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

IT-------- but simply on "Grace". Nor did Dr. Schilder's accept-
             E D I T O R I A L S                             ance of our invitation put (him under any moral obli-
                                                         li gation to cater to our view. He was perfectly free
                                                             to express his own views, free even  t'o give the Standard
             Dr. Schilder `s Lectures Onr                    Beam a thrashing, if he were of a mind to do so.
                                                                 And he invited the audience to give the spealier
 ,'                 Common Grace                             their honest attention and not to listen with the ques-
                                                             tion in their heart and uppermost in their mind,
       An overflow audience greeted Dr. K. Schilder, when whether the sbeaker's  views were in agreemient  or dis-
on the 8th vf February he entered the auditorium agreement with their own.
of  the First Protestant Reformed Church of Grand                These remarks  wer.e  intended  <to clear the way for
Rapids to deliver his lecture on the subject of Common       Dr. Schilder freely to express his :hone& convictions,
+yce.                                                        regardless  o,f the views of the audience.
       The large auditorium had &en  filled to capacity         And also  t,o ease the tension and cause the audience
with numerous extra chairs. Loudspeakers had been to relax.
in&.lIed  in the basement for those that could find no
room upstairs. In the auditorium every seat was taken
and many remained standing during the entire lecture.
And more than  one hundred made use of the loud-                Of the lecture I took no written notes.
speakers downstairs. Without a doubt it was easily              I gave the speaker my undivided attention, how-
the largest audience the professor will address in this ever, and  althlough the brief  r&urn6  of the contents of
COLptry.                                                     Dr. Schilder's lecture is there given from memory, I
       As many &hat had occupied seats in the rear of the can safely guarantee its oorrectness.
church had not been able to understand Dr. Schil,der,           After a few observations th& did not pertain to
when he spoke in the same building on the multiform-         his subject proper, the speaker began by emphasizing
ity of the Church, there w,as this time a scramble for that he who speaks'of  common grace must define what
the front seats. And even before six o-clock that even- he means. For instance, you cannot  simpIy state that
ing people began to come to church.                          you believe in common grace and, therefore, agree with
       Christian Reformed  aa well as Protestant Reformed the Reformed fathers. .The latter sometimes made a
people were present.                                         threefold distinction, and spoke of general, of common,
       The subject aroused interest.                         and of particular grace. Texts from Scripture that
       And it was probably also one of the tensest audi- were frequently quoted as prcof in favor of common
ences Dr. Schilder will ever address.                        grace, such as Rom. 1:19, 20 ; 2  :I4 are ca.pable of a
       No doubt, many, if not most of those present had      different interpretation, as  isl shown by the explanation
come to listen t,o the speaker with the question in their Dr.  Greydanus  offers of these passages.
soul, with which of the two views, the Christian Re-            The question concerning "common grace" deals
,formed  or the Protestant Reformed, the speaker would with the problem of "nature and grace", a problem
express agreement.                                           that in  our day attracts  universa1  attention and is
       Under the circumstances it was nvt exactly an easy worthy of o,ur earnest consideration and study. The
audience to address !                                        antithesis is not one between "nature and grace", but
                                                             between "sin and grace".
                                                                Scripture abundantly testifies that God  Esve5  and
                                                             preserves His creature. He loves the works of His
       Undersigned introduced the speaker.                   hands, sun, moon, a.nd stars, the trees of the f-ores&
       He made the remark that he usually dislikes the and  flowers, the beasts of the  fielb, the birds of the
formality of introductions, but that on this occasion air, the  %sh of the sea And also what is His own
a few remarks might not be superfluous. He reminded work in man, even after the fall, the "remnants of His
the audience of what he had written in  the. Standard image", the "natural light", man as His own creation,
Bearer concerning our a.ttitude as Protestant Reformed He loves. This does not mean that He loves man as
people towards the visit of Dr. Schilder. The fact that a sinner, .o,utside  of Christ. .For, He is gracious to the
the board of the Reformed Free Publishing Association sinner in Christ only. But His own work in man He
had invited the professor to speak on the subject of loves.
Common Grace was not at all based own the supposition           The fact that, after the fall, man still exists, is not
that he was in agreement with our conception of the yet in hell, receives many things, such as rain and
matter. The very fact that his subject was "Common sunshine, food and drink, clothing and shelter, gifts
Grace" would point to the contrary. Undersigned and talents, does  nc$ warrant the conclusion that there
would not  &peak on that subject, if he were the speaker,    is a gracious disposition (gezindheid)  in'&d t&wards


                                        T H E   S T A N D A R D   B E A R E R                                                   *p6
              I.-.I  -                  ---.-.-                                                             _ .: - . .._. "--. . ,._.
