                                                 T H E   STANDA
______ _-., ___ ..__.  - .-........._.. -_llllll l-... " ..-..--" --  .._-.  "_._ _ _ll_llll_" R D   B E A R E R                                        157
                                                                                  " ..- .-.-" -......... ^l_ll .-... ^"--.--- ._-- ".." ..- ~"    ..--....-,_-
                  Forgiveness Received                                             will never be imputeth again. God's forgiveness has
                                                                                   eternal  value,  because that forgiveness is of divine ori-
                                                         Ps. 32:1, 2.              gin and eternal duration. In the world we find people
    Of the forgiveness of sins.                                                    who are supposed to have forgiven one another, but
    I believe in the forgiveness of sins. That is the con- low and behold they will again speak and act as if it
fession of the Church of the Living God. In it lies the was never meant.
admission of the corrupt condition of the sinfu1 heart-                                 Whereas the poet of this Psalm knew his sins were
the testimony of a wounded soul. Of sin, net simply as forgiven, his exuberant cry is to be understood. In
an objective fact, or as a matter of dcgmatical  knom-                             a thre.efold  way he ccnsiders  himself blessed. Blessed,
ledge, as the result of what one may have learned because his transgression is forgiven. Blessed, because
from others, no, but knowl,edge  of self as an actual ex-                          his sin is covered. Blessed, because the Lord imputeth
perience. The knowledge that creates sorrow and hu- not iniquity. And if the question were asked, who is
miliation, of shame and unworthiness. For the  kn;cw- this man? he answers, in whose spirit there is no guile.
ledge of one's sin is at the same time an accusation of                                 Hence, blessed when the  ,earmarks  of grace are
his own conscience and the realization of his own de-                              present.
~ praved nature. Totally depraved, born in utter wicked-                                To understand how horrible sin is, Scripture pre-
ness and corruption and therefore incapable of doing sents to us quite a number of descriptions, that as a
any good by nature. This knowledge of sin is the rule is expressed in our language, in the one word sin.
cause that we know that sinners incur the wrath of The first word here is transgression. What is it to
God, bringing  do:wn upon them the eternai damnation transgress? Here, as elsewhere, the word means
according to the righteous judgment of Him, Who can- departure. Departure from a given point, where one
not tolerate sin and sinner in His hoiy presence.                                  must start from. In the world the modern conception
    Thus to acknowledge that within myself I have of sin is, that man does things in his ignorance. He is
nothing but evil inclinations and the inability of doing ,the victim of his environment, af a faulty education.
any good. Indeed, this is the  ,testimony  of a wounded Under the  mfluence of his surroundings he became
soul  - healed by grace alone.                                                     what he now is. The atmosphere he lived in was not
    Sin is always present, it wounds and even after be- for the better, but for the worse. The man of the penal
ing healed, leaves an imprint. How many are the scars institution will define the cause of the present day of
left behind after the wounds are healed1 Yes,  t,he evil, from one or all cf the above given notions. Listen
wounds are healed, but the mark remains as a gentle when such men speak and they will agree, that sin is
reminder. No one less `than David tells of this fact to depart from a given point, the law. Sure, man is
when he cries out `For I acknowledge my transgres- lost, but he is not hopelessly lost. He. is the victim of
sions: and my sin is ever before me'.                                              circumstances over which he has no control, therefore
    Often we hear someone say, we must forget if we he departed from the right track. He wandered away
shall forgive. That is impossible. To forgive does not from the right path, but man's circumstances  once
imply to forget, for when we forget we could not pos-                              changed will change the man. Thus speaks the man
sibly remember that we have forgiven. God never for- in charge of the greatest penitentiary of our land.
gets, be it true that He always forgives while not for-                                 Scripture never presents sin to us in that way. The
getting the sins of His own.                                                       departure from the right path is done intentionally and
    A healed heart and cleansed conscience are of great therefore is considered an act of rebellion. All man's
importance. True, it is always preceded by the know- actions are premediated and he knows what he is
ledge of sin and corruption, but if that kno8wledge  is doing. It is never so that he does anything against
a matter of the heart, the other, the forgiveness, will his will, but in all he does he delights, yea, even boasts
follow.                                                                            about his sins and prides himself with them. No one
    When people speak o,f their sins in such a way,                                is able to put forth an excuse. This is evident when
that sin is the most prominent in their lives  - when he is placed before the Word of God. Whenever the
they play their sins up, speaking about their sins con-                            way is shown he revolts and what was hidden before
tinually - their sin did not make such a great impres- is brought out by the W,ord.
sion upon them. Just try to tell them what their sins                                   Thus we find the true character of sin in daily life
are and you find out. The true knowledge of sin keeps                              RS portrayed in God's Word. All sin is a  deparlure
one humble. We must never consider it a healthy from God. Not simply a transgression of the Law,
sign when someone seems to delight to tell about his                               but from the Lawgiver who revealed His divine will
former sins and wants others to know them in minute in that Law. Hence, this turning away from Him is a
detail. The pious cloak must not be mistaken for the turning away from His fellowship, that is from the
heartfelt sorrow. Besides, there is no joy in the know- source of life and  ligh,t. Because man, as he is by
ledge as such, but alone in the fact that sin committed                            nature, finds his pIeasure  in darkness, in the things
is forgiven, once and forever. For, sin once forgiven contrary to God's will and His very B,eing,  he cannot


158                                                       T H E   S T A N D A R D   B E A R E R
- -... - ..-____  - . "".- - __ ._..... ..". -.. ..--. -_ -.-. ..-.. I, . "__-_.. ..- .__.... ..- _ -...-.. ."-. .."-- - ..-.. --... _- - ^_. ^ ..." I _. .___-_ -__._ _ ..-.. "_ .-
and will not walk in the way pointed out to him. He                                             that matter with the revelation of God in nature).
stands in opposition over against God's majesty and                                             l&an  always does one of two things, his way is to  eon-
beauty, His life and salvation, being the enemy of                                              form to the Law of God, so that he lives in harmony
God. Therefore, whereas  s,eparation  of the Fountain with God's perfect and straight line as drawn in the
of life became a fact through sin, sin spells death and                                         Word, revealing what his relation should be in the
the sinner finds himself in darkness, misery and under                                          whole of his conduct, both in and outwardly -- or he
the curse of Him  frcm whom he parted: and that follows the dictates of his own foolish heart and false
eternally.                                                                                      imaginations of the mind, being his own criterion.
     On the other hand, sin in connection with man,                                             He is obedient and loves God, lives according to the
means to convey the idea that it is a missing of the                                            Law of God, so that the Word is the rule, the map
aim. This word both in the Old and New Testaments                                               and the compass, the only guide for his life, or, he re-
express the same idea. Missing in making an error, jects it. Walking in darkness not knowing and not
or, a little more plastic, to blunder. Ail man's energy willing and therefore not able to reach that which is
and effort run opposite of what they ought to do. In placed before him, and never to, comply with the sole
order to understand this more clearly, we must re-                                              purpose of his creation and existence, is the horror
member what man's chief end in and with all things                                              of sin. We also know, sin beco.mes  too often a word
should be. That end is to glorify God. The purpose                                              we are accustomed to hear so that we forget its mean-
of creation was, that when God created him good, and                                            ing. Nevertheless, whenever grace is operative in the
after His own image, in true righteousness and holi-                                            heart, we will speak concerning sin as our sin and
ness, the Lord did so, that he might rightly know God our verdict concerning our sin coincides with the ver-
as his Creator, heartily love Him and live with Him dict of our God. Peculiar is it not, that by nature
m eternal happiness to glorify and praise Him (Heidel- man distorts the real meaning of sin and that the child
berg Catechism). For even as man was created through of God is always in agreement with whatever his God
God so also was he to live unto Him. And in doing so has to say about it? Well, that is not strange is it?
man would have peace, rest, happiness and  salvaticn.                                           He receives grace in the way of humble confession of
And in missing this mark, man is struck with God's                                              his sins and how could he ever ask for it if his God
hot displeasure and receives payment for his sins.                                              did not open his eyes for it, that sin is so exceedingly
That are his wages. The wages of sin is death horrible? A mere theory will never create in him  ihe
in the all comprehensive sense of the word. desire to get rid of his sin and corruption, but grace
Whether he likes it or not, that payment he                                                     does. Sin must be forgiven and not before will the
receives as the reward for his sins. Not reach- saint have peace, rest, joy an.d salvation. The poet
ing the mark and the goal set before him, he                                                    tells us that God has indeed done so to him.
nevertheless receives that which is in harmony with                                                  Forgiven7 Is it possible ?
his aim. Sin will reap its own fruit and bring its own                                               Often we hear, I forgave but cannot forget. Evi-
wages. Once more, it is not left to the wishes of the                                          dently, what was once forgiven bounces right back into
sinner whether he shall receive his reward, he must the mind and seemingly the questicn  is in order, if I
receive and shall accept. And he receives physically cannot  forge+,  did  I really forgive?                                                                         Hence, while
and spiritually and just the  oppcsite  of what he ex-                                         words may be plentiful, facts, also in this case, seem
pects. Physically and spiritually both, because he is to speak louder than words. Now it is a fact, that not
created body and soul; which constitutes the cne man.                                          to forget means often not to have forgiven. And it is
He is a slave of sin and therefore is paid the wages of also a fact, that all things are before the eyes of the
that slavery. Sin always bears its  cwn reward and                                             Lord and that He remembers His people always, so  aiso
brings to the goal set before him in harmony with                                               He remembers sin. But in remembering the sins of
what God has decreed as the full payment for sin.                                               Wis people,  Be, in lovingkindness does not remember
     Moreover, sin is also presented and actually is, to them in His wrath. Why not? Because He looks at
twist something. To, wring one's self from the straight His people in Christ Jesus, the Son of His eternal love.
path. His way, his life in all its actions, is crooked.                                        And to behold them in the light of the perfect obedience
Thus presented sin refers to the thinking and willing and sacrifice, the sin which the Lord never forgets are
and acting. It is  all twisted and crooked. While the paid for with the blood of the Redeemer. ,4 perfect
divine measuring rod is laid down for him, to direct atonement was the payment for the horrible sin of the
and guide him in his way, man is not concerned about world. Thus it is to be explained, that while the sins
it. Not so, that the will and mind of man become or cf His people are never forgotten, yet He remembers
are inactive for a certain length of time, but to the eon-                                      them not in anger, for the sins of Jacob are forgiven
trary, the seemingly dormant, inactive will and mind and  th,e iniquity of Israel atoned.
of the sinner become very much inactive, and the                                                     The second word is to cover. The covering of sin
sinner very much alive, when placed in contact and                                              presupposes, that sin is from a moral-ethical point of
brought face to face with the Word of God. (And for view something foul and abominable. It suggests that


                                                                                                                                            ,
                                                   --


                                              T H E   S T A N D A R D   B E A R E R                                              150
                                                                                                           ..__..         ."  ^ ..^  ..-
-__ _____"  ..-..-           ___l.-_". ".,      .__I~ --^- . . . .._.- _.^^ "."-~-. "...".-_II_____-.
what is deteriorated. When the best is spoiled  <he love. Sin is atoned and paid for to the full. Even
o.dour of it becomes unbearable. We turn our heads while He remembers their sins, He also remembers the
away from it for its smell is nauseating. So it is with price paid for them. Because He is righteous but also
our sins. Our confession is that our sins are loathsome gracious, that is why He is not angry when He re-
before God. Hence, considering that He is the Holy members their sins  "In  Zijn toorn  gsdenkt  Hij  da
One: without corruption, we acknowledge that He can- Ontfermens"  ; and "De Barmhartigheid roemt tegen
not have fellowship with us. We forfeited that com- het oordeel".
munion and know there is no fellowship possible,  un-                      There is therefore now no condemnation to them
l.ess sin is forgiven and taken away. But He covered which are in Christ Jesus.
the sin of His  pecple.        Their sins are taken away,                   That also excludes the theory that forgiveness- is
because the Saviour covered them. The covering here for all. Forgiveness is not the result of contrition and
is a sealing of our sins, so that the terrible odour does humble confession of sin. Objectively, `all things are
not reach His nostrils anymore. Even as in sealing the of God, who hath reconciled us to Himself by Jesus
fruit in cans is for the purpose that no foreign elements Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconcilia-
may spoil the fruit, although sin must first be taken tlon; to wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the
away, after it is taken away from our lives, no longer world unto Himself, not imputing their trespasses unto
the  odour of corruption becomes manifest as the domi- them; and hath committed unto us the word of recon-
neering power of our lives, but the sweet smelling savor ciliation'.
of a godly walk and  ccnversation.                                          In the Son of His right hand, God, out of sovereign
       That is the  c-ase with God's people, is it not? They grace, predestinated His people. Hence, that Scn is
confess, they are sinners abominable in the sight of the covering for their sins, blotting out their trans-
Gcd and rotten to the core. But their Saviour, wrought gressions, and their sins are not imputeth unto them
in them the new iife through His Spirit. Therefore,                         Sub.jective!y,  they know their sins, not merely in-
they no longer are like t.he ethers, but live the new tellectually, but spiritually. Their knowledge is a p:?t'-
life that is from above. And walking in newness of sonal, inward knowledge of their sin, their transgres-
life they are a sweet smelling savour unto God Triune. sion, their iniquity. It is the heart that feels sorry
In them and with them He dwells and they rejoice in
_I.                                                                     and they confess : Against Thee, o Lord ! I have sinned.
f-l-~s  presence.                                                       The cry of the prodigal son and the publican  is theirs :
       The poet, expresses the forgiveness also in the ju- The child of God face to face with the Father.
dicia! sense. Says he, blessed is the man unto Lvhom                        In their Spirit there is no guile. Meaning, there
the Lard imputeth not iniquty. This last word gives is deceit, fraud, deception in such a spirit.                              Such
us the idea cf an account. There is a charge of in- people do not cover up, nor do they try to hide their
numerable debts that must be paid. And the debts are sins. Heart and soul are turned  tc the Lord. To
written in red letters on the left side of the ledgz.                   cover does not help nor will it bring relief. That man
The fact is that we have written our sins in capital brings  t.hem before the Lord and it is his  l:arnest
letters.     They are a strong, overwhelming evidence prayer to know more about his sins, an+ to know his
against  UC. People making debt will often make the sins. He prays `Search me, o God, and know my heart :
best  of promises, but instead of keeping them  are                     try me, and know my thoughts: and see if there be
bold enough to increase their debt, until payment be- any wicked way in me, and lead me in the &ay ever-
comes  impc,ssible.  The sinner does the same thing. lasting'. That man wants to get rid of his sins and
He will make up his mind and settle the account.  Same-                 brings them as they are before the eye of Him whose
times he admits there is a debt to be sure, but he will ail-searching eye beholds all things. And the deeper
try to do better. Instead, he increases his debt daily. the penitence that much more the desire to be cleansed
That is the reality when it comes to co,n,sidering our in the inner man. Not resting until the reassuring
sins. Our debt we cannot pay, but to the  contr:u':.                    words are his : Thy sins are forgiven, covered and blot-
will increase it daily. The Lord sees our sins,  ar.d                   ted out. They want in the preaching of the Word to
the only way to get rid of them is by the way of for-                   hear their names called, so that they may know who
giveness, of the covering oE the full payment of the th.ey  are. For even as God does not forget but  fog-
same, so that  throtlgh the one perfect  sacri5ce   our gives so also His children not forgetting but confessing
account is settled to the full. Hence, when  +`rt. debt praying to be delivered of all their sins and to receive
is paid to the full, the highest tribunal must declare that forgiveness as promised in the Word.
such a man righteous.                                                       That is their blessedness.
       Is this all possible??! !                                            The fulfillment of the one desire to be like unto
       Gcd who never forgets forgives??                                 Him, who called them from the darkness of sin to the
       Yes. for He covered the sin of His own  :~nd  11a.s              light, in order that they may live unto Him.
no charge against them.                                                     Forever !
       He places their sins upon the Son of His eterna.!                                                                w. v.

