. En wanneer men
        dan ,de Standard Bearer leest en Concordia, eu de be-            To the delegates of our last Synod:
        zvciaren tegen de Declaration van sommige bbroeders' Dear Brethren,
        leest, dan krijgt rilen den indrtik,  dat er geen jongens           The opinions expressed by the  Rev.  Vermesr in
        aan `t woord zijn, waar men vaak geen acht op slaat,             Concordia of January 18, 1951, under the heading:
        doch dat manneli d,el;  zake kundig hun opinie ten beste         "A Statement Re :Our D'iffi,culties" are not shared by
        geven, en die, ook we1 terdege  weten waar het om.gaat,          all our people here. They certainly are not- mine. %
        en die ook hee welzijh van Gods kerk op `t. oog heb-             want no part of it.
      b e n .                                                                                      Your brother in Christ,
            Zoo; b.v.,  lee&  m&n in de Standard Bearer  van
        December 15 een artikel van de hand van Ds. H. Veld-                                                                           Ben Meelker.
        man : "News from Hamilton", waar uitlatingen in
        voorkomen van metischen die thuis hooren bij de mo-
        derne  richting in de Nederlandsch Hervormde Kerk.
        B.v., A. Uitver&iezing.op  voorgezien geloof ; B. Chris-
        tus is voor allen gestorven; C. God heeft al!e kinderen
        lief, en wil ze mitsdien qbk all,en zaligen ; D. Ge& ge-                            CORRESPlONDEWCE
        loof in de uitverkiezing,  et;c.  Doch zulke  menschen
        behooren bij. ons heelemaal niet; die zijn zuiyer mo-              Contributors. will please stand in line. Your editor
        dern. Bij zulke menschen zal een Declaration of. Prin-           will be fair to,everybody, but he cannot fill the whble
        ciples weinig nut do@.                                           S. B. with contributions.,. And, please, be as .br,ief  as
        i,,,.' Een Vijftig jaar gkleden werci in. Nederland druk         possible, and give others- 8. char&:,  .                                          _
                                                                                                                              -. 2                        .:-A
        geschreven  qver infra ,en supra ; beneden- en bovenal. .                                       -                                          Ew%$.


                                                                                       c