., `him. Things are not grace: The speaker used the tions might have brought out .the truth  more clearly
 illustration of a man that is condemned to death, but and definitely than was actually done in the lecture.  ,'
 the execution of whose sentence is delayed because               Yet, Dr. Schilder was our guest, and it was certain-
 things are not yet ready for the severe furm  of punish-     IY  his privilege to refuse questions and debate,  if he
ment that is intended for him. Such a man cannot considered it more  expedient?mder  the circumstances.
 justly conclude from the fact, that he still has a few           We are thankful that he was willing to  &cept'our
 days to liv;e, to'a $racio:us  disposition towards him on invitation.                                                                ^ %
 the part of the judge. The same is true of the sinner,
 that receives many things, but who is prepared for
 eternal damnation. Common grace cannot mean that                                                                           (_  `_.,
 there is a gracious disposition in God towards the  re-          As the matter stand's now, I clan give my opinion
 probate ungodly. This truth was emphasized more of the  lecture  in a  f@w remarks.                                            ,.
 than once in the lecture.                                        First of all it may be said without fear of contra-
    There is a reining (beteugeling) , ret.ardation,  re- diction, that the view of common grace, as presented
 straining of sin, even as there is a retardation  (be-       in Dr. Schilder's lecture, differs `on important points
 teugeling)  of grace. The end doles not come at the from that of the  f&-i&i&   R,eformed  Churchs  as
 beginning. Beginning and end are separated by an  express&  in  &he  "Thee  poise".
 historic process, in which God preserves all things              First of all, and this is the main point, Dr. Schil'cier
 to serve m understructure fo,r the realization of His denies that one may conclude from the fact, that the
 purpose of  el,ection  and  repnotbation, salvation and ungodly have many things in common with the godly,
 damnation, sin  ,and grace.                                  to a gracious disposition in God ;troward  the ungodly,
    En this historic process man, even fallen man, is             To my mind, this is the very hea&  of the question.
 confronted by the "common mandate", to multiply and
 fill the earth and develop the puwere of creation and            It certainly is the very  ,heart of the First Point
 bo do this in the love of God.                               of 1924.                     .
    There is no objection to speak of an "offer" (aan-            Tsake "guns"ige  gezindheid"  out 09 the First Point
 bod) of grace, provided we understand by it that in and there is really nothing left uf it.
 a pedagogical sense the gospel, with its promise and             Secondly, when Dr. S&&l& speaks of "ofFer",  "aan-
 demand, is presented to the ration& moral  conscious-        bod", it is very evident that he means something quite
 ness of all men promiscuously.  &wever, this  "aan-          different from "the well-meaning offer of grace on the
 bod" is no ground for the conclusion that in the preach-     part of God to all" of which the Christian Reformed
 ing of the gospel there is a gracious disposition (ge- Churches speak. To them also  $his  %ffer" is proof
 zindheisd)  in God. Through it God accomplishes  .I-Iis      of the *gracious disposition (gezindheid) in God' to all
 own purpose, bot,h of election and reprobation, salva- that hear the gospel. TV Dr. Schilder it m&ans no such
 tivn and damnation, life and death.                          t.hing.
    The speaker closed with a plea for peace and unity.           Thirdly, it is also evident that when Dr. S&d&
 It is his conviction that there is no just cause for the     speaks of "beteugeling", retardatien,  restraint of sin,
 breach between the Christian Reformed and Protestant and also of grace, he has in mind  some4hing quite
 Reformed Churches, and he harbors the hope that a different from a general operation of the Holy Spirit
 co,lloquium  on the question of common grace would outside of regeneration in virtue of which the natural
 have blessed results.                                        man is enabled to do good in this world.
                                                                  I consider these differences fundamental.
                                                                  It  is reported that the Rev. D. Zwier, also th& Rev.
                                                              Van Baalen, made the statement, after having listened
    I `am eorry  that Dr. Schilder offered no opportunity to the same lecture in H&and,  Mich., that they' were
 for questions and discussion after the lecture.              fu,lly in aagreement  with it.
    Before  the  <lecture  I attempted  $o persuade him to        If this is true, I confess that I never understood
 give  t.he audience such opportunity, but without avail. the views of these brethren, nor of the Three Points.
 He stated that he was not afraid of discussion, but it In that case it would seem highly desirable that we do
 might leave  a wrong impression if, while no su,ch op-       arrange for a colloquium to review the entire ques-
 portunity was offered in connection with his other  tion.
 lectures, he would open a discussion at this particular          I feel that in substance 3 can agree with the main
 occasion.                                                    thoughts of Dr. Schilder's l&ure.                  "
    He tried to make me see his point, but I was not              There are, indeed, differences.
 convinced.                                                       I would not speak of common grace at all ; he still
    And after the lecture  1 was more than ever con- does.                                                            `.
 vinced  of the expediency of a discussion. A few ques-           I prefer to adhere to the term "preaching of -the

                                                                                                                                 /

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

gospel" rather than use the ambiguous term "offer of on Scripture and the Reformed Confessions  just as if
grace".                                                        &he Three Points had never existed.