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

            The Matter Of The Unions                        in the darkness so that his works may not be found out
                                                            to be darkness indeed. But it makes really no funda-
       It is with a feeling of deep gratitude t-hat I IFad mental difference. Whether we have these constitutions,
this paper to you to-night. And that for more  Yinan pledges, .ztc. or not, we have ,the testimony of members
one reason. In the first place, this is so as a matter af the Church of Christ that they have to pledge  alle-
of course. It is always -expected of our ministers that gance  to the constitution of the Union when they join.
they lead the peopfe  of God and that leadership, if at     Doing this the child of God sins grievously because
any time, is very necessary in cur present day and          it is the same as stepping from the sphere of light into
age. More and more the world wculd  swallow us up the sphere of darkness and that willingly. And by his
alive and with .regard  to the Unions this is very con-     oath or pledge he becomes henceforth absolutely re-
cretely the case. This can be easily  prc'ven  from their sponsible to all the Union stands for and does. To
utterances. We are toid by members of the Union that        mention one thing: by his oath or pledge he confesses
membership in the Union does not and will not inter- that henceforth he expects all salvation in the struggle
fere with one's political and religious views. Which        of  !abor and  capitai  from man, mere man. In this
shows clearly that the obj.ect of thi Union is to enroll    connection, listen to this expectation from an excerpt
among her members also the church-man. In such a of the Preamble of the Constitution and By-laws, which
cnndition and state of affairs I take great pleasure to     rule the `Local Unions and District Councils of the A.F.
lead you  aright,  to shed light on the matter of the       of L.: "Alone and without help we can do nothing;
Unions. Far the Lord has enjoined me by His calling but united there is no power which we may not and
to feed and to keep the flock of God which He has dare not openly challenge and defy". What Christian,
purchased wth His own blood. In the second  place,          I ask, dares to take this wicked language on his lips?
I am very thankful that you have requested me t.s read      D,ces it not mean spiritual suicide for anyone who takes
this paper and therein to lead you, while you knew my this speech for his own? Bnd you do when you make
stand in this matter.  You know that I take a very the pledge or utter the oath of allegiance.
definite stand against the Unions, that is, against mem-          Secondly, a Christian cannot  ,join the Union be-
bership in the  TJnion by those who call  ,themselves       cause in so doing he also approves the use of strikes in
Christians. I have no fight against the Union as such, crder to exert power against Capital.
neither against the worldling who joins the Union.                What is a strike? The United States Bureau of
I do not judge the \Fcrld. God will judge and He does       `r,abor
                                                            "_          defines the strike as follows: "a strike is .a
judge those who are without. We as Church of Jesus          united refusal to work by a part or all laborers of a
Christ are called upon to judge those who are within. certain firm or firms in order to obtain compliance to
Now, while you stand in this matter, you ask me to a certain request of the empl.cyees."             So that the strike
read a paper on this matter and this fact makes me          js simply the use of force in order to obtain justice.
glad.     It shows that you wish to hear  mere of my The question arises: Is it wrong to quit working for a
stand and the ground on the which my conviction is certain firm? And the answer is simply: of course
built.                                                      not. But the strike is not so simple as all that. Re-
    My stand is that no Christian can Qoin the Union member that the strike of the employees is not simply
and retain his  gcod name and standing in the Church quitting your job. No, but you quit your job and at
of Jesus Christ on earth.       It is my holy conviction the same time you cIaim this same job for your very
that membership in the Union is the same as a divcrce       exclusive own. You do not quit in or,der to ,get another
from the Lord Jesus Christ. And I will prove it.            `Ob. But you quit unitedly in order to force the em-
    Jn the first place, the Christian cannot join  `ihe     ployer to cede to your demands.          It is the use of
Union and remain on good terms with the Almighty, force to obtain righteousness. And no Christian may
because when he joins he must make an oath or give ever do this. And he may not because the Bible tells
a written or spoken pledge that he will be true to  `ihe    him so. James 5 gives us the oft-repeated picture of
principles which are embodied in the Constituti.r;n  of the empIoyer  who holds  back the rightful wage of the
the Union. We hasten to add that we have not seen !Rborer.                But at the same time we read that although
the Constitution, nor do we know the contents of this       the bosses have condemned and killed the just, he doth
pledge literally. It is well-nigh impossible for us, the    not resist him. That clause describes how we ought to
elders of the Church of Go.d, to  ,get these constitutions, stand overagainst the wicked employer. If he holds
pledges or oaths for our inspection and judgment. The back our wage, we may not use force against him, but
members of the Union may not shcw them to us. This after we have told him that God shall avenge us, we
in itself  co~r&itutes a ground for censure. It is  an do not re.sist. And we do so for t.he simple reason that
admission cn the part of the Union that her works are Qd is the Judge and He shall avenge us. It is in .goo'd
the works of darkness. The child of the light comes hands. For that reason it is my conviction that the
to the light so that his works may be approved by God,      Christian may not join the Union for in so doing he
men and angels. But the child of darkness remains           approves the use of strikes. And he will also be called


                                                               T H E   S T A N D A R D   B E A R E R                                                                 161
.._..  -111"  ..-...... "_-.- .-.....  -."__l -  "..--  ..-.........   ^"" _l__l_    _.-.- _-..-..    .." .."-- ." ..- --    .."... .-___I .--._._  ---..- .._-.... -..--
out on a strike when the great bosses <of the Union and to become members of the Union, we will have to beg
the majority of his fellow unionists deem it necessary. for bread and water. And it is caused by  co.ntinued
Some will say: I do not approve of strikes either and                                            unifying of all labor and industry and the closed shop.
I will use my speech and my vote against all strikes.                                            if all the shops and places of work become closed, I
.dut I would answer : that makes no difference at ail ask you, where will we then go and find work? And
because the majority rules and you have pledged your- the Christian who lowers himself ,to join the Union
self to abide by the majority rule. And besides, your is jointly responsible for the utmost misery of the
standpoint is really very low indeed if you reason thus.                                         Church of Christ.
For although you are against strikes, you neverthe-                                                   In the sixth place, a Christian cannot join the
less enjoy the fruit of ail the past strikes in a high Union and retain his churchmembership because of
wage which the Union assures you and which usually is the  r'act that he condones and joins in the class struggle.
the reason also why you join. I have less respect for His very membership in the Union is a declaration of
the man who is a union member but who will not strike                                            war against the forces of industrialists. He has be-
than for the Union member who does strike. The come member of a body that practices the issues of
latter is consistent, in his evil.                                                               spiritual death, that is, hatred against the neighbour.
      Thirdly, a Christian cannot be a member. of the The Christian, on the contrary, is the peacemaker in
`Union, because of the evil of picketing which is entailed the Blood of Jesus. His object is to unite, wherever
in his membership of the Union.                                      Imagine, if you possible on the basis of God"s  Word. But the Union
please, a child of God who has unitedly laid down his takes issue against capital. The entire history of
work, has walked out of the shop, and now he parades                                             America of the last four decades as far as labor and
before the shop and hinders those who would go in capital are concerned is commentary of this statement.
and work. I do not defend the so-called scab, but I do There is in some instances a bloody war on. And shall
attack the idea that a Christian would lower himself we take sides in this struggle? We, who are baptized
to stand before the shop which he voluntarily left and in the name of the God of peace? God forbid. The
by word and wicked deed  hinder  others to go to work.                                           right of might has the victory. Now this side wins,
And do not say that you would not lower, yourself t-1                                            now that side conquers. And they count their victims
go and stand in the picket-line for you have promised that actually  w,ere killed in this strife by the thousands.
to abide by the principles of the Union and also here                                            How many, I ask you, are strongarmed and killed in
holds the argument that you become a hypocrite if the labor strife in Chicago alone? And shall we pay
you will take the fruits of the picket-line and would for all this bloodshed with our dues or shall we con-
refuse to walk the way that begets such high wages. done it by our membership and pledge? The common-
Neither would the Union allow you to abstain from wealth of America is sundered in twain in this respect
picketing.                                                                                       and shah we be found on either side? Let no one think
      Fourthly, we may not become members of the that we condone the wicked employers. We condemn
Union, because of the boycott which is always follow- them if possible much more than the employees.  I
ing the strikes and picketing. No Christian has the am convinced that the wicked rich are much more to
right to boycott the articles and products of his                                                blame than the wicked poor laborers who have done
fellow creature with the avowed purpose to bring him their bidding and were used to pile up their riches.
1o.w. It is in direct contradiction to the law of God And God shall surely avenge even the wickedness that
which enjoins love for God and love for our neighbour. Capital has done against Labor. But this is my point :
It is the expression of hatred for the neighbour. The you and I, we stand away and above this strugglng
Bible enjoins us to heap fiery coals upon the heads of mass of the worldlings and take neither side. In as
those that hate us. How than can a Christian condone far as we suffer in this struggle, we suffer in silence
and connive in the boycott?                                                                      and wait for God to avenge us. We suffer in silence
      In the fifth place, the Christian cannot join the but we testify for God and tell the rich tyrants that
Union because of the closed shop which is the ideal of their day  cometh.  But we shall use only the sword
the Union. 1 ask you in all earnestness, what will be- of the Spirit. And not the use of might and force.
come of us, who are convinced of the evil of Unionism                                                 But the greatest reason of all why a Christian will
if you help the world to bring the closed shop to all not join the Union and should never join is this: the
branches of industry? The result will be that we will friendship of the world is enmity against God. We
not find  >place for the hollow of our feet.                                         You, a may not make common cause with the world, because
Christian, will be jointly responsible for the state and the world hates our God. We will not be amalgamated
condition of affairs described in Revelation, that we with them because we love God. All the endeavour and
shall not be able to buy or sell unless we have the mark strife of the world is hatred against God. In all their
of the beast. And do not say that this is not rightfully work and thinking, they set themselves against God
applied for this condition is  thr&ening now and here. and His cause. Shall I then become one with them
The time is very near that if we will continue to refuse through my membership and joint responsibility who


362                                                       T H E   S T A N D A R D   B E A R E R
-. ..-. "- -_ -..- I." .-.. ..- lll-. -...--.  --..-".- .-.._ - -... -. .- .__.___  --."-.."--__^_  ..-_ "..^ "..         l_l  l__--_-  -..-- .-. - -..._ - -__
become ripe in their hatred for everlasting damnation?                                                                    1N MEMORIAM
No, a thousand times no, we will think of our wondrous
heritage: the love of God's covenant life.                                                           De Vrouwen Vereeniging der Pcotestantsche Gereformeerde
       Suppose you meet your  fehow  Unionist before the Gemeente te Sioux Center, Iowa, werd op December 8 in rouw
throne of God in the judgment day. What will he                                                gedompeld doordat de Heere ens oudste lid,
have to say to you? He will curse your doubleminded-                                                                  MRS. HENDRIKUS PRINS
ness and say: Why did you join with us, thereby giving                                         door den dood nit ons  midden  wegnam in den ouderdom van
us the impression that what we did and stood for was 81 jaar en  ruim   10 maanden. Wij zullen haar  missen,  daar
righteousness and equity? And all the time you knew                                           zij met veel  genot voor haarzelf  en voor ons, zeer getrouw met
we were going to hell for this very thing our Union raven en talsnten  de vereeniging bijwoonde. Maar  wij mogen
did and stood for? Why did you not warn us in the                                              gelooven  dat ons  verlies  haar gewin is. Niet alleen op haar
first place by refusing to join the Union? And second- ziekbed, maar ook in haar dagelijksche omgang kwam het uit
ly by your continual testimony against us? No, but                                            op Wien zij vetrouwde en haar oog gevestigd was. De Heere
you were after a high wage for which we are going trooste de bedroefde familie.
to pay in hell yonder. And while that miserable soul                                                                            Namens de Vereeniging,
of the worldling goes to his place in hell, you shall                                                                           Mrs. J. Hamstra, `Vice Presidents
stand before the throne of God. And how shall you                                                    Sioux Center, Iowa.        Mrs. B. Baartman, Secretaresse
then be treated by God who is a consuming fire? You
will have in your guilty hand the dollars of the Union
wage ; but also the joint responsibility for blood and                                                                    IN MEMORIAM
tears of God's people ; the conviction of having sinned                                              On Monday, October 25,  1937, it pleased the Lord  LD
grievously against love and righteousness; the cause suddenly take from our side our beloved husband, son and
of the slander of the precious Name.                                  And  Sodo,m             brother,
and Gomorrah with all the Union members will con-                                                                            JOE SCHUT
demn you.                                                                                      at the age of 23 years.
       And God will condemn you, unless you convert                                                  Although we grieve and our hearts are deeply wounded,
yourself, you who are guilty of this grievous sin.                                             we trust that the grace of God will be sufficient for us  i;o
       Nay, brethren, you are the turtledove of God and carry this particular cross.
for a time we will be spoiled by our enemies, but God                                                                 The mourning family:
give us courage to stand for our holy convictions, listen-                                                                           Mrs. Joe  &hut
ing to our God who bids us continuously to depart                                                                               Mr. and Mrs. Jake A. Schut
from out of the midst of Babylon, lest we partake                                                                                              Hudsonville,   Mich.
of her sins and also partake of her plagues.                                                                                    Mr. and Mrs. Gerrit Lubbers
       And when we have suffered our portion of the                                                                                           Byron Center,  Mich.
misery and persecution here on earth; when we have                                                                              Mr. and Mrs. Henry J. Holstege
sown love and righteousness with tears, the eternal                                                                                           Byron Center,  Mich.
harvest of Cicd's love will be harvested by us. Then
the dove will be decked with precious gold of Ophir,
which shall shine and glisten because of the looks of
love that beam from out of the midst of the throne                                                                   DEACON'S CONFERENCE.
where abide the God of our salvation from the Lamb                                                  A meeting of the Protestant Reformed Deacon's
of God.                                                                                       Conference will be held, the Lord willing, on Wed-
                                                            I thank you.                      nesday evening, January 19, 1938, at the Fuller Avenue
       (Read in the combined English and Holland Men's Protestant Reformed Church. Rev. G. M. Ophoff will
Societies of Redlands, California, December 2, 1937.)                                         speak on the subject : "Responsibility cf the Deaconate
                                                                          G. V.               over against the Emeritus Minister"
                                                                                                    All deacons of the Protestant Reformed Churches
                                                                                              in Michigan, are kindly reminded to keep this date
                                                                                              open. The retiring deacons, as well as the  newly-
                       NOTICE CURATORIUM.                                                      elected, are cordially invited to attend this meeting.
       The Curatorium of our Theological School will meet Let us one and all take advantage of this opportunity,
D. V., Tuesday evening, January 11, 1938, in the ,to be instructed in the labor of this Priestly Office,
basement of the Fuller Ave., Church building at 2:OO                                          and to mutually discuss this work. Remember the date
inst,ead  of at 3:OO. Remember the change. The meet- and place, and may all the congregations be repre-
ing will begin promptly at  2:OO  in the afternoon.                                            sented by a full number.
                                                    The Curatorium,                                                                   The Committee.
                                             Rev, L. Vermeer, Sec'y.                                                          J. H. Korterinp,  Chairman


                                                         T H E   S T A N D A R D   B E A R E R                                      1f.g
--....."  ..- -- .-...-..........."  ..-.--                        l__-- "I .~..--" ~-"._-..."                     _-._ _l_l-~ .-.--- -
                       Prof. Volbeda Jubilant                                 dissent in "The Reformatie" for  duly 16,  1937)  that
                                                                              he regards many of Dr. Bouwman's conclusions, as set
                                                                              forth in his propositions, and the direction in `vhich
      On the 85th of  June,  one  Marinus  Bouwman, a they lead, very dangerous. They lead to hierarchy, is
minister of the "`Gereformeerde  Kerk van  Nieuwen-                           the conviction of Van Lonkhuyzen. In "The Refor-.
dam" was promoted at the Free  TJniversity  of Amster- matie"  for the same date, Dr. S. Greijdanus expressed
dam to the degree of Doctor in Theology on the ground himself in the following vein (1 translate) "The church
of a dissertation bearing the title, "Voetius over het                        Polity in this book (the book of Bouwman) is sheer
gezag der synoden", that is, "Voetius on the authority                        hierarchy.    True, not the papal hierarchy (Rome),
of the synods". The  treatice  was criticized in  "The nor Cathedral, p, 370, (Anglican church), but synodi-
Reformatie"`. If the critics (Dr. J. Van Lonkhuyzen Cal. This, however, is merely a formal difference but
and Dr. S. Greijdanus) quoted Bouwman correctly, not an essential distinction. W.e know this from the
{and there is certainly no reason to doubt that they church history of our own and, when we think of 1834
did), than the view to the defence of which he (Dr. and 1836. Rejection of the papal and the Cathedral
Bouwman) arose in his treatice  is that the synod (clas-                      hierarchy is not sufficient. The synodical hierarchy
sis) , the same as the consistory, is a council of rulers must be rejected as well, for it is no better than the
of the church (the local congregation) that can, if others.
need be, exercise all the prerogatives of the consistory,
can thus expel  fr.om  office ministers of the gospel,                           "I may therefore not do otherwise .than earnestly
eiders and deacons, and excommunicate obstinate mem- warn our churches against a church polity as that of
bers in full communion and even an entire congrega-                           this book. That is a hierarchical set-up, a system of
tion with its officebearers from the church of God and synodical hierarchy that in its application leads under
from fellowship with Christ. This is the view.  In the crushing domination of the exercise of a synodical
the series of propositions defended by the youthful violence, based on human claim to power". So
doctor is found one - the seventh in order - that far Greijdanus. This certainly is devastating cri-
reads, "Er bestaat geen principieel  verschil tusschen ticism".
de meerdere vergaderingen  (classis  en synode) en                               Prof. Volbeda of Calvin  Crllege  seminary also read
den kerkeraad der plaatselijke Kerk".  As translated Dr. Bouwman's treatice. His  a,ppraisal of the book
this reads, "The major assemblies  (classis and synod)                        forms a rather lenthy  article in "The Calvin Forum"
and the consistory of the local congregation do not for December 1937. From this article, one may learn
.diEer in principle".                          This, according to the doctor, that Prof. Volbeda is immensely pleased with  this
being true, the aggregate of churches, synodically "literary firstfruit" of the "youthful" doctor. The clos-
united is also "ecclesia  instituta" and to this "instituta" ing paragraph of his article reads, "Dr. Bouwman's
(institution), as met in Synod (classis), the local con- dissertation reflects a fine measure of credit upon him-
gregation must subject itself in the same sense that self; it is an honor to the university and in particu1a.r
it is the  bounden duty of the congregation to be in to the professor, Dr. H. H. Ruyper, under whose di-
submission to its own consistory. It is to the defence rection he prepared it; it is proof demonstrative, that
of this conception of synodical authority, that the doc- Gcd `is blessing the Reformed churches of the Nether-
tor is addressed in his treatice. What he in addition lands with superlative talent; and it is an invaluable
sought to establish is that this conception was also help to all Presbyterians who wish to imform them-
that of Voetius.  N0.w this conception of synodical selves reliably on one of  "the cardinal principles of  cc-
authority is not new among us. It was taught for clesiastical polity that has the sanction of Holy Writ,
many years by the late Prof. Heyns at the Calvin Semi- that commends itself to sanctified reason, and that
nary, acted upon some years ago now by a classis  of has proved  5ts practical merit in the century-long his-
the Christian Reformed church (the  classis Grand tory of Reform.ed Churches everywhere". So far the
Rapids West, .that on the ground of insubordination professor.
to classical authority, deposed from office two ministers                        One cannot but help being struck with amazement
of the gospel, together with their respective consist-                        by the radical difference between the professor's ap-
ories) and thereupon, with a view to the doing of this                        praisa1  of the  treatice  in question and that of Van
classis, vigorously defended by the Rev. G. Hoeksema Lonkhuyzen and Greijdanus. The professor is IiberaI
and Prof. Volbeda.                                                            to access in his praise of the book. His article indicates
       As could be expected, the treatice  in question cre- that the contents of the book was relished by him and
ated somewhat of a stir among the brethren in the                             kindled in his soul a great joy. The professor must
circle of the "Geref. kerken" of the Netherlands. On realize,of  course, that his eulogies mark him as an
the occasion of Dr. Bouwman's public defence of his ardent exponent of the propositions postulated, ex-
theses at the university, Dr. J. Van Lonkhuyzen de- ,pounded and defended in the treatice. In the be-
clared (we learn this from the publication of his                             ginning of his article the professor tells us that,


 164                                                      T H E   S T A N D A R D   B E A R E R
- --.-......-.- - _ - -..... -- "-.-"-    .."--- . ..-. ^.""-- -." - -." .-..,......."  --.,.......  ~_...__ -- ".-^^.-____-  . . . ___ ..-.--. --. ..--...-   -    -
"It is reported that the first gun of the battle                                         professor, let us show that Dutch Calvinism here in
that may develop into a protracted  struggIe,  was fired America is no more pacifistic than the Dutch Calvin-
at the academic trial of the aspirant to doctoral                                         ism in the Netherlands. Let us show by our fighting
honors". "Others", the professor goes on to say, "have                                   error wherever and whenever it raises its vile head,
expressed themselves more guardedly". Then there that the truth lies as close to our hearts as to the hearts
are those "who prudently suspended judgment until of the brethren across the sea. Let us debate together
the matter at issue has been  threshed out more ade-                                     on the above-cited issue. The proposition, cited above,
quately". Well, the professor, certainly, was far from is so very basic that, if it be false, he who affirms what
expressing himself guardedly when he penned down it declares, really has no place in that household of
his reactions to the teachings of that treatice. And if faith that bears the name of Reformed. And the
to suspend judgment is in this case the mark of pru-                                     same applies to him, who denies what the proposition
dence, the professor cannot congratulate himself on                                      affirms, if it be true. Let us in our debate he con-
his being a prudent man. The principles of ecclesiasti-                                  cerned solely with this one question, "What sayeth the
cal polity that the doctor in his treatice  so vigorously                                Scriptures.," and have regard to no other tradition than
defends, have, so the professor wrote, the sanction of our Church Order.
Holy Writ and thus commend themselves to sanctified                                            But I have not done with the professor's article.
reason. So !                                                                             The professor  sets out with telling his readers  ihat
     The first paragraph of the professor's  artic!e  reads                              "the litterary  first-fruit of the young ministerial don-
in part, There is every reason to believe that the thesis tor" has already "created considerable stir among our
to whose defence  the book is devoted, will be vigorously                                staid brethren in the Low Lands beyond the sea", and
discussed and earnestly debated, if not heatedly. . . . that, "a royal battle is in progress in the field of phy-
This will be the third serious debate engrossing the losophy".                                            And then the professor puts the queston,
leaders of Dutch theological Calvinism of the present "But what is the `causa behi'," that is, what may be
age and day. Dogmatical fighting  is going on (in the the cause of the stir, of the contention, that the  treatice
Netherlands. Not here in America, certainly, among of Dr. Bouwman created among the brethren in the
the leaders of the Christian Reformed churches. G.M.                                     Netherlands? Attend now to the professor's reply.
0.). A battle royal is in progress in the field of phy- In substance it is this: In 1816 the civil magistrates
losophy. Now a canonical controversy appears in the                                       (in the Netherlands) "saw fit to annul the presbyterian
offing. Dutch Calvinism is anything but pacifistic. And polity of the church and to substitute for it a govern-
no wonder! It believes sincerely and ardently in ment that was collegialistic in character and hierarchi-
                                                                                         cal in spirit."
the antithesis  ;                                                                                               The reformers of 1834 and 1886  (Kuy-
                            it fights error wherever and when-                           per, Rutgers et al) aimed at restoring Presbyterianism
ever it thinks it meets this  fee of God's truth and
honor".                                                                                  and at re-establishing the rights and liberties of the
                                                                                         congregations. But in realizing their aim, they made
     The professor here paid a noble tribute to Dutch                                     the mistake of stressing "unduly the rights af the
Calvinism. But it ought also to appear now that he local church and by that token disparaged the authori-
was not engaged in mere lip service when he framed                                       ty of the major assemblies" (this is a rather serious
%hose noble `phrases.                     So I here affirm with all the charge which the professor fails to substantiate by
emphasis that I can muster, that the propostion to the as much as a shred of evidence). Now, "like all men
effect that the synod (classis) is a council of rulers                                   who are impelled by the exigencies of the situation to
vested with the power to exercise all the prerogatives justify themselves and to meet the challenge that rules
of the consistory  ; that the aggregate of churches, sy- them out of order," they turned to Voetius' "ponderous
nodically united, is also "ecclesia instituta" and that                                  quartos"  (the professor refers here to Voetius' work
to this "instituta" met in synod, the local church is                                    on church polity,  - a work that consists of four
in duty bound before God to subject itself in the same                                   volumes) and "they knew what they wanted. . . . .
sense that it must be in subjection to its own consist-                                  when. they ransacked these quartos. . . . . They (the
ory. -  I affirm that this proposition is thoroughly leaders of the Doleantie) were supremely interested
false, that the principle of ecclesiastical polity it sets in finding support for the view that synodical authority
forth is absolutely a travesty of the truth, that can is consistently secondary to congregational rights. And
appeal only to a reason unsanctified by the truth. What                                   they believed, in utter sincerety,  of course, that Voetius
I here affirm is to the professor  terrib!e error. Let                                   sponsored the construction of synodical authority to
then that Calvinism that "fights error wherever and which circumstances and psychology predisposed them
whenever it thinks it meets this foe of God's truth and                                   favorably." However, Dr. Bouwman's conclusion is
honor" now take on flesh and blood in the person of that the leaders of the Doleantie were in error as to
the professor and fight this error and me with it, either where Voetius stood as regards the authority of the
in "The Standard B,earer"  or in "the Calvin Forum"                                       major assemblies. According to the finding  of this
or in  both.magazines  (it makes little difference). Come "expert investigator" of Voetius' doctrine' Voetius was


                                             T H E   S T A N D A R D   B E A R E R                                               165
  -_-__  _ __-____-_  ___-.. .."..."l-_ll  ..."l-ll_l_--        --I- --_- ..-____..-          ___- ~-----_ _    ____.-..............._  - -
  a decisive protaginist of the mandatory power of sy-           perIy  as impartial investigator by a powerful bias or
  nods." It even appeared "that he carried synodidcal by a consuming passion for some theory? Sta?:ements
  authority to such length as  salemnly averring that Occur in the very article of the professor that lead  one
  major assemblies may even exercise the constitutional to believe that Vcetius may have been anything but
  prerogatives -of minor assemblies in the event of ab- consistent and that it may even be possible to quote
  normal and critical circumstances." Now it is precisely him in favor of most any system of church government
  this verdict of Bouwman, "that has brought such con- under the sun. Attend to this from the professor's
  sternation to the camp of those who had confidently pen, "Voetius was not an Independent as Dr.Kleyn,  es.,
  hitched the mighty Voetius to their chariot of the auto- contended, though it must be conceded (mark you, it
  nomy of the local church."                                     must be conceded. G.M.O.)  that, to quote one of Dr.
                                                                 Bouwman's theses (III), Voetius' canonical views were
      So then, what, according to the professor, so dis-         somewhat influenced by the Independents of his day.
  quiets the staid brethren" across the sea is that, ac-         The author points out that in the early part of his
  cording to Bouwman's findings, the leaders of the  Dc-         career Voetius put forth an earnest effort to win the
  leantie erred in their  interpr,etation  of Voetius, and Moderate Independents for Presbyterianism. He sym-
  that, if Bouwman's findings should turn out to be cor-         pathized with them very deeply, indeed, in their im-
  rect, they, these brethren, had no business to hitch placable hostility to the hierarchism of the church of
  Voetius to their chariot of the "autonomy of the local         England. It was a matter of-strategy with him at this
  church", and that these brethren therefore at the first time to stress what Presbyterians and Independents
  opporunity had better unhitch and allow Voetius to go have in common, and not what devides them." Was
  his way alone, should it appear that Bouwman ccrrect-          the professor in these concluding paragraphs of his
  ly repro.duced  his teachings.                                 article forgetful of this meaningful concession of his
      So the professor puts the question, "What to do or can it be that he failed to sense its possible impli-
  about it." And his answer, "About the only thing cations?
  to do is to study Voetius as patiently and thoroughly             But  let me now ask whether the professor was tell-
  and in as scholarly a way as Dr. Bouwman has done ; ing the whole truth when he wrote that the reason
  and then either to prove. . . .that Voetius' most recent those "staid brethren" across the sea, are raising such
. examiner  misunderstocd  him and reports him incor- a hue and cry, are making the appearance of that
  rectly ; or to grant that Dr. Bouwman does Voetius             "literary first-fruit" of "that expert investigator of
   perfect justice as regards the latter's view respecting Voetius' doctrine", Dr. Bouwman, "an occasion for
  the authority of the major assemblies." This is sane ecclesiastical incrimination", is simply that, according
  advice. However, the professor warns those who shouh?          + the findings of this "expert" the leaders of the Do-
  decide to act upon his counsel that it is almost certain       leantie had erred in their interpretation of Voetius and
   that the attempt `(to destroy the evidential force of the that therefore these leaders and their kindred snirits
   vast amount of documentary proof that Dr. Bouwman             (the staid brethren of this present time) did wrong in
   has piled up, ceiling high, in substantiation of his in- h.itching  Voetius to their chariot of the autonomv of
   terpretation of Voetius r, rc syncdical authority" will the local congregations. I ask whether the professor
   end in failure. Such will discover that they have "ad- was telling the whole truth. when he wrote this:
   dressed themselves to a supremely difficult task. . . .       whether the reason to which he points is the only
   And if Voetius was anything like consistmt  it will re- reason of the disquietude of the brethren? And the
   quire equally Herculean efforts to produce material un- answer: the professor was not telling the  whole truth.
   quoted in Dr. Bouwman's book that offsets the quo-            The reason he mentions is not the only one. It must
   tations adduced in support of his conclusions." That          even be denied that this reason is  o*ti~e of the real
   the professor takes the stand that Voetius was con-           reasons of the stir created bv the anpearance  of the
   sistent, is evident from the benedictions that he heaps       doctor's treatice. One would almost be at a loss to
   upon Dr. Bouwman and his treatice  and from his state- know what to make of these "staid brethren", if it
   ment to the effect that Dr. Bouwman "shows convinc- were. Let me ask. were these  poderous  volumes of
   ingly that no  Vostius  US. Voetius case can even by ap- Voetius incorporated by the church into the canon of
   proximation be made out." Thus the undertaking that Holv writ? Are the "Gereformeerde" churches of  the
   the professor suggests will prove almost  hope?ess.  I Netherlands organized on the  ba,sis of these volumes?
   cannot help  wond,ering just why the professor went to        Supposing these brethren will have to unhitch Voetius
   this length to discourage anyone who might decide to from their chariot. what will thev lose? Voetias.  That
   follow his suggestion. Is there perhaps a fear in his         is  all. Voetius,  desnite  his greatness. was after  al1
   soul that a Vo~tiw  vs. `c70r?Cus case can indeed be made only Voetius.              Voetius isn't god. is he?  Should
   out and will be made out by anyone capable of examin- the nrosaect  of losing Voetius. cause men whose onIv
   ing the content of those "ponderous quartos"  of Voetius ' +l%le guide and source of truth and knowledge  ir,
   with a mind not rendered incapable of functioning pro- [Zod's Word, to raise hues and cries?