       I rather speak of "organic development" than of            If they, on their part, insist on the Three Points,
"retardation", though I have a vegue notion that we a discussion would be useless. It would be finished
mean the same thing.                                           before it was ever commenced!
       Besides, it still remains a question whether we            And do not forget,, that there are  &her matters
would agree  an what Dr. Schilder left unsaid.                 that need discussion and settlement in the way indi-
       Things are no grace. This is putting the matter cated in Scripture, before the  breach could ever be
negatively. But what are they `to the ungodly?                 healed.
       God loves His work even in the ungodly. But we             We have been slandered as heretics.
maintain, too., that He hates the actually and con,cretely        We ,hav,e been cast out of the Church.
existing ungodly person. Agreed?                                  `We have been deprived  of our property and built
       The "offer" is no reason to conclude to a gracious new churches and parsonages.
dispo&tion  in God toward the ungodly that hears His              0, it is true, these things can be overcome, if we
Word. But we maintain, that according to  God's pur- could agree on the truth. We are willing  6, overcome
pose and intention the  prea,ching  of the gospel is a them. But they  must not merely be forgotten. Con-
savor of death unto death unto the reprobate. Agreed? fession a,nd forgiveness,-that is Christ's way!
       On Dr. Schilder's standpoint is it not better  ti          Beautiful perspectives, indeed! I agree with the
speak of "preserving" and "renewing grace", rather Rev. Vreugdenhil. "That they may all be one !"
than of "common" and "special grace", as Dr. Dooye-               But the perspectives  are also deep !
weerd suggests in his "Wijsbegeerte der Wetsidee",                Deep and distant!
Dee1  III, 468,469?                                                                                              H .   H .
       These and other questions I would certainly have
liked to ask Dr. Schilder, had there been opportunity.
       But in substance I oould agree with what was
actually said.
       Certainly the antithesis is  not "nature and grace",
but "sin and grace", as <we have always taught.
       And we &have always maintained that God is gra-
cious to all His work, if only it is underskood  that the                        Wijs'Mij De Plaats
actually existing ungodly is not the object of His grace,
but of His wrath.                                                 Dit  vraag  ik nog, ook nadat ik het volgende artikel
       And we, too, belie% that &he natural man has a van de hand van Ds. H. Veldkamp in bet Friesch  Kerlc-
,remnant  of natural light, which he holds under in un-        bkzd gelezen  heb :
r i g h t e o u s n e s s .                                                    THE STANDARD BEARER.
                                                                          Deze  naam beteekent  zooveel  als de Banier-
                                                                    drager, en  wordt  gedragen  door  bet Ameri-
       Also in the Netherlands the hope was. expressed              kaansch  orgaan van den door de Synode  van
that Dr. Schilder's visit to our country mi,ght be con-             Kakunazoo  veroordeelden  inzake de gemeene
ducive to a healing of the breach between the Christian             gratis. De - `naar ik meen  - hoofdredac-
`Reformed and the Protestant Reformed Churches.                     teur Ds. H. Hoeksema was zoo vriendelijk in
       Rev.  Datema  wrote in this strain  icn "De  (Neder-         bet nummer  van 15 Jan. `39 aandacht ;te wij-
landsche) Wachter".                                                 den  aan mijn schrijven *over de wijze waarop
       And, reflecting on this  articIe  in "De Wachter",           de Amerikaansch  kerkelijke   pers  gereageerd
the Rev. Vreugdenhil in Pro  Ecclesia spoke of "beauti-             had op de ,komst  van Prof. Schilder in Ameri-
ful perspectives" !                                                 1~s; Ds. Hoeksema  doet in dat artikel eenige
       Dr. Schilder also emphasized our calling to be on-e.         topmerkingen  en vragen, waarop ik gaarne wil
       At our ministers conference at my home he asked              antwoordm.  De schrijver  duide mij niet
us the question, whether on our part we woukl be will-              euvel,  d,at ik het gansche  artikel nit o*p den
ing to have a  oolloquy  with  the Christian Reformed               voet  volg, en op elk woord geen wederwoord
brethren and open the entire matter of common grace                 sgeef, want  hoewel  daar  zijnerzijds   misver-
once more for discussion.                                           stand heerscht  - ik denk b.v. aan de "kwes-
       And we answered. in the affirmative.                         tie"  der ,adjectieven,  zijn dit bijkomstigheden,
       Any time we are willing to discuss the matter with           waar onze lczers in bet minst geen belang in
them.                                                               stellen, en die ook geen stap verder brengea
       Provided, however,  t.hat such a discussion be based         Ik bepaal  me ~claarom bij de hoofdzaak.


                                      T H E   S T A N D A R D   BEARER                                            . 253

zooals de Bereers-beweging  of het h&loos woelen  van nag met een schuine letter: ". . . .doch die stem, o ja,
Janssenisme. We staan vandaag, na 15  l,ange  jaren          die stem hezft mog  haar bekoclring!"
van groei en bloei, nog steads op den hechten groad             Ik  bed& daar dan  mede,  dat wij Protestants&e
van Godes Woord, zocals  dat God&lijk juw,ed  schittert      Gereformeierde  Kerken zoo Iangzaam aan doch mcker
in de Drie Formulieren van Eenigheid. En onze  ge-           herkend en erkend worden  als we1 w&.rlijk Gerefor-
schriften  zijn getuigen. Doch  men wil ze ten onzent meerd.
maar  ter nauwernood lezen. Overigens  zwij,gt  men ens         En we merken  dat uit drieerlei.
dood. Zoo deed men voor lange j.aren.  . En alleen nu,          Eerstens, dat  Ieiders  uit  Nederland  die het  voile
omdat Ned&and  be&t  te vragen, d.w.z. nolens  z)olelzs,     vertruuwen   genieten  der  Gereformeerde   Kerken   zich
komen de pennen  weer in beweging.                           met  ens  inlaten,  naar ons  willen  luisteren,  onze  ver-
    Slechts dit is het verschil: wij weigeren te gelooven    klaringen van Gods Woord lezen, onze artikelen, k&lom-
dat God de verworpener,  bemint;  we willen niet lceren      men druks, overnemen,  zoodat duizenclen  me$ hen ons
dat de prediking van het Eeuwig  Evangelic   algemeene       mogen  booren.   Ben  hunner,  P,ro*f. Dr. K. Schilder is
genade is vcor menschen  zoloais  KaIn, Ezau en Judas.       in ons gevang ingetreden (Natuurlijk slmhts als  be-
Toen hebt gij  eerst  een omtuining gemaakt om de  ver-      aoeker,  &t verstaan  we heel goed) om van nabij naar
worpenen  en die omtuining zijn de beruchte Drie Pun- onze stem te luisteren. Vergunt me, dat ik iets directe-
ten van  Kalamazo~o;   Daarin  spraakt   ge het zonder lijk  richt tot  onze   breeders  in  Ned&and  die  dcze
bloozen uit, dat God  de  verworpenen   liefhceft.  Die Standard Bearer lezen. Hij, Dr.  Schilder,   achtte het
drie leugens weigerden we  te  beamen,  wotende  dat genade van God (we hoorden dit van uit de verte door
Geds  Woord  en  tie Drie  Formulieren  van  Eenigheid middel van die kerkelijke  bladen), dat hij naar Ameri-
ze logenstraff  en 1                                         ka  mucbt  reizen,  aldaar aankomen en Gods Woord.
   Ziedaar, ons verschil met U !                             richten  tot  zaoveel  duizenden in  Christus?  Kerk  der
    En daarom zijn we verbannen naar bet gevang !            Nieuwe  Wereid. Welnu, ik  acht  bet genade van God,
                                                             dat hij zich niet schaamde  om ons op te zoeken  in bet
    Toen  s&reef ik, nu vijf on wen half jaar verleden  :    gevang, niet bloocde  om ook voor ons te oirgelen  van
"Vanuit de gevangenis heeft men die stem  gehaord in de Eeuwige Liefde en gewiflig was te luismren naar
bet Oude Vaderland en sommigen zeiden: Hoe vreemd!           de uiting der geprangden.  Breeders  in  Nederland,
Is dat de ,stem  van een booswicht die uitgebannen  moest we danken Ged Poor Dr. Schilder ! N,een, we  annex-
uit  bet  midden   der vaderen?! Zijn stem klinkt  steer ecren hem niet als Protestantsch  Gereformeerde; we
Gereformeerd!  Die phrase  "Steer   Gereformeerd"  is zullen &or Gcids genade hem niet in een hock zetten
een aanhaling van ten leider der Gereformeerde  Ker- waar l+ij misschien  niet past, waar hij mi~hien niet
ken in  Ned&and.        Solo:rtgelijk  waardeeringsoordeel wil staan, een hock echter, waar naar `onze bescheiden
over  conze  stem in pamphlet, brochure en  Stand.ard        meaning  de stralen van Gods. lieflijk Aangezicht vielen
Bearer  Bunt ge  veelmaal  lezen in de archieven  der en v&en - neen, cl& doen we niet.
Kederlandsche Kerkelijke bladen. Doch nergens icat              Edoch,  duidt het ens dan tqnninste  niet euvel,  dat
ge eenige uiting VW waardeering  aangaande  Ds. Bulte- we hem annexeieren  als een beminnelijke persoonlijk-
ma'sl streven  en Dr. Janssen's  werk. En  geen wonder: heid, als-de strijder Gods die steeds vocraan staat in
men heeft  daar zijn Berkhoff  .en  Geelkerken gehad. de slagorde van Christus' Kerk tegen de aanvallen van
Doch  we1 vindt  ge daar in Nederland  een  groeiend         Satan, als :de profeet  des Heeren die, naar de beteekenis
aantal van gee&n die onze uitingen proefden  en uit van dit waorrd overkookt  van  geestdrift,  wiens mond
riepen : Hoe vreemd  ! `t Smaakt tech Gereformeerd?  ! overloopt in het getuigen  vo0.r zijn God. Duidt  bet
Daarbij  mowt men vocr den aandacht huu,den, eerstens, ons met euvel, dat wij als Protestantsche  Gereforrmeer-
dat die breeders  kerkelijk  in aorrespondentie staan met den hem annexeeren  als innigen Christen.