 166                                              T H E   S T A N D A R D   B E A R E R
 -..... "" -......--__-." ,..- --__.-.....  -~. ^ I"_-- ...~--.--"  ..----.-.  -- --.--. -.^- --......-.-.._  l_____l-  ..__.. "- "-- -  .-_._ -^ ..-... --.--
     The reason of the raising of this hue and cry is a readers just what that system of church polity may be
totally different one. The reason is that a youthful                             that appeals so strongly to his reason? If not, let
doctor, under the very direction of Dr. H. H. Kuyper, him do so!
the professor of church pclity at the Free University,                               If the professor is so assured that it is scriptural
sent into the churches a treatice  in which Voetius is for the synod to exercise all the prerogatives of the
marshaled to the support of principles of church polity, consistory, why did he not advise the last synod of his
thoroughly hierarchical, thus a  treatice  that turns out churches to discipline Dr. F. Wezeman, whom it had
to be not an objective, impartial, dispassionate, and found guilty of the gross sin of teaching false doctrine.
thus  innccent examination of Voetius' cannonical  views The synod found him guilty of this sin, but failed to
(Volbeda) , but an exposition and  d@%cc of principles ask him to make confession of it. The sin has not been
of church polity that, according to the conviction of publicly confessed to this day.
the disquieted brethren, must, in `their application, lead,                          Let us now have regard once more to the professor's
to quote Dr. Greijdanus once more, under the crushing appraisal of Dr. Bouwman's accomplishment as "expert
domination of the esercise  of a synodical  violence based investigator" of Voetius' teachings. Is Dr. Bouwman
on human claim to power. This is one of the reasons the impartial, impassionate, and thus expert investi-
of the consternation of the brethren (we learn this gator of Voetius' doctrine that the professor makes him
from their articles in "De Reformatie"). The  ether                             out to be? It seems not. There are reasons to believe
reascn is that if the church polity set forth and de-                           that Dr. Bouwman had been rendered incapable of
fended, in Dr. Bouwman's treatice  is correct, the Do-                          expertly examining Voetius' Canonical views by a love
leantie was a huge mistake and that if so, the "Gerefor-                        of a theory. What the professor  say,s  of the leaders of
meerde" churches of the Netherlands have no right of the Doleantie, must be said of Dr. Bouwman as wel!.
existence. These are the reasons of the stir. Why He too, knew what he wanted when he ransacked Voe-
did the professor refrain from disclosing these rea- tius' "ponderous volumes". And just what he wanted,
sons?                                                                           he found. Let me offer some proof for these state-
    But now further. In his preface to his article the                          ments. On page 398 of the doctor's treatice  is found
prcfessor wrote, "The readers of the Calvin Forum a paragraph (quoted in `*De Reformatie" for July  15)
may. . . . look upon this contribution as an article                            whose teaching is in substance this: In article 79 (of
and a bcok review in one. The volume under discus- the Church Order), the principle is established that  o/n?
sion is of suffcient  moment to warrant c( more ~~xtwaiue                       con&tory only has not the right to depose officebearers.
discussion.  of fhc ~~roblcm than the limits of an ord'nary                     The deposition of an elder or a deacon must be  a joint
book review would allow." The professor h-sre speaks action of at least two consistories. Now if two churches
of a problem to be discussed by him in his article. What                        have this right, it must follow that more neighbouring
the problem may be, the professor did not say any- churches have (this right). These neighbouring church-
where. But we surmize that it is the problem of shcw-                           es exercise this right in  classis  and synod. Thus in
ing how the church polity of Dr. Bouwman's treatice                             article 79 is found the right of synod to depose office-
is to be harmonized with the teaching of Holy Writ.                             bearers. Now discipline is one. If Synod has the
Would t.hat the professor had kept him to his orginal                           power to depose officebearers, it has also the right to
resolves and engaged in his article in a discussion of excommunicate, if circumstances so require, an ob-
"the problem". As it is, we find in the article of the stinate member of a local congregation.
professor no discussion at all, neither of t.he problem                              Such is the reason of the do&r. And it .is a reason-
nor of the church -polity that this problem concerns.                           ing that amazes. It causes one to question whether the
The prcfessor even failed to state clearly and in un- doctor's eyes have opened to the real issue in the dis-
equivocal speech just what that church polity is that pute. Is what the  artic!e  79  stipula.tes that the  con-
Dr Bouwman defends  ,in his  treatice  ; to set this polity sistory may set itself up as a power over the consistory
forth in its true form (ware  gesta?te)  ; and to state that sought its advice and by itself and contrary to the
just what the prerogatives are that allows the synod,                           resolve of that consistory and its flock, d,epose  some or
if need be, to exercise. He failed to state and define the                      even all of the officebearers? This is not what the
real issues in the controversy that turns upon  this                            article allows or requires but simply that an office-
polity. The result is that one could not possibly learn bearer may be deposed after the neighbouring  con-
from the professor's  wr,iting just what that stir among sistory has passed judgment upon the sentence of depo-
the brethren in the Netherlands is really all about. sition ,and not before. Yet the doctor concluded from
The article of the professor is extremely unsatisfactory this stipulation that synod (classis) is vested not with
and disappointing. How are the professor's failures advisory, but with a  juridicial,  mandatory power over
to be accounted for? Did he perhaps lack the courage                            the local congregations, that is, with a power, that, if
to state and discuss "the problem", and to speak plain- need be, exercises all the  prerogratives  of the  con-
ly&and boldly so that all who read him might under- sistory  contrary to what that consistory may have  se-
stand? Is the professor perhaps afraid to  tell his solved or  wil!s. This is  sstounding.


                                               T H E   S T A N D A R D   B E A R E R                                                                167
_-"-^.l__l  -... ".---"-. ~-__I  .._ - - "..-._. .."."-~ ^..._~  -...I- "1__-...........-....-......  "-- - _-_-__--..  ^_....-" .._.. .._-_.-....  ___-
    The professor has read Dr. Bouwman's book. I
wonder if he is able to recall having encountered this                                                    Not Noble ,
reasoning of the doctor. And I wonder also how lnuch
mare of this kind of reasoning is found in the doctor's                           The Rev. H. J. Kuiper, editor in chief of "The
treatice.      I haven`t the book as yet, so I cannot de-                     Banner", has in recent articles of his, been denouncing
termine.                                                                      th,e "Boy Scout Movement". He called attention,  n-
    What do such reasonings show? This: that as an mong other things, to the Scout Law. This law, as
investigator of Voetius' canonical teachings, Dr. Bouw-                       quoted by the reverend, reads,  "..4 scout is trustworthy;
man may have been laboring under the influence of a                           a scout is loyal; a scout is helpful; a scout is friendly;
bias that completely disqualified him as an impartial a scout is  caurteous;  a scout is kind ; a scout is rever-
and fair and thus expert investigator of Voetius' dcc-                        ent". The reverend's comment reads in part Bs follows
trme. This much, at least, is certain. The leaders                            IOWS, "We might call  attenticn  to some significant
of the Doleantie could have been no more partial than                         omissions; . . . but to include these would not remove
Dr. Bouwman. It is, of course, even a question wh&her                         the fundamental defect.              The scout law would still
tlie leaders of the Doleantie were actually  unab!e to                       contain the same basic untruth which poisons the Scout
interpret Voetius correctly because of their likes and                        Oath : namely that the boys can be good without the
dislikes in doctrine. This is the contention of the pro- regenerating grace of the Holy Spirit. It is easy for
fessor. But as was said, he offers not a shred of evi- us to say that we believe the scriptural teaching of
dence.                                                                       original sin and total depravity. In daily life we often
    I now come to my final remark.                                           unconsciously deny them ; as for example, when we tell
    The professor, according to the tenor of his writing,                    our children to be good - instead of constantly re-
is disposed to accept Dr. Bouwman's testimony to the minding them that their hearts are bad and in need
effect that the leaders of the Doleantie, that thus the of cleansing by the Holy Spirit and that, therefore, they
late Dr. Kuyper, erred in their interpretation of Voe-                       must pray for divine pard,on,  for a new heart, and for
tius' doctrine respecting the authority of the Major divine aid in, seeking to keep God's commandments.
assemblies.       This disposition on the part of the pro- The same error is made the basis of the entire Scout
fessor is rather surprising. Think of how we of late Oath and Scout Law. . . . The Scout Law says  `ihe
have again been reminded, also by the professor,  I:f scout is tru,stworthy,.  loyal, helpful, friendly, ccurteous,
Kuyper's supreme greatness. But along comes Dr.                              kind, obedient, clean, reverent, and so on. But the
Bouwman, a youthful man, a mere stripling intellect- Gospel teaches that the Scout, as well as the boy who
ually as compar.ed  with the great Kuyper, who testifies is not a scout, is untrustworthy, disloyal, selfish, un-
that. Kuyper misconstrued Voetius' doctrine, and his friendly, impolite, cruel, disobedient, unclean, and ir-
testimony is immediately received and pronounced                             reverent.       In short, the implicit teaching of the Boy
noble and he, the testifier, awarded the title of "expert Scouts of America conflicts  w'ith  the explicit teaching
investigator".       And the peerless Kuyper, in his capa- of the Word of God that all men are born in sin and
city of Canonist, is cast in a corner. It shows that depraved in heart." So far the reverend.
u-hat the brethren love is not so much Kuyper as their                            As appears from the reverend's  Reply to three
own notions. Did. t.he professor, before he sat down young men, a reply that is contained in "The Banner"
to write his article, wade through those ponderous                           for December 9, some young folk in the circle of the
qu.artos of Voetis to ascertain whether Dr. Bouwman Christian Reformed churches, strongly resent the
had reported him correctly? He did not. It means                             reverend's criticism of the Boy Scout Movement One
that the professor really knows nothing about the ex- youth replied to this criticism as follows, "Now it seems
pertness of Dr. Bouwman as investigator of Voetius' to me, Mr. Editor, that your discussion of total de-
doctrine. And yet he awarded him, who is pitted a- pravity is much beside the point. In my early training
gainst the great Kuyper, the title of "expert investi-                       I have learned the distinction between civil good and
Fator".      S t r a n g e   d o i n g s .                                   spiritual good. We grant that an unregenerated per-
                                                        G. M. 0.             son is unable to do spiritual good, but u-e also teach
                                                                             that by virtue of common grace the unregenerate can
                                                                             do civil good. All the qualities of the Scout Law, such
                       BEKENDMAKING                                          as trustworthiness, loyalty, helpfulness', honesty, etc.
                                                                             belong to the latter category.                 Your statements in
   Classis-vergadering der  Protestantsche   Gerefor-                        reference to that matter sound to me like a plain denial
meerde Kerken staat D. V. te worden  gehouden Woens-                         of the doctrine of common grace. I affirm, Mr. Editor.
dag January 12, 1938 om negen uur in den voormid-                            that a Boy Scout can be trustworthy, loyal, helpful.
dag in de Eerste  Protestantsche   Gereformeerde   Kerk                      honest, by virtue of common grace'". So far this youth.
te Grand Rapids,  Mich.                                                          Attend now to the reverend's reply to this, "Now to
                                   M: Vandq Vennen, S. CT                    be very frank, if I wanted to make that affirmation I