de Christian Reformed Church; tweedens,  dat zij  spre-         Tweed&, we merken het uit de feile woorden'$e
ken  moseten  aangaande  een strijd die duizende  mijlen     uit de pen vloeien van mannen  zoo+ Dss. H. J. Kuiper
ver wleg ontbrandde en uit den aard der zaak het oor- en Zwier, Dr. Hepp a i&wat bedektelijk  m.k Dr; -H.
deelen   ever zulk een zaak  die in de  verte  en in een H. Kuyper. Als  die  mannen  warm  worden  in  bun
vreemd  land geschiedde  moeilijk maakte; en, derdens,       geschrijf, als zij bijvoegelijke  naamwoorden  vermynig-
ze spraken  bun  waardeeringso~ordeel  uit  tegen  een vuldigen om ons als kettersch te brandmerken, alz de
stroom  van ~c;fficieele en niet ofhcieele beschuldigingen wnevel  tegen ons zoo groat wordt,,  dat aelfs t`:en man
aan ons  adres  gericbt, in. Met die  f&en  voor  oogen      als Dr. Schilder een egevoeligen,  dubbelen slag in `t aan-
is.het  steeds groeiende  goed.e  waardeerings,o,ordeel  over gezicht moet ontvangen van Ds. H. J. Kuiper in Ameri-
ens vanuit Nederland  teekenend  !                           ka en van Dr. H. H. Kuyper,,in>Nederland,  dan vat ik
    En nu?                                                   m.oed.    Huns ondanks  verraden  die zenuwachtige,
    Nu herhaai ik bet geen ik in dat onschuldige  stukje scherpe woorden en  vreemde  handelingen (Is- het  ver-
schrijvens  neerpende tegen het  melanclmlische  einde talon van  *bet beruchte Banner-art&l  geen  vreemd
mijner ontbaezemingen,  doch nu schrijf ik  bet woordje werk?)  dat nader  onderzoek der clrie Kalamazoosche

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

Punten,  de uitwerpingshistorie  en het ware karakter gebleken is,  dat een ter dood veroordeelde  onschuldig-
der  Protestantsche  Gereformeerdie  Kerken hun  bange          lijk zucht, zulk eenen  pa?;cEo?t  te s&e&en. Verschrik-
hartkloppingen   geeft.  Men herinnere  zich  den  aan-         kelijke  gewoonte! Pardon waax geen  schuld was.
drang der  Doctoren  Kuyper en  H*epp  aan het  adres               `k Denk daaraan  in onze dagen.
der Nationale  Synode  van 1936 om  tech aangaande                 Ds. H. Hoeksema  s&reef onlangs: "Er komt nag
de Algemeene  Genade, indien  immer  moigelijk,  een een andere tijd, breeder  ! . . . . Al  loopt de  leugen
ui%spra.ak   te bekomen.      !                                 nog zoo snel, de waarheid  achterhaalt  haar we1 !"
       En, tenslotte, merken we het door het schrijven             Ik sluit mij hierbij aan en, terugkeerende  tot mijn
van mannen  zooals de Dss. Van HaIsema  en Zwier.               eerder gekozen  beeldspraak, zou ik willen zeggen: Ik
       Indien  ik  zou  oordeelen naar den  natuurlijken        kan  bet mis hebben,  doch ik gelcof dat ik bet.  ram-
mensch, &w.z.,  in `t duister,  dan zou ik Ds. H. J. Kui-       mden der sluetelbos  hoor. De  cipier  nadert om ons
per en de  Doctor-en  Kuyper en Hepp kunnen aanraden            het pu&o% ( ?) de brengert.
cm  v8u1 die  twee   mannen een  zekere  krijgstactinik   te       `t Zou heerlijk zijn om van uit het danker  kerker-
leer-en. Dat doe ik echter  niet, want ik veracht die tac-      ho1 (het  oogpunt   den Chr.  Geref.   Kerken)   verlost   te
tie&. Ds. Van Halsema schrijft net het  tegenoverge             worden  en wederom te wandelen in  `t  licht van de
stelde van Ds. H. J. Kuiper. Het schrijven van den gemeenschap   der  Amerikaansche   e n  Nederlandsche
wsten komt  bier  op  neer: Kom  maar  gerust,  Dr. Qerefcrmeerde  broederen.