168                                         T H E   S T A N D A R D '   B E A R E R
                          __-..  -.-_--_^  .._ --  _.... _ll_l_-----  .._. -.- _....-. --._._...              ._______.._.__,................--  .-..........-  II_
wcul,d  at once leave the Christian Reformed Church                                                 MARIA MAGDELENA
and affiliate with a Modern&&  church, if I felt I still                                              (In Jozefs Hof)
needed a church That conception of common grace
surely does not agree with th,e Biblical doctrine of total                           Ik had Hem  aan den dood verloren;
depravity. We believe the heart of man is desperately                                Nooit, nooit zou ik Zijn stem weer hooren,
wicked from his youth; and that, though through com-                                 En in mijn grondeloos verdriet
mon grace of Go,d sin is restrained in the unregene-                                 Geloofd' ik zelfs Johannes  met,
rate and they are still able to do many things that                                  Die  blij mij nei: "Hij is verrezen!"
are good in an outward sense, their virtues are super-                               `k Begreep hem niet; ik stond verwezen:
ficial  an,d not rooted in the fear of God. To say that a                            Mij  was zelfs niet de troost  gelaten,
boy can be trustworthy, helpful and even reverent (by                                Dat `Hem mijn balsem nog  mocht   haten!
virtue of common grace. G.M.O.) without adding any
qualifications to that statement, is to proclaim false-
hcod and not truth". So far the reverend.                                            0, `t angstig noeken, `t angstig vragen;
                                                                                     Ik  bukte  in  `t  graf; mijn oogen  zagen
   This reply sprang from an extremely agitated spirit.                              Gods blinkend' Englenwacht voorbij.
The retort of this youth sorely vexed the reverend.                                  Waarom ik weende, vroegen zij.
In his great vexation of spirit, he even went so far                                 En `k riep, verschrikt, maar zonder schromen:
as to tell this youth that, if such be his conception, he                            "Mijn Heere is mij weggenomen!"
had better leave the Christian Reformed Church and                                   Waakt' ik of was dit gruwzaam droomen?
atliliate  with a Modernist church. It means that in                                 Zou nu `t verlossend antwoord komen?
a  pulite way the reverend tells this youth that he had
better go to the world. How ignoble, how cruel, this
cousel !                                                                             Ik wist mijn leven  weerloos  open
                                                                                     Voor `d angsten,  die mij eens beslopen ;
       Was the wrath of the reverend justly kindled?                                 `k Werd bij Zijn sterven mij bewust:
It was  net.         Let us show this.                 The rever-                    Hij was mijn zekerheid, mijn rust;
end's contention is that this youth, through his failure                             Nu, zonder Hem, vreesd' ik mijn leven
to qualify his statement to the effect that the unre-                                Den helschen waanzin prijsgegeven
generate by virtue of common grace can do civil good,                                Waaruit Hij eens mij deed ontwaken:
came forward with the view that the good deeds of the                                `k Mocht toen voor `t eerst Zijn liefde smaken.
unregenerate are not wholly, totally sinful, that thus
there is an element of true goodness in the virtue
or civic righteousness of the man devoid of saving                                   Weer zocht Hij mij in mijnen nood;
grace. For this view the reverend upbraids the youth.                                Hij leefd', ik zocht Hem in den dood.
       Is the reverend now  stltogether  unmindful of  t,he                          Ik kon niet leven zonder Hem ;
fact, that this youth was merely reproducing in his                                  0, de muziek van Zijne stem,
writing what in 1924 became the very doctrine of his                                 Zij ging mij, in mijn smart, vaorbij;
churches, and the very doctrine the reverend so vigor-                               `k Herkende niet; vreemd was  Hij mij.
ously defended in that sermon of his on the Third Point                              Toen sprak  - o zalig, zoet  geluid  -
of Synod?                                                                            Hij mijnen naam nadruklijk uit.
                                                                                     En  dcor  ,den mist van mijnen tranen
       The doctrine with which this youth C&me  forward                              Zag ik den  hemel  opengaan en
is indeed that of the reverend and his colleagues. This                              Aanbiddend wierp ik m'  aan Zijn voeten:
,I will prove in the next issue by quotations from that                              "Rabbouni!" klonk mijn staamlend groeten.
sermon of the reverend.
                                                      G. M. 0.                       Ik meet met, wat, zielsdiep ontroerd,
                                                                                     `k Meer sprak of deed ; mij zelf ontvoerd
                                                                                     Stand `k op den top van mijn geluk!
                                                                                     Maar  Hij  - deed `k overdreven druk ?  -
                         N O T I C E                                                 Wees met een  zacht gebaar mij af,
                                                                                     Sprak  van Zijn hemelvaart en gaf
       Central Board Meeting of the R. F. P. A. will be                              De boodschap m'  aan Zijn jongren mee,
held Tuesday evening, at  X4:00, in the basement of  ihe                             En ging  - liet mij Zijn zaalgen  vree;
                                                                                     Ik kon mijn vreugde nouw betoonen,
First Protestant Reformed Church.                                                    `1~ Ben zingend  in de stad gekomen  ;
                                                  The Board.                         Noch dood noch duivel zou mij deren  ;
                                                                                     Ik was en bleef  bruid mijns Heeren !


                               A  Reformed   Semi-Monthly  Magazine\
            PUBLISHED BY THE REFORMED FREE PUBLISHING ASSOCIATION, GRAND RAPIDS, MICH.





          "...---~ -...                                                               "--..--  ..--.
 Vol. XIV, No. 8 Entered   aa  second  class  mail
                         matter  at  Grand   Rapids,   Mich.          JANUARY 15, 1938                              Subscription Price, $2.00
- .._ - ..-...- ^-                                                           ._-..                       .--.-.-

1-i                                                                                    What, if we are in Christ Jesus ; if there is no
                                                                            condemnation for us; if we are already liberated from
I-Jthe law of sin and death by the law of the Spirit of
                                                                            life ; if the Spirit of Christ dwell in us ; if by the Spirit
                           God  For  Us                                     we are led so that we mortify the deeds uf the body ;
                                                                            if; therefore, we are children of God, heirs of God and
                         What  shall we  $hen say to these joint heirs with Christ, so that we look forward to an
                      things? If God be for us, ,who can be inheritance so great and glorious that even all the
                      against  us ? He that spared not His sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be
                      own Son but delivered Him up for us compared with it; what, if  .even  all creation stands
                      all, how shall He not  ,with Him also with uplifted head, groaning and travailing in pain,
                      freely  q+ve us all things?                           looking for the glorious liberty of the children of God;
                                                     Row2 8  *s1
                                                                ..,  32.    if we have the firstfruits of the Spirit, an earnest of
    We shall say: God is for us !                                           the full harvest, and groan within ourselves waiting
    We shall say: God spared not His own Son, but for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body;
delivered Him up for us all!                                                what, if the Spirit groans within us, when we know
    We shall say: Nothing and no one can possibly be not what to pray for as we ought, helping our infirmi-
against us if God be for us, which He surely is !                           ties and if  IIe that searcheth the hearts always hears
       We shall say: He shall surely also freely give us the groanings of the Spirit; if in God's eternal and
all t,hings with our Lord Jesus Christ, His own Son, unchangeable foreknowledge He ordained us to be made
Whom He did not spare!                                                      like unto the image of His Son that He might be the
    That is the answer!                                                     firstborn among many brethren; if He called, justified,
    The answer to the question: what shall we say glorified us ; what, if all things must surely work to-
then? The answer of faith, the Christian answer, gether for good, therefore, to them that love God. . . .
beside which there is no answer, for no one of  ,the                                   What shall we say, then? . . . .
princes of this world ever have found an answer, nor                                   What is the conclusion, the all-comprehensive ans-
ever will find an answer to the question: what shall we wer to every possible question you may further ask
say then? But the Christian has the answer because in the midst of the world?
God gave it unto Him. He has the all-comprehensive                                     We shall say: God is for us!
answer, the answer that satisfies because it settles the                               And if God be for us, nothing and no one can be
matter, because it is triumphant over all things, be- against us !
cause it is a well-founded answer. Faith gives the                                     He  shaI1 surely give us all things freely!
answer with a view to "these  fihings", on the basis of
"z%e.se things",  the answer that ~must follow, the only                               God is for us!
possible answer because "Mhese thkgk"  are true. . `. .                                There is a triumphant challenge in these words.
    What shall we say, then, Eo Eh.ese things?                                         Positively, considered by themselves, these words
    What is the conclusion with respect to the things express that God loves us, that He makes us the ob-
that are seen and that are the object of our natural,                        jects of His divine favor and lovingkindness, that He
temporal, earthly experience, seeing that "these things" aims at our good, that He works in our behalf, that
are the premises from which the conclusion must be He purposes our eternal salvation.
drawn?                                                                                 But with a view to the antithesis, with a view.to

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

the worl,d ,in the midst of which this confession is made Jesus our Lord, and executes that purpose without fail.
the words mean: God  &y on our  side.  And that this           God, Who is the Amen, the Alpha and Omega, the
triumphant confession is made in the midst of the Unchangeable, with Whom  there is no variableness,
world, of the things of this present time, of the powers neither shadow of turning, the Faithful. , . .
of opposition, is evident from the next question: who          If He is for us, He was and is and shall be for us
can be against us? Many are the  forc.es that array forever !
themselves against us. Many are the influences that            All-suflicient  assurance !
appear to be against us. Many are our enemies that
would seem to be able to harm and destroy us. There            Blessed revelation!
are all the powers of darkness; there is the mighty            For, how shall I attain to this assurance, that God
devil and his host; there is the world and its hatred, is for `His people and that I may consider myself in-
and its temptation, and its lust of the flesh and lust cluded in their number?
of the eyes and pride of life, its power and persecu-          if I know that God is for me I know all that is
tion; there is the power of sin, within us, without us, necessary to know in the midst of the present darkness
of guilt that makes us the objects of the condemna- of sin and death. But how can I know? . . . .
tion, of corruption by which we increase our guilt             Do not all things testify against the profession that
daily; there is  the operation of the wrath of  Gosd in God is for us? Do they not dl with one accord acclaim
our very world, the sufferings of this present time, that He is filled with wrath against us? Is' not His
death. . . .                                                wrath revealed from heaven over ail the iniquity and
       But God is on our side over against all these powers ungodliness of men? Is  ihere.  not the suffering of
of darkness !                                               this present t)ime,  the anguish of all the world, the
       And, mark you well, God, the living God, He that is agony of death? And does not my own conscience coa-
really GOD is for us is on our side, works in our behalf. demn me and testify that God is against me? Am I
       The significance and strength of the assurance that not a sinner? Is not my nature corrupt? Do I not
someone is for us depends on the power and authority daily increase my guilt? . . . .
and character of him on whom we rely, who stands               Yes, but in the midst of this  <darkness  there shines
and works in our favor, is on our side. Hence, when the light of His countenance upon us in the face of
we profess that God is for us, all the emphasis must Christ Jesus, our Lord !
needs fall on GOD. He is God in relation to us, our            There is, all testimonies to the contrary, one Word,
God ; He is God in relation to all things ; He is God, His own, that assures us that God is for us! It is the
too, in relation to  all the powers of opposition and Word of the cross. For, He spared not His own Son,
darkness.        He is the absolutely supreme Judge of but delivered Him up for us all !
heaven and earth from Whose verdict there is no appeal         0, mystery of mysteries !
and who most surely executes His own judgments; if             0, amazing, unfathomable love divine!
He is for us, He will surely justify us and clothe us          God delivered up His own Son ! He spared His
with His own righteousness. He is the Creator of all not ! Him, His own ! To be sure, His own in dis-
things in the whole universe, Who made all things tinction from us, His  .a.dor&-l  children! His own. the
strictly according to His sovereign good pleasure, call- eterna1,  the natural Son of God. Beiny of His B.eing.
ing the things that were not as if they were: if He is Snirit of His Spirit, Essence of His Essence. not born
for us, He surely created all things with a view to our but begotten, distinct from the Father, yet like Him.
eternal salvation and adapted to it. Me is the sover-       begotten of the Father yet co-eternal with Him. God
,eign Ruler over all, Who sustains and governs  all of God, blessed forever! His own. all He had, His
things according to His own purpose, so that there is most precious, His only Beloved, on Whom was concen-
nothing that betides against His will, but all things trated all His divine love, Who was and is and shall be
operate according to His good pleasure. things great eternalIy  the object of  all His good pleasure! His
*and small, things good and evil, even  t.he powers of own. . . . Himself!
darkness, of the devil, of sin and death: if He is fog         Amazing depths of Iove !
us, He rules all things in our behalf, and surely  all         He delivered Him up. . . . He spared Him not!
things must t.end to our eternal salvai%n.                     He, God, the Iiving God, the Triune God, delivered
       If God be for us!                                    Him up! The Father delivered Him up, the Son de-
       God, Who is the Almighty, so that He is not mereIy livered HimseIf  up, the Spirit delivered Him un. De-
stronger than all our enemies, but all power in heaven livered Him up to what? To the divine wrath! Who
and on earth, even the power of the forces of dafkness,     can fathom it? Ood through and in His Son bearing
is His. . . .                                               His own wrath in the likeness of sinful flesh? He de-
       God, Who is the allwise, Who arranged all things livered Him up  intu the likeness of sinful humanity  : He
according to His sovereign purpose, so as to be per- delivered Him up into t.he darkness of His humiliation,
fectlg  adapted to the salvation of His own in Christ suffering, agony, in the garden, on the cross; He de&


                                       T H E   S T A N D A R D   B E A R E R                                         171
                                                                         - -
 Iivered Him up into the deepest darkness of death and          And say it, say it in spite of all testimonies to the
 hell, pouring out all the vials of His wrath over His c o n t r a r y :
 head, over Him, His own Son ! And even in that dark-            God is for us!
lest hour He was still His own Son, eternally in the
 bosom of the Father, the well-Beloved ! Is, then, not          What shaU we say then?
 the suffering of the Son in the flesh also the suffering       We shall say: God will give us all things with
 of the Father and of the Spirit? Did not the Love           Christ ?
that delivered Him up to the agony of the cross suffer          If He be for us, so for us, that He spared not His
 with the beloved delivering Himself up into the throes own  Son, how can it possibly fail, that He shall  sureIy
 of death? . . . .                                     .     give us freely all- things with Him?
       0,  God of our  saIvation,  here we only ask and         AIll things?
tremble !                                                     Rather  superfIuous  is the question,, whether  "all
      But, looking at that truss, we know that God is things" must be taken in the unlimited sense, so that
 for us!                                                     the Word of God  ,here teaches that the children of God
       He spared Him not?                                    shall be heirs of  aII created and glorified things in the
       0, notice the suggestion of the alternative ! He new heavens and the new earth., or is to be understood
 spared Him not! Does it not suigest that before the in the sense  of "all things which God purposed to give
 eternal divine mind, there was, as far as we can hu- them?`. For, there is no real difference. Surely, God
 manly stammer. about these profound and amazing shall freely. graciously,  reahze  unto His people all
 mysteries, the alternative: bring us to glory and let things which from before the foundatidn  of the world
 His Son go into Hell - or to spare His Son and let He purposed to bestow upon them; He shall  f&Xl His
 us go to eternal desolation. And standing before that promise in aII its fulness. But that promise includes
 alternative, He did not hesitate, not even when His nothing less than  all things in the most unlimited sense
 well-Beloved cried to Him in the garden, but He de- of the word. The saints and they only shall inherit all
 livered Him up and spared Him not. . . .                    things in heaven and in earth an.d that forever!
       For us!                                                  With Him!
       Does He, then, not love us ?                             How shall He not give all things with Hii?
       Delivered Him up for us all ? In our stead ! For,        He gave His own Son! Shah He, then, not give the
 that wrath that is poured out over His head on the rest? He gave the greater, shall He fail to give the
 accursed tree, is properly the wrath we should bear. smaller? Besides, He gave the greater in order that
 We were enemies of God and He Ioved us. We were He might give us aI1 things ; shall He, then, be found
 guilty  and He came to die for us, to bear His own unwilling to give us that for the very purpose of giv-
wrath `in our stead! . . . `.                                ing us the same He spared not His own Son? But.
       For us all? In our behalf? That we might be lastly, in Christ Jesus our Lord He really gave us all
 clothed with righteousness before His face, and He things even now. For, Christ the Crucified, that was
 might bring us into the  gIorious  liberty of the children delivered  un into deepest death and: hell, is raised and
 of God! . . . .                                             exalted at the right band of God, f2led  with gIory  and
       ForusaIl!                                             honor, heir of al1 ,things. With Him we are joint-heirs,
       To be sure, these "ah" are not a11 men. They are and with Him God shall  sureIy give us the  eternal,
 His own. And His own are the elect. . . .                   incorruptible,  undefdable  inheritance which never
       Yet, do not change the words! Do not say: He f adeth away.
 dehvered  Him up for the elect. Leave the triumphant           Or can He fail?
 shout in that personal form: He delivered Him up for           ShalI the powers of opposition, the powers of sin
us au!                                                       and death, be able to deprive us of the glorious in-
       For us, who are in Christ Jesus! In Him by a true heritance and prevent  us to enter in?
 and Iiving faith so that we believe on his Name. For           But: God is for us!
 us, wb.o are delivered from the law of sin and death           Who shall be against us?
 by the law of the Spirit of life, that are led by the          Powers there are, indeed, and enemies many, that
Snirit.'  that do mortify the deeds of the body, that are appear to be against us, that aarray themselves against
the children of God, that have the firstfruits of the the saints of God in Christ in this world; powers  that
 %irit,  that are saved in hope. For us that are willing woukl sometimes appear to realize their wicked pur-
to suffer with Christ  that we may also be glorified pose. Yet, how could they? God is for us!
together. . . .                                                 N+ot only must they fail to realize their purpose,
       For us all He delivered Him up, His own Son!          they must even work for our salvation!
 '    Look, then, at the cross !                                For our God is the living God, GOD even over them!
      Behold, God, your God, the ($3 of your salvation,         And we are more than conquerors?
,_ delivering up IIis own Son T I                               Through  I&n that loved  us!                p- R:


154                                             T H E   S T A N D A R D   B E A R E R
-----.                      -_---^.."  ..- 1               -.              -_-.                             ---...._-._-
                        Not Noble                                  olause  of the reverend's advice to this yauth read, "If
                                                                   I felt that I stiIl needed a church."
                                                                      But what may this horrible doctrine, this "false-
       As I stated in my previous article under the above hood" be? Now it is strange that the reverend failed
aption,  the Rev. H. J. Kuiper has in recent articles of to clearly state just what this "falsehood" is. How-
his been denouncing the "Boy Scout movement". That ever, an examination of certain statements contained
this movement is un-Christian is  especiaIly evident in his reply plainly reveal that this terrible "falsehood"
from the "Scout Oath and the Scout Law". The Rev. with which the youth came forward in his retort is
tells his readers that this law says that "the scout is this : "There is an element of  &ue goodness, holiness
trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, in the virtue or civic righteousness of the man devoid
obedient, clean, reverent, and so on". To this saying, of saving grace. Thus the good deeds of the depraved
the reverend has serious objecticns.  Wrote he, "The sinner, devoid of the life of regeneration, are not
gospel teaches that the scout, as well as the boy who wholly,  totiZZy sinful."
is not a scout, is untrustworthy, didoyal,  selfish, un-              That this is the very falsehood that the reverend
friendly, impolite, cruel, disobedient, unclean and ir- in a kind of veiled speech accuses this youth of having
reverent. In short, the impIicit teaching of the boy. brought forward in his writing, is plain from such
scouts of America conflicts with the explicit teaching statements in his reply as the following, "That con-
of the Word of God that all men are born in sin and ception of common grace (this youth's conceptio,n,  G.
are depraved in heart".                                            1.1.0.)  surely does not agree with the Biblical doctrine
       One youth in the circle of the Christian Reformed of total depravity. We believe the heart of man is
Churches, strongly resented the reverend's criticism of desperately wicked from his youth ; and that, though
the' "Scout movement". So he sent in the folldwing                 thru the common grace of God sin is restrained in the
communication, "Now it seems to me, Mr. Editor, that unregenerate and they are still able to do many things
your discussion of total depravity is `much beside the that are good in an outward sense, their virtues are
point.  Tn my early training I have learned the dis- superficia1 and not rooted in the fear of God."
tinction between civil good and spiritual good. We                    Here the reverend tells his readers and this youth
grant that an unregenerated person is unable to do                 what the Biblical doctrine respecting the moral and
spiritual good, but we also teach that by virtue of spiritual state of the unregenerate is. Now with this
common grace the unregenerate can do civil good. All doctrine (such is the contention of t.he reverend) the
the qualities of the Scout Law, such as trustworthiness, conception of the youth does not agree. It therefore
loyalty, helpfulness, honesty, etc., belong to the latter must follow that the conception to the defence  of which
category. Your statement in reference to that matter this youth arose is that the unregenerate are not totally
sound to me like a plain denial of the doctrine of depraved, that their hearts are not desperately wicked
common grace. I affirm, Mr. Editor, that a Boy Scout from their youth, that they t.hus are able to do many
can be trustworthy, loyal, helpful, honest, by virtue of things that are 5ruly good and are rooted in the true
common grace."                                                     fear of the Lord, that there is indeed an element of
       To this the reverend replied, "Now to be frank,             t%e goodness in their deeds.
if I wanted to make that affirmation, I would at once                 This, according  to the reverend, is the terrible false-
leave the Christian Reformed Church and affiliate with hood {and a terrible falsehood it indeed is) with which
a Modernist church, if I felt I still needed a church".            this youth came forward in his communication. This
       This counsel of the reverend I  cal*led ignoble, cruel. is what the youth actually teaches in his writing. But
It is this in view of the fact that this youth was merely          I ask, does he? He does indeed, says the reverend,
reproducing in his  wri+ing  what  .had been taught him not in so many words of course, but t.hrough  his failure
by his pastors, what in 1924 had become the very doc- tu insert in his writing the qualifying statement to the
trine of his churches, and what the reverend himself so effect that the many good things that the unregenerate
vigorously had defended in that sermo,n  of his on the do are good in an outward sense only, that thus their
Third Point of Synod of 1924  - the Synod of his virtues are superficial and not rooted in the fear of
churches.                                                          God.
       And what may this doctrine be? According to the                 But now the reverend first of all should consider
reverend's own words, it is a doctrine so terribly that if this writing of the youth, because of its ,being
heritical;  so far removed from the truth of God's Word, de&d of that  quzLsllfying  stateme&,  must be held to
so  : utterly demoralizing, so destructive of everything be the formulation ,of a falsehood - a falsehood so
in man that even approaches piety, that he who is  ad-             terrible that to embrace it is to so deteriorate spirit-
dicte&to..it  may be feeling the need of no church any- ually as to no longer feel the need of any church -
more, may thus be ready to break with all religion and the third point of doctrine of synod (1924) must be
with God and so may be  on the verge of bringing him- held to be the formulation of this same terrible false-
self forward as an avowed atheist. Does not the final hood (which indeed it is).


                                     T H E   S T A N D A R D   B E A R E R                                        185
        -_--____ _._-.--_-                      .._ ---.                                 "-__"               -~._._
   And why is this? And the answer : Synod's formu- ways has been an enthusiastic champion also of tms
lation  IS also devoid of this  v,ery  qualifying statement.    coird point of doctrine even in his sermons. une  o:
attend to this formulation and be convinced. .I quote, these sermons  (fro,m which I shall presently quote) he
.-Concerning the third pomt, touching the performance even had published. it cannot very well De supposed
of so-called civic righteousness by the unregenerate, then that the reverend does not know how tms zrurd
the Synod declared that according to Scripture and aeclaration  of synod reads. How then is this  domg OS'
Confession, the unregenerate, though incapable of any his to be explained? Although an explanation couni be
saving good (Canons of Dorat,  II, IV, 3)) can perform given, I think we had better say simply that tne domg
such civic good. `I'his is evident from the quoted Scrip- defies all explanation. But let the reverend consider
ture passages and from the Canons of Dordt, III, IV, 4 that in pennmg  his reactions to that criticism of the
and tne Belgic Confession where it is taught, that God, "Scout movement" this youth was availing himself  of
without renewing the heart, exercises such influence the very phraseology of synod and of his pastors.
upon man that he is enabled to perform civic good ;                But now further. It may be doubted whether this
while it is evident from the quoted declarations of Re- yo:uth  actually meant to aiiirm through his omitting
formed writers of the period of florenscence of Re- this "qualifying statement" that there is a holy ele-
formed, theology, that our Reformed fathers of old men of true goodness in the civic righteousness of the
have championed this view".                                     totally depraved sinner, dead in trespasses and sin.
    Does the needed qualifying statement anywhere That is to say, it may be questioned whether thrs youtn
appear in this formulation? If so, what may that was aware of the implications of the statements that
statement be? This statement perhaps, "This is evi- constitutes his retort,  - the implication, namely, that
dent from the quoted scriptures. . . .where it is taught the civic righteousness of the unregenerate is not total-
that God, witrhowt  renewing the heart, exercises such ly, whoMy  sinful. But what this youth may not have
influence upon man that he is able to perform civic been aware of, and what the reverend took this so
good" ? But the communication of this youth says in severely to task for, the reverend himself openly and
substance as much. This communication purposely dis- consciously taught and defended in that sermon of
tinguishes between civil and spiritual good. It asserts his to which I just refered. Let me show this by quot-
further than the unregenerate can perform not spirit- ing from this sermon (on the third point of doctrine
ual but civil good only. Whereas now the unregenerate of synod). On page 32 of the booklet. in which this
are such whose hearts the Lord has not renewed, what sermon is found, one comes upon the following from
this communication actually asserts, be it perhaps by the reverend's pen, "The second contention, worthy of
implication, is precisely what the formulation of synod special note, is that it is God who exercises those in-
declares in the above-cited statement.                          fluences upon the sinner which enable him to perform
    The formulation of the synod also speaks of the             civic righteousness. This in particular is the bone of
"so-called" righteousness of the unregenerate. But contention in the present discussion. Those who deny
would the brethren want to maintain that the expres- Common Grace freely admit that there is civic right-
sion "so-called" can serve as the needed qualifying eousness. But in God's sight, they say, it is sin and
statement?                                                      nothing but sin." Now  that  cannot  be  true  (Italics
    Fact is then, that this youth, in his omitting this G-M-0.)  if God enables the sinner, by the general ope-
qualifying statement, was actually following the ex- rations of His Spirit, to perform such righteousness.
ample set by the synod, when setting forth for the Whatever God works cannot be sinful.
benefit of the reverend the doctrine of his church, set
by his spiritual leaders. He thus did precisely what               "This then is the question: Is everything which the
they had done. If this  imission is as serious as the           unregenerate does sin and nothing but sin in the sight
reverend says that it is, should he not have spared of God? Or can we say that the sinner is still able to
this youth and pounced the framers  of this third perform works which are relatively good - as a result
point? Indeed he should. And if the omission of these of the general operations of God's grace? Is it thus
qualifying satements renders the third declaration of that man calls them good while God calls them sin
synod the formulation of a vile lie, should not the             and nothing but sin? To put the question still more
reverend even now be urging his churches to insert pointedly: Does God in His word ever sneak of any-
these clauses at the first opportunity? He should in- thing which the sinner does as good (as truly good?
deed. But does he? He does not. Instead he upbraids G.M.0.)  . Our answer is ye.s. . . ." So far the reverend.
this youth, and spares those responsible for his error,            So then, according to the reverend, the issue in the
and, horrible to say, keeps silence respecting the ab- dispute between the exponents and the deniers of com-
tense of the qualifying clauses in synod's formulation. mon grace is whether the civic righteousness of the un-
This is an astonishing doing! Has the reverend for- regenerate is sin and nothing but sin.
gotten how this third point of synod reads? This is                But what now is the answer of `the reverend? At-
not at all likely in view of the fact that he is and al- tend to his answer, "It cannot be true that everything


 186                                      T H E   S T A N D A R D   B E A R E R
 -      -
which the unregenerate does is sin and nothing but sin some light on the problem. Take, for example, the
in the sight of God. It cannot be true that the un- good works of the believer. They are good in prin-
regenerate cumnot  perform works that are relatively ciple, since they proceed from faith in God and love
good. It cannot be true that the very God of Scrip- for God. They are spiritually and not simply morally
ture calls these works sin and nothing but sin". This good. God says they are good. Yet God also finds
is the answer of the reverend to his question whether evil in them. Even our best works are tainted with
everything which the unregenerate does is sin and sin. You cannot say therefore that if God pronounces
nothing but sin. Now the reverend shall have to ad- them fundamentally good, He cannot find evil in them.
mit that works of which it may and cannot be said So the works of the sinner (the unregenerate G.M.O.)
that they are sin and nothing but sin, are works of are fundamentally evil. The principle of true faith is
which it must be said that they are at least relatively lacking. Bat the fact that. God pronounces them evil
holy, that thus there is an element of true goodness in does rtot meam that the He ca;n finid no good  in them. . . .
the civic righteousness of the natural man. In the           (Italics G. M. 0.`~)  ."
body of his sermon the reverend reiterates this  teach-         What then the reverend said over and  eve? in that
mg over and over. I quote, "We may conclude, there- sermon from which I quote is that there in an element
fore, that the sinner is able to perform civic righteous- of true goodness in the civic righteousness of the un-
ness, outward good. He can perform deeds which, as regenerate, that this virtue is not wholly sinful, that
deeds, are in conformity with God's law. He can do thus a boy scout can in the true sense be trustworthy,
good to his fellow man, even though this does not pro- loyal, helpful, etc. by virtue of common grace. And
ceed from a thankful heart. He can be honest in his yet in his reply to this youth, the reverend tells him
dealings, true to his promise, faithful to his marriage that if this conception -the very conception that the
vow, kind to his neighbours, temporate in his habits. reverend so vigorously defended in that published ser-
It will not do to say that all this is tin and m.n%hg but    mon of his - is his, this youth's, he had better affiliate
sin in. God's sight.    (Italics, G. M. 0.`~) ."             with a modernist church if he should still be feeling the
      The reverend even goes a step farther. His. con- need of a church. This is again an astonishing doing.
clusion is (page 35 of the booklet) "that the uncon-            What should the reverend have told this youth? He
verted is able not only to perform deeds  which conform should have told him that the conception that he, this
to God's law (deeds that are partially holy, G.M.O.)         youth, brought forward and defended in his communi-
but that he also has certain desires, irn~lses, whic'i cation is indeed the very conceptio,n  of his churches,
are good (partially holy, G.M.O.) and from which his the very conception that he, the reverend, championed
good deeds spring; such as sympathy, love, respect, in that sermon and thus helped to propagate and incul-
sense of justice, etc. . . . The outward good (that is, cate. Did the reverend do this? No, he did not. Fact
the partially holy deeds of the unregenerate, G.M.O.) is is that he did the very opposite. What he did in his
also an inward good. When an unconverted man en- reply to this youth is to actually diso,wn  this concep-
dangers his own life to rescue a neighbour from his tion What he did therefore is to actually repudiate
burning house, you would not say that all his motives in his reply the whole theory of common grace. Attend
and impulses behind that deed are sinful! . . . . You once more to the following statements contained in the
would not say that the unregenerate have no "regard reverend's reply to this yonth, "The scout law says the
for virtue" whatsoever, no lofty aspirations of any scout is trustworthy (trustworthy in the true sense,
kind !                                                       of course, G.M.O.) loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous,
      "But does not the Bible say (I am still quoting the kind, obedient, clean, reverent, and so on. But the
reverend) that whatever is not of faith is sin? Does gospel teaches that the Scout, as well as the boy who
not the Catechism teach that our works are not good is not a scout, is untrustworthy, disloyal, selfish, un-
in God's sight unless they proceed from true faith, friendly, impolite, cruel, disobedient, unclean, and ir-
are done according to the law, and for His glory, and        reverent. In short, the implicit teaching of the Boy
that the unregenerate cannot perform such work? If Scouts of America (the teaching to the effect that the
then what sinners do is sin before God, because it does boy scout is by nature in the true sense helpful and
not proceed from true faith, how can God call it good? friendly and  clean? etc. G.M.O.) conflicts with the
We,, would reply,  first of all, that Christ actually speaks teaching of the Word of God that all men are born in
of certain things which sinners do as good, and that sin and depraved in heart". So far the reverend.
it is not necessary for us to d.efend  any statement o,f        Again I exclaim, What an astonishing doing, this
Christ !"                                                    doing of the reverend! Though the reverend is ad-
      Let us pause here to ask where Christ teaches that dicted to the very conception to the defence  of which
the good that the unregenerate do is not wholly sinful this youth arose in his communication, he in his  rei:ly
but truly good in the sight of God. The reverend failed to this youth pronounced this conception heretical doc-
to show where Christ teaches this.                           trine, and thus posed as one who must have nothing of
      But now further the reverend, "But we can shed it. And in this false pose, he told this youth that he


                                         T H E   S T A N D A R D   B E A R E R                                     187
                              .L_-_.".-
had better join the modernist church, if such be his
belief. It means that even while the reverend was en-                Reply  To  Rev.  G.  M.  Ophoff
gaged in framing this reply, he was embracing in his
heart the very conception on account uf which he in                        (From J. D. of Hudsonvihe)
this reply so cruelly upbraids this youth.                      (This is positively the last  communicati'on  that will
   But can it not be that the reverend in his heart as be placed in "The Standard Bearer" respecting the
well as in his reply to this youth has actually repudi- matter of "Our  Of?erings".          Any one who still has
ated the doctrine of common grace? This, of course, is something or much to say, must communicate, with
possible. If he has, let him publicly say so and tender the undersigned privately. This discussion will not be
this youth his apology. Should he do so, I will, of continued in "The Standard Bearer".) G.  M. 0.                  I
course, immediately retract the accusation last penned.         Dear Brother :-
   But, someone may say, did the reverend actually              1. Thanks for the information that there is abso-
deny in that reply of his to the youth, the theory of lutely no connectiun  whatever between proposition 1
common grace, or, to be more specific, the third point on the one hand and 2 and 3 on the other hand.                    I
of doctrine of synod? And my answer: he assuredly could not help but receive th,e impression that there
did. Let me conclusively prove from his own state- was.
ments that he did. The contention of the reverend is            II. What I wanted to prove with mentioning the
tnat this youth, thru his failure to insert into his com- tithes (primarily, that God's people contribute and
munication that qualifying statement, come forward must contribute to the divine service as the Lord pros-
with the view or conception that there is an element pers them) is not at all disproved by your lengthy
of true goodness in the civic righteousness of the           reasoning.
unregenerate, that thus this righteousness is not wholly        III. When you state that I was not consequent (or
sinful. The reverend goes on to say further (in his          rather did not understand my own view) because, I
reply) that this conception is in conflict with the ex- stated `the rich must make up for his pcor brother',
plicit teaching of God's Word, that to say that a while claiming at the same time `that the poor owes
boy can be trustworthy, etc. without adding any qualifi- nothing', I grant that this looks very much like a con-
cations to this saying is to proclaim falsehood. Now tradiction. Let me explain what I mean: "All the
what, according to the reverend, is that qualifying ,famili.es  must bring up the average, if they can ; if,
statement? This: we believe the heart of man is des- some families can not do this they are free, and others
perately wicked from his youth; and that, though thru who can do more should make up for them. But, this
the common grace of God sin is restrained in the un- making up, I consider no charity at all, on the part
regenerate and they are still able to do many things of the well-to-do, and whatever they give more than
that are good in the outward sense, their virtues He the average is no alms for the poor. Hence, the con-
superficial and wet rooted in the fear of God'".             clusion of the matter is indeed: `the rich does not
   Well now, how can it be said of virtues that they have to pay for the poor (in the sense of doing charity,
are not altogether sinful, if these virtues are superficial giving alms), and the poor who can not pay owes
and not rooted in the fear of God. Whereas now the nothing."
reverend failed to add to this statement the qualifying         The. sarcasm, rather liberally used in your reply
clause (found over and over in that sermon of his)           (&hough it seems to me there was no call for it)
that everything that the unregenerate does is not wkoG       does nut make your arguments any stronger. It is
by, to&a.@  sinful, the reverend through this failure of not so hard to make some one else loo,k ridiculous,
his, actually denied, as this youth asserted, the theory what counts in this case for you is. to make plain that
of common grace. So, if this youth ought to al?Xiate         you are right and that I am wrong. Or is there per-
with a modernist church, H. J. Kuiper ought to do haps room for both conceptions? Very well possible.
likewise.             (To be continued)           G. M.O.    It would be worth while knowing what our people
                                                             in general, our congregations understand by a `budget
                                                             system'. After all, that is what counts.
                                                                IV. No, I did not read your article with paimta,k-
               NA HET KRUIS, DE KROON                        iny care. This is done very seldom by any reader of
             Alle zorgen, alle plagen                        our Standard Bearer, you included, for the simple
             Worden  eenmaal afgewend                        reason we do not read the articles (no matter who
             Al ons zuchten, al onsklagen                    is the writer) as if they were lawyer's documents, legal
               Bij den Heere alleen bekend;                  phrases or diplomatic notes. But, does that disquali-
             Zal niet eeuwigdurend zijn,                     fy one to send a brotherly communication to the
               Na den  regen  zonneschijn,                   writer of a certain article?
             Die met vriendelijke blikken                       V. And now your request to make plain:
               Onze ziele zal verkwikken.                       1. That the view opposed to the one contained in

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

the  second proposition  IS not  in lme with socialistic     no obligation to pay. Die niet kan is vrij. 1 conceive
ymlosophy.                                                   of the tuition for my child or grocery bill in such a
    A'~uw~: It is indeed in line with socialistc  philo- way that I  *must pay them, and inability does not free
sophy,  provided one takes  ycur  point  or view or if       me from the duty, but I do not conceive of the budget
it IS true that the budget system IS wnat you claim that way, according to my conception the two do not
it is. On this score 1 beg to dirter  With you. It sttil     stand on the same level.
has to be proven that there  IS but one  possible concep-        I think this answers your questicns.
tion about the budget system which I.S correct, which            IX. Will you kindly reply to the following ques-
IS true, which excludes all other  conceptnns  and that      tions ?
that conception is your conception.  li  2.1. a  certam          1. What do you think, is it perhaps after all noth-
congregation understands the budget system as I have ing but a matter of a point of view and that I and
explained it, that is the privilege of sucn a congrega- many others  with me are entitled to our point of view
tion, is it not? And, of course, vice versa is also of the budget system, and you and many others are
true. But, is it true without any defimte commitment entitled to your point of view of the b,udget  system?
on the part of the congregation that your conception Can you conceive of both conceptions? Is there room
is the right conception of tne budget system? Who for both of them?
can prove thrs? You go out from a premise which                 2. If not, if it is indeed a matter of principle,  can
still has to be proven.                                      you prove ,that your conception of the budget  system
   VI. 3. That the view to the effect that inability to      is the only possible conception, that there is no room
perform a duty frees from that duty is not a  pelagian-      for my conception at all because it,is unbiblical?
istic reasoning.                                                3. What do you think the Churches meant in general
   Answer:     Sounds logical. Man must obey God. and historically by the budget system?                     Have the
H.e can not do it. Does inability free him? No! I Churches in general always understood by the budget
must pay my grocery bill. I can not do it. Does in- system what you claim it means?
ability free me from my duty? No! But, brather,  we             4. According to your conception, what would be
are talking about the budget, a man-made institution, the proper thing to  ,do for  th,e poor with respect to
by which man means (as I interpret it because that's paying their budget, should they ask the deacons cr
the way our people interpret it and because I believe should they  appeai  directly to the more well-to-do mem-
that this is not at all at variance with Scripture)  that bers of the congregation?
,it is an average; if you can, you must bring up the            5. Would you call that amount which the rich man
average, if you can not you are free ; on the other hand, pays more than the budget calls for, "charity or alms"
if others can not bring up the average but if you can in distinction from his budget money?
do more you are in duty boiund to bring up more always          6. Does it not follow with iron logic, according to
each according as the Lord has prospered him.                your reasoning, that the poor who does not pay the
   VII. You look upon the budget as a certain amount full amount the budget calls for, is a thief? By pay-
that has to be brought up, each family exactly the ing I mean, of course, either directly or thru charity,
stated amount the budget calls for. And from your but so, that he does the paying. And if you answer
point of view it is perfectly logical to say with re- this with yes or no (for it is either or) will you please
spect to the budget "inability to perform this duty amplify?
does not free from this duty", and one who claims dif-          X. 7. It seems to me it follows from your con-
ferently is pelagianistic in this matter. But, then I ception of things wherever a congregation has adopted
say once more, also with a view to the third question, a budget system the  Con&tory  must tell prospective
"U  gaat uit van een  stelling  die eerst nog  bew.ezen      members (from other Churches) : "If you want to be-
moet worden,  als u eerst bewijst, dan loopt uw argu- long to our congregation it will cost you so much per
ment goed  10s en sluit het als een bus in betrekking year (the total amount the budget calls for) ". And
tot deze  drie vragen".                                      if such families do not definitely  premise to take that
   VIII. 3. That though the poor do well when they obligation upon themselves the consistory should not
apply to the deacons for the money they need to buy accept such families. It must say to them, `we charge
food and clothing and to pay tuition, they do wrong so much per year, per family to belong to our congre-
should they apply to the deacons for mcney  to contri- gation, just as, for instance, the  schcol charges a defi-
bute to the support of the divine ministry.                  nite amount of tuition per child, per year'.          Is this
   Answer : It would be perhaps the logical thing to conclusion warranted? If not, will you kindly make
do if one understands by the budget system what you plain?                                                             %i..;
understand by it. In that case there would be no ob-                               -
jections at all to go to the deacons.
   But, the way I conceive of the budget system one             XI. The thing I am after is to make plain that
does not need to go to the deacons because he is under the budget amount is a mere average, according to


                                   T H E   S T A N D A R D   B E A R E R                                         189

my present conception of things; that the rich must to shed for his benefit light on my position is lost on
pay more than the average (if necessary) ; and that him.
we must not call the poor thieves because they can not         Then, too, the reverend must  consi,der that this
pay the average and do not put forth any effort to refutation of mine to which he slightingly refers as
pay it thru the deaconate or some other way. And lengthy, was taken directly from Holy Writ. It con-
when the rich pay more than the average, they must sists of scriptures found in the book of Numbers. One
not think at all that that is c/crit,l/, no, that is direct of these scriptures reads, "And ye shall divide the land
duty, their God enjoined obligation, they must pay by lot for an inheritance among your families; and to
according to need and as the Lord has prospered them. the more ye shall give the more inheritance, and to
   Perhaps, it is possible to argue in the abstract and the fewer ye shall give the less inheritance. . . ." Num.
create a hypothetical case which seemingly would dis- 3354. What this text as good as literally asserts is
prove what I have said, but let us stay with both our that the land was pretty well equally divided among
feet on the ground and not turn to the ridiculous. We the families of Israel and that therefore one cannot
must always maintain, whether we have a budget sys- very well appeal to the sacred dues of the tithes in
tem ox not, that every member of the church is duty support of the view that these dues were introduced
bound .to contribute to the divine service as God has for the purpose of inaugurating a system of giving
prospered him.                                             purposely designed to place the rich under the necessity
   Finally, I am positive of this, if we, believers, were of contributing much and to allow the family with
always conscious of our Christian stewardship and small possessions to contribute little in comparison for
lived accordingly, financial difhculties  would amount the simple reason that as .a result of the distribution
to very little in our churches.                            of the land by Jehovah there were no men with great
                                               J. D.       possessions alongside of men with small possessions.
                                                           And what now is the brother's reply to this reasoning?
                                                           Simply a curt, "What I wanted to prove is not at all
                                                           disproved by your lengthy reasoning (the brother calls
                         Reply                             this reasoning lengthy. Amazing!) Now what is the
                                                           sense of reasoning with one who thinks that an argu-
   I. In his first communication, the brother J. D. as- ment (and in this case an argument taken literally
serted  " that to my way of thinking, proposition two from Holy Writ) can be dispensed with by a mere
does not at all follow from propositicn  one". He now negation cr who seems to be incapable of ascertaining.
writes me that, "I could not help but receive the im- by a careful appraisal, the worth of the argument?
pression that there was (connection between the two). What will it avail to shed the light that such a cne
   Now to me it is a conund.rum,  how, if to one's u;ay asks for? The view that the sacred dues of the tithes
of thinking one proposz'tion  does not nt nil follow from were introduced for the above-cited purpose is a view
another, such a one at the same time cannot  help but extremely superficial.
race?&  the impression that there is connection between        III. The brother writes that he grants that his
the two.                                                   assertion to the effect that the rich must make up for
   II. The brother calls my refutation of his view the noor  brcther and his assertion that the poor owe
to the effect that the sacred dues of the tithes were nothing `cloaks"  very much like a contradiction. To this
introduced for the very and express  purpos,e of in- I add, that these two assertions not only "look like a
augurating a system of giving purposely designed to contradiction", but  are  actually  contradictory. And
cause the burden of need (of what was needed in Israel these two  co?ztradictory   statements again reappear
for the maintenance of the service) to take on weight in the brother's explanation. The little word that is
for the individual member  ,of the theocracy according as causing the brother all his trouble is the propostian  for.
he had, - the brother refers to this refutation of mine This ccnflict can be avoided only by the omission of
as a lenthy reasoning. But this reasoning is not lengthy this prepositioa. The reason is that in the sentence,
at all. It is extremely brief. It forms but a half "The rich make up for the poor," the preposition for
column in the Standard Bearer. If a reasoning so very denotes: the remoter or indirect object of an act; the
brief imnresses  the brother as being one even of such person or thing to be affected or effected by a given
length that he cannot refrain from openly refering act; that unto which anything is intended or in behalf
to it as lengthy, what will the attemnt to make things of which anything is, serves or is done. What the
nlain to him avail? If my argumentation expands into brother must say to give utterance to what he means,
a column in our magazine, the brother heaves a heavy is this, "Due to the presence of poor brethren in the
sigh and murmurs, "lengthy, lengthy".         In such a church, the rich must give more than they otherwise
mood, of course, he hasn't the patience to acquaint him- would."      This little lesson in the correct use of the
self adequately with the reasoning by following it to preposition for just in passing.
the end with care, It means that any effort I put forth        The brother upbraids me for "the sarcasm rather