Schilder. Er is in `t geheel  ,geen gevaar. Ge  zijQ ten            En  ind!ien ik mij  vergis,   dan  zullen  we  blijven
overstaan der Prd. Geref. Kerken in `t geheel  niet te          wachten en wachtend  getuigen  en, getuigend  lij,den
duchten. Na alles gelezen te hebben in de  Reformatie           om  `i  Heeren wil!
gevoel  ik mij aangaande Uw optreden  bier  ge!lx%l
en al op mijn gemak!                                                Straks  komt de dageraad. En  `t  eindoordeel  in
                                                                `t eeuwig Licht !
       Nu versta men mij niet verkeerd. Ik wil nitit zeg-
gen, dat Dr. Schilder  `onze zijde kiest. Verre  van daar.          Dat is crab onze troost.
Ik wil dit mhter  we1 zeggen:  De woorden  van Ds. Van                                                            G. V.
IIalsema  klinken  hol. Ik zou hem dit  willen  vragen:
Ds. Van Halsema, wetende  wat Dr. Schilder  aangaande
de Gemeene Gratie schreef  in `t algemeen en over de
Drie Punten  in `t bijzonder,  gevoelt ge U clan w=crke-
lijk  zoo  gerust?
       En  selnzelfde  vraag richt ik tot Dss. Zwier en voeg
er-da.n den naam van Dr. Greydanus  bij in zijn schrij-
ven over de gemeene gratie.                                                    The Proposed Synod
       Neen,  boewel ook ik ,het betreur, dat Ds. H. J. Kui-
pen den Kmper professor zulk +een wreuden  en onver-               At the last meeting of the classis of our churches a
dienden slag  toed&ant,  tech geloof ik dat die  breeder        plan was adopted to divide the classis into two classes,
meer harmonic geniet  itusschen zijn hart en zijn pen.          a classis east and a classis west, and to arrange for the
Zijn tactiek zal cok leiden tot de eindelijke  veroordee-       annual convocation of a  synoidical meeting.
ling  der  drie  punten  en de  rechtvaardiging  der  ver-         A previous gathering of the  classis entertained an
guisden van 1,924, evengoged  als de tactiek der leeraren       overture from the First Protestant Reformed Church
Van Halsema en Zwier. Doch  hier ligt ,het verschil  :          of Grand Rapids, proposing that classis  appoint a com-
de taktiek der la&&en, indien ze gevolgd werd  dotor            mittee to work out a plan with a view to such division
alle leiders der Clxr. Ref. Church zou ons Ianger  doen         and torganizatiun  of a synod. This overture was adopted
zuchteq in `t bgevang,  dan wamreer men doet zouab  Dss.        and the committee was appointed.
H. J. Kuiper. Door  `t  gemoe&lijk   neurien van  een              The report of this last mentioned committee was
Van H&ma  valt het volkin slaap  ; doer `t luide roe-           before the  classis at its last meeting, and, as our
pen van Ds. H. J. Kuiper schrikt men wakker  en gaat            readers may have noticed from the classical report, was
men  aan `t  onderzoeken  ob de dingen werkelijk alzoo          adopted.
zijn.                                                              It  was also decided to send a copy of this report to
       En o, ik zou het willen zeggen  met al den ernst der all the consistories.
onschuldig  veroordeelden:   near  een  onderzoek  bij `t          After all, however, it will save time and labor if
licht van Gods Woo'rd, naar  de Drie Formulieren va.n the report be printed in the Standard  Bearer. Besides,
Eenigheid,  door  een  nechtbank van  Gereformeerden            it is a matter that concerns our churches as a whole
smachten  we. Om Gods wil.                                      and  not only our  con&tories, and? no doubt, all our
       Er is  een  gewoonte   bier in  Amerika  om,  als het people are interested in the matter.


                                          T H E   S T A N D A R D   B E A R E R                                       255

   Enstead,  therefore, of sending a copy of the report                  f. Affairs pertaining to the churches in general.
to  all our eonsistories  by private' mail, we publish it                   Cases of appeal. Protests, etc.
in this issue of the Standard Bearer, and the  con-              3. Shall appoint:
sistories  will please take note.
                                                                         a. A synodical  stated clerk.
   The report here follows:                                              b. A synodioal  treasurer.
                                                                         c. A mission cvmmittee.
               Fhport  of the Committee in re                            d. A  the~oikqiea.l  school committee.
                      Classis Division                                   e. An emeritus committee.
                                                                         f. A committee for E. B. P.
Classis of the Prot.  Ref. Church,
convened in Grand Rapids, Jan.  II, 1939.                        4. The Synod shall consist of eight delegates from
                                                              each' classis.
Esteemed and beloved  brethren:-
   Your committee  con&e& the  adtisablity  of corn-              IV. The following funds `shall be  Synodically  as-
                                                                    ,
pleting  the organization of our churches according to SeSSea:
Reform&.  Church' Polity, by dividing *our cl!assis  unto         1.  Theolcgical  School.
two classes and organizing a synod. It offers the follow-        2. Mission.
ing advice:                                                      3. Needy Churches.
   I. To divide our classis into a  Classis East and a           iI  E m e r i t u s   Bmoard.
Classis West and to make provi&on  for the convocation           5. Student Fund.
0.f a Synod annually.                                            6.  Synodical  and classical expense.
   Grounds :                                                     V. The curator&n be ehminated  and the work of
                                                              the  curaitorium be performed by Synod.  The com-
   1. This will complete our organization according mittee mentioned under III, 3. d. can take care of
,to the R,eform.ed  system of Church Polity, which calls      the  scbcol in the interim between two synods.
for Consistcry, Classis and Synod.
   2. It will simplify considerably the agenda of our            Grounds :
Classical gatherings. Our  Classis now represents                 1. As the synod meets annually it would merely
twenty-one churches, and the work for each meeting duplicate matters to have a separate  curator-mm.
has lately proven too abundant.                                  2.  Iit will save expenses.
   3. It will-facilitate the keeping of quarterly classi-,
c-al meetings as the Church Order demands.
   4. It  wiIl surely not increase the  cost of  brcader          V. All overtures for synod as well as proposed fi-
gatherings.                                                   nancial appropriations must be in the hands of the
                                                              stated clerk of each  classis at. least  fo,ur weeks before
                                                              the last meeting of each  classis preceding the meeting
    II. To  divide  the  Classis into  Classis East and of Synod.
West as fo.lIows:
    I.  Classis  Eta& shall  co,mprise  the churches of           VII. As to the expenses your committee reports
Michigan and Illinois, numbering eleven churches and the  followin:g:
767 famiks.
   2. Classis West shall comprise the churches o,f IoLwa,         A. As to the present expenses:
Minnesota and California, numbering ten churches and              1. Figuring one  delegate  from each ot the churches
222 families.                                                 in California the total mileage of all our delegates to
                                                              and from one meeting of  classis is 32520.
    III. The Synod:                                               2. From our cIassica1 treasurer we learned that the
    1. Ccmence its meetings in the evening of every total classical travelling expenses for two meetings
second Tuesday in June.                                       amount to 1336 dollars, which means 668 per classis.
                                                                  3. The cost of travelling per mile was, therefore,
    2. Under its jurisdiction shall be pl'aced:               2.05 cents.
        a. The Theological Schvol.
        b. The mission work.                                      B. As to the expense in oai-e the plan here& offered
        c. The oare  of the needy churches.                   is adopted:
        d. The Student Fund.                                      1. Figuring one delegate  fro*m  each of the churches
        e. The Emeritus Fund.                                 in California the total mileage for  Classis West would


256                                              T H E   S T A N D A R D   B E A R E R
                   -.-- --.- "__
he 100~2.. At therate  of 2.05 cents per mile the total                Only the reformd  conception cf the truth under-
cost for one meeting would be 205.24 dollars.                       stands the  power of the cross. To be sure, also the
       2. The  to,tal mileage  -for  Classis  East would be Arminian would maintain that only a few are saved,
1920. At 2.05 cents per mile the cost  for one meeting and that Christ died only for those few, the believers.
would be 39.36 dollars.                                             Yet, it is ertainly lhis view that Jesus, when He died
       3. The  tortal  cost for one meeting of the two classes upon Calvary, poured out His bIgcod for all men, that
would be 244.60 dollars.                                            He sufiered  and died' with the desire that all might
       4. Subtracted  fro,m 663 dollars, the present  ecst have an equal ogportunity  to be saved, and that the
of  one meeting, leaves a saving elf $424 for each meet- only reason why many are saved is. b=wuse  they refuse
ing, or of 848 dollars per annum.                                   to ,appropriate  unto. themselves this well-meaning uni-
                                                                    versal love of Go& Exactly as God  knsw before hand
       C. As to the expenses of Synod:                              wbs would believe and elected thiose unto salvation, so
       1. Figuring rone delegate from California to each also Christ died fo,r the believers. But the love of God
meeting of Synod the total mileage of  Syncd would be and! of Christ is universal. However, it is not  difficult
14520. At the ra&te  o.f 2.05 per mire the travelling ex- ta understand that the very word  of God in John 1:29,
penses of Synod would be 299.71 dollars.                            which the Arminian loves to quotes, is one of the
       2. Subtracted from $843 the new system would still strongest links  in the chain of Scriptural truths which
save $548.29, if each classis meets twi,ce  a year.                 condemn his version of the cross. Fact is, the Lamb
                                                                    of Gcd taketh  away  the sin of the world. 6t is exactly
       And for this same expense each classis could afford this thought which has no place  *in the Arminian
to meet four times a year if ne.cessary.                            scheme of things.  According  to him Christ  d,id  I&
                                                                    take sin away from  `CaIvary.  For if the Lord upon
       VIII. If the above  plaa be  adopt&d  the  committ&          the cross  had  takssn  th.e sin; guilt of all away, had
suggests that  classils  appoint  ,another committee to ad- removed the guilt of all, had paid for all the.penalty,
vise the  classis at its next meeting as to the best plan it must follow that nobody can be II&. If one's guilt
of execution.                                                       is rem,oved  no condemnation can be brought against
                            Respectfully submitted                  him. Hence, instead of teaching universal atonement
                                                                    the Arminian has no atonement whatsoever. And this
                                    The committee :                 robs the Gross lof dl oamfort  for the child of God. Then
                                           H. Hoeksema, Pres.       my sin will eternally testify against me, inasmuch  as
                                           A,  Cammenga   *         it was never  taken away. Over a.gainst this comfort-
                                           J. ,Broek                less presentation  we must maintain the particular
                                           G. M. Ophoff             character of the cross. Calvary is the word of recon-
                                           R. .Veldman              ciliation, that is, the powerful,  eficacious,  creative
                                           L. Vermeer.              Word of GCK&  which He spoke by Himself upon the
                                                           H. H.    accursed tree, effecting  recon.ciliation.    Recon.ciliatidn
                                                                    is presented by Paul as the Word of God' which He
                                                                    spoke creatively. The cross is the blotting out of all
                                                                    our guilt, the meriting of eternal righteousness and
                                                                    heavenly glory, the redemption of His peopIe out of all
                                                                    the power of the devil. It-is the basis for our covenant
                                                                    fellowship with Jehovah, and  salva'tion,  as spiritually
                                                                    bestowed upon God's people, must follow because
                  The Lamb Of God                                   Christ pu.rchased  it.