 190                                     T H E   S T A N D A R D   B E A R E R
            -.-                                                                              I-..__
liberally used in your reply. . .  ." Now the truth of      such was my resolution - then it is altogether im-
 the matter is that there is not a trace of sarcasm to possible for that one to make another look ridiculous
be found in that whole reply of mine. What  ds sar-         unless that other first makes himself ridiculous. SO
casm? Let us turn to the "Rhetorica" of Prof.  K.           if I made the brother look ridi,culous  it is because he
Schoolland for the answer. On page 118 of this book, first made himself ridiculous. In view of the fact
one reads, "Ironie of  veinzing (simulatie)  zegt iets      that the Levites were no almoners,  the brother made
juist anders dan bedoeld wordt. . . . Daardoor wordt himself ridiculous when he asked whether the poo.r
de ironie gewoonlijk  spo&pra.u.k. Men noemt b.v. Nero Israelites applied' to the Levites for material aid and
een menschenvriend, een prulpoeeet  een Vondel, een then asserted with all the emphasis that he could com-
zwak mensch een Hercules, een stumper een bo!leboos,        mand, "I should say not" and thereupon concluded,
een  d,omoor  een  Solomo.                                  "wie niet kan is vrij". When I read this I had to
    "Ironie wordt sarcasme,  wanneer ze in bitteren spot laugh. And the brother should laugh with me - at
ontraardf, zooals in : "Wees gegroet gij  koninF der his own funny blunders. This is healthy. The brother
Joden ! So then, sarcasm is irony (irony : the expres- once more made himself ridiculous (I use this word
sion of a thought contrary to the form of the words)        ridiculous,  seeing that- the brother uses it) when he
that passes into bitter mockery. Sarcasm, too, praises ; asserted with great emphasis, that "wie ni& kan is
but its praise is bitter condemnation and. therefore vrij", and then at once insisted  that  the rich
terrible mockery. Now what statement or statements must make up for the poar. The brother again in this
did the brother have in mind when he made mention last communication of his makes himself ridiculous
of  "the sarcasm rather liberally used  <in  my reply". through  his carrying these conflicting sentiments over
He does not say. But I surmise that the vexing para- into his explanaton. The brother made himself ridicu-
graph is the one .in which I state, "J. D. is evidently lous when in his first communication he came to me
unmindful of the fact that the Levites were not dea- shouting that I had erred and shouting this with a
cons. . . . It is therefore sheer folly to ask. `Did the conviction that sprang from a wrong imagining,  -
Israelites who could not pay the average tenths apply the imagining that the sacred dues of the tithes were
t.0 the Levites', and then to answer, "I should say he introduced for the purpose of rolling the burden of
did not", and thereupon finally to conclude, "Therefore, need upon the shoulders of the rich. The brother con-
`wie niet kan is vrij'. What have we here? Not sar- tinues to make himself ridiculous through his appear-
casm but the plain statement of a fact not contrary to      ing in the arena as armed with mere negations. as if
but in perfect agreement w,ith the form of the words. the argument of an opponent can be slain with nega-
Had I wanted to resort to sarcasm. I  wouId  have  writ-    tions, with mere "It isn't  SOS" with sponges.
fen. "How meaningful. how  clever,  how wise, how  bril-       So now, as the brother  .first  made himself ridiculous.
!;a.nt to ask,' did the Israelites who could. not pay, etc. I could make him look ridiculolls. Rightly considered,
    The  slain statement of a fact. I  jllst  said. And it was not I who made him look ridiculous. That,
so it is. Whereas the Levites were no distributors of too, he did himself. For it stands to reason that one
alms in the church. it is indeed sheer follv to con&de      who  m&es  hims.elf  ridiculous  aIso makes himself look
from t.he  circnmstance  bhat the  poor in. Israel did not ridiculous. So, all I really di,d was to show the brother
anply t.o the Levites for material aid. that. "Wie niet what he had made himself and. how he had made him-
kan  is vrii". Folly is the onlv word that adequately self look. Now why did I do that? How could 1 heln
describes such a doing. Can the brother not stand it. 9&p that, If I was to expose to him the errors of his
that the one with whom  he  initiates a debate exposes falacious reasonings? Such exnosures, of course, will
to him the errors in his fallacious reasonings and calls of necessity make the author of the  faIlacious  reason-
them  by t-heir right names? He should. But if he ing look as rid.icuIous as the reasoning. But how can
cannot he should henceforth refrain from engaging in this be avoided?
nnblic debate or discussion. A Derson who cannot hear          The reverend writes that what counts in this case
thC? truth about his arguments should keep them strict- for me is that I make plain that mv view is the correct
ly to himself.                                              one. With this I certainly am in full agreement. But
   So then, the brother's remark, "The sarcasm. . . . the brother should consider that he who meets the
used in your reply does not make your argument any argument  of an opponent with mere negations  ani
stronger", is an ill-made observation. I resorted to no tries to discredit a remarkably brief reasoning  bu
sarcasm  and thus was not by its use attempting to stigmatizing it Zen&&, plainly shows that he is unwill-
strengthen my argument. All that I did was to expose Gzg to be convinced. What will it avail to make the
by speech plain and straightforward, the falacy of a view plain to such a one? No matter how cogent and
`particular reasoning of the brother.                       conclusive the argument may be, the one unwilling to
    Iti it true that, as the brother says, it is not so be convinced will continue to say, "What counts for
hard to make someone look ridiculous? It all depends- you in this case  is that you make plain that your view
If one is resolvd to mite a@ speak the truth - and is right":


                                   T H E   S T A N D A R D   B E A R E R                                          191

   IV. The brother must not tell me how I read                  VII. What appears from the brother's pen under
the Standard Bearer for the simple reason that he            VII constitutes so much more proof that he read my
does not know. If he wishes to know he may ask me article not even rather carefully but rather carelessly.
and I will tell him. But let me ask, Why should not The nucleus of the brother's reasoning in this para-
"The Standard Bearer" be read even much more graph is that I first postulated that every family, rich
thoughtfully than lawyer's documents and diplomatic and poor alike, is in duty bound to! contr,ibute  to the
notes? The content of a lawyer's brief turns on the support of the service the full sum that the weekly
things of this life. What "The Standard Bearer"  pro- budget for the family calls for and that from this I
fers in the main is explanations of the content of a concluded., "Inability to perform a duty ,does  not free
book  - Holy Writ- that concerns the wisdom of God,          from that duty". Now if the brother would trouble
a book therefore of infinite profundity and with a himself to read my article with some care, he would
content that is concentrated on the heavenly. Would discover that this reasoning originated not with me
therefore, that we ministers were reading "The Stan- but with J. D. and that it is one that J. D. wron.gly
dard Bearer" not rather carefully, which means that          brings forward as mine. What is the truth of the
we read it rather carelessly, nor even with painstaking matter here? This. The proposition that constitutes
care but with utmost care.      For I have discovered in my view the premise is the one that asserts that
long ago that only when we form the habit of read-           "inability to perform a duty does not free from that
ing what is truly worth reading with such care, do we duty".          And from this I concluded not that every
make some progress.                                          family, rich and poor alike (although I have no'  ob.iec-
   But this is not primarily what I now wish to say. tion to J. D. drawing this conclusion) but. that also
The brother asks, "But does that (namely, this read- the poor members in the church are in duty bound to
ing "The Standard Bearer" rather carefully G. M. 0.)         oontribute  to the support of the service.
:`.ciclualify one to send a brotherly communication to          What J. D. did was to turn my reasoning squarely
the writer of a certain  article?" The brother does not around. The nronosition that constitutes in mv view
state his question correctly. He should ask, "Should the premise, he made the conclusion. That he  did
my having read rather carefully instead of with ut- so is to be accounted for by the fact that he regarded
most care what you wrote respecting the matter in the last two of the three nropositions  (nnon  which
dispute have withheld me from sending you a com- my view turns) as sustaining to each other the re-
munication in which I with great emphasis declare lation of  nremise and conclusion. This thev do not.
f-`-at  the view with which you in your articles came The second of the three concerns onlv the members
foreward is wrong?' And to this  I reply: "Yes,              with sufficient means. If J. D. had read mv articles
brother, your having read my articles as you did, with the moper care. he would have known this.
should most assuredly have  w.ithheld you, not  cnly for        What then is that pronosition that must first he
my sake but especiahy  for your own, from pronouncing proven and that as  proven  will allow  .me to sav of
my view wrong. For it is evident from your reasonings mv view that it renoses on the solid roqk of the truth
t.hat. net having read, what I wrote with the proper and is therefore sound? And  the  answer: the verv
care, you had no adequate understanding neither of pronosition that "inability to perform a  dutv does
my view nor of your own. Consequently you were not not free from that dutv.
qualified to engage in an intelligent discussion with me.       Now it so  happened  that in. a private conversation
The result was that you made ycurself  ridiculous in 1 exnlained to J. D. upon his request whv T regarded
 The Standard Bearer". And for this you now want the nronosition to the effect that  "Inab,ilitv to nerform
to blame me."                                                a duty frees from that duty" as smacking of Pelagian
    V. The brother writes, that, providing one takes philosonhv. The Pelagian in  militat;ng  against the truth
my point of view then the  opposite  view  -  the            reasons that  inabihty  to serve God. must free man
brother's view  - is in line with socialistic philosophy. from the duty of serving Him so that if it be true
Then he goes on to say that it must "still be proven that man by nature is altogether devoid of s.trength.
that there is but one possible conception". In other there can be no such thing as human resnonsibility.
words, according to the brother, both conceptions,  - What now does J. D. do with this argument of mine.
mine and his - may be true. Sad to say, the brother Attend to what appears from his pen under VI. This
also blunders here.     For the statement from the in substance : ?F'rom the circumstance that man's (the
brother' pen, that the opposite view - the brother's natural man) inability to serve God does not free him
view - i-9 in line with socialistic philo,sophy,  providing from the duty of serving him,  - from this  rircum-
one takes mgr point of view must necessarily imply that stance or fact it may  POU& logical to conclude that
if my view is correct, the brother's view is ,&deed  so- "inability to perform a duty does not free from that
cialistic. If so, how can both conceptions - my con- dutv" yet the conclusion is false and untrue. And
ception  and that uf the brother  - be true? Impos- whv is the conclusion false? Because, says brother
sible.                                                       J. D., "the budget is a man made institution." But


192                                    T H E   S T A N D
-__II.                                                          A R D   B E A R E R            .--             --._-
now the brother should consider that the question they should, he nevertheless clings to his view. Why
whether or no the inability of a poor member in the this partiality? Should we in determining whether
church to contribute, frees  him from the duty of con-           a view is right or wrong first ask how it will affect
tributing to the support of the service, and the ques- men and then pronounce it right or wrong accord-
tion whether the deaconage through its generosity to ingly?
the poor should make it possible for them to give to                Answ.er  to question 7.
the church, - J. D. should consider that these gues-                The word chKtrg&g  is out of place here, and J. D.
Cons  have nothing to do with the matter of the budget,          must not assert that my view compels me to adopt
have nothing to do with mine or the brother's view of this term. The correct phrase here is, "contributing
the budget. Even if churches were not budgeting their to the support of the service or the ministry." And
rontributions,  these questions would still be there, wait- then it is, of course, not the way of our consistories
ing to be answered. So the brother will have to find t,o ask people who join themselves to our churches
another reason than the one he gives for pronouncing whether they also intend to contribute to the support
that conclusion wrong or false. It means that J. D.              of the ministry and whether they will bear their share
has not succeeded in proving that conclusion (the con-           of the burden.    Our consistories must take it for
clusion that inabihty  to perform a duty does not free           granted that they will, if they come as people who
from that duty) false. And this means in turn that say of themselves that they are believers.
as near as J. D. at present is able to judge, my view               A final remark: J. D. tel!s  me over and over that
is correct and his view is wrong.                                his view is the accepted one among our people. Now
       IX. The brother asks, "Will you kindly reply to           I, of course, have very high regard for what our
the following questions?" My answer : "why certainly, people think and say. But we should not permit this
J. D. with the greatest of pleasure".                            regard  to deteriorate into undue concern For if we
       Answer  to.question  1. J. D. should  net ask such do, we disqualify ourselves as students of the scripture,
a question as this: Isn't it true, that according to his         of the Truth. In the grip of such a concern we ask
own concession, his view is socialistic. and as far as he        not, "what sayeth the scriptures, or what is Truth,"
can see at the present also pelagistic, if my view is            but we ask, "what sayeth the peonle".
rkht? How then can there be room for both?                          See here my reply to the brother J. D. And here-
       Answer to question 2..                                   with, I with chr.istian  greetings take permanent leave of
       A.gain I ask, how can J. D. ask me this question.         him in "The Standard Bearer", respecting the matter
If. according to his own concession, his view is social-         of "Our Offerings"                        G. M. 0.
istic if mine is true, how then can it be anything else
but  a matter of principle.
       Answer to question 3.
       I do not know.                                                      ABIDE IN ME AND I IN THEE
       Answer to question 4.
       Whv does J. D. put to me this question? He knows                 0 Saviour, who has loved so much,
my answer. He has stated it over and over in his                        Shame covers me that ever such
communications. And the same holds trlle for ques-                      A poor return to Thee
tion 5.                                                                 For all Thy wondrous grace to me.
       Answer to question 6.
       Yes it does. But now let me sav something to J. D.               Upon my poor cold heart now shine
He  must  not think that he can frighten me into re-                    Inspire me with a warmth divine ;
linquishing my view by  continuallv  reminding me of                    Let  no  cloud ever come between
the conclusion that my view compels me to draw.                         Me and Thy countenance's sheen.
And then also this. In J.  D.`s first communication we                  Thy glorious beauty now display,
come upon this statement, "Much rather would I call                     And win my raptured soul away
him a thief (and he is one too) who can and should                      From everything, however fair.
pay more than the average but does not do so".                          That would from truth to Thee ensnare.
       The point is this. J. D. does not recoil from calling
the people with suftlcient  means, thieves, if they fail to             Oh, let me in Thy presence bask ;
do what he conceives to be their duty. Why then should                  For sense of nearness, Lord I ask ;
he recoi1  from cahing a poor man a thief for the same                  This best shall drive away the foes,
reason. The point is this. J. D. will reject my view                    Which spoil my peace, and cause my woes.
because it compels him to call a poor man a thief, in                   The fears, the doubts, the faithlessness,
the event this man refuses to do what he should. But,                   The coward failing to confess
though his view compels him to call the members with                    Thy Name, or as a good soldier fight
sufKcient  means thieves, if they refuse to do what                     $n Truth's great battle for the right.