                                                                       That Jesus is called the Lamb of God by Jolhn the
       The cross of  Calva.ry, which is again the subject Baptist is certainly with reference to the Old Dispen-
of pneaching  in a special sense during the Lent season sation. There are those who would contend  th& Christ
now upon usi is a power of Cod unto salvation. We do is called  thus because of a certain likeness which exists
well to emphasize thiat the cross is indeed t'he salva- betwuen  Him and ia lamb, and that no special reference
tion #elf the Church. According to Paul in 2 Cor. 5:19              is meant to the Old Testament sacrifices. A lamb is
it is the  word  o'f reconciliation. By it our reoondlia-           characterized by meekness. Also  J.esns was meek.
tion was effected. Upon Golgotha.`s  accursed  tree God `Th.erefore  He is called a lamb. However, if we bear  in
purchased us with His own precious blood and we have mind that the Baptist spoke this w,ord to the people
been redeemed  frocm all iniquity. And no less striking of God o'f the Old Dispensation, that Isaiah speaks
is the truth as expresssd  in John I :29, namely, that of Jesus as a Iamb, and that a. Iamb was slain at the
Jesus is the Lamb of God Which  taJce%  away  the sin Passover, it can hardly be denied that Jesus is c?alled
o f   t h e ,   w o r l d , ;                    I /,.,             a lamb as the fulfilment  of the Oldi T&am&  shadows.


                                      T H E   S T A N D A R D   B E A R E R                                          257
r                                                             ----_                         - -         -
Of coume,  that a lamb was chosen by God as a symbol Him, become guilty of the law, are tr,ansgnessors. And
of Christ was certainly with a reason.        Of all the as transpessors against the law od God we must pay
animals a lamb or sheep was the most fitting  symbol of the price because the Lord maintains Himself. Only
the suffering Servant of the Lord. And, understanding ,in :tbe ww of complete satisfacti,on  for sin is our return
Christ to be the fulfllment  of these sacrifices, we can into the favor of God pcesible. Our sins involve us
understand why He is  ctiled   Z% Lamb  ,of God. He is in the obligation before God to pay the full penal:ty,
Dhe  Lamb of God not only because of this  fulfilment  as    which means that we in the way of de&h,  must ex-
such, but eof dl the Old Testament lambs He is the perience that Gold is goed. `i`he full wrath of the Lord
Lamb. This we must understand to see the blessed must be borne. Because of sin we have become  objeats
trmity  of the work  .of redemption  &roughout the ages. of the wrath of God, and we, together with all  things,
Because Christ is the eternal Son of God, chosen from are subject tq the curse. And' God cannot remove that
before the foundation of the world to reconcile His curse, live in covenant-commumon with  HiIs people,
people with Himself through the blood of the cross,          and cause ;ail! things to rejoice in &he blessed  liberty of
the&ore  He could give unto His people in the Old            the children of God, except in the way that all sin be
Dispensation a symbol of Himself in the  !s%rificial         removed,  that full and complete satisfaction be ren-
lamb.  His suffering Servant of Jehovah is called a dered to the justice of God. This sin, as guilt, the
lamb because of His suffering, He never rebelled, never      Lamb  o,f God assumes. He  stan& in our  relat6an  to
opposed the way of suffering, but at all times was           the law. He wills `to be treated by Jeh0va.h as a trans-
perfectly submissive to the will  (of Him that sent Him.     gressor.       He takes our debt upon Himself, assumes
     Jesus is the Lamb of God. This expression  means full respcnsibility  for all our trespasses, would be the
unduubtedly  that He is of Gad, pneparecl  and furnished sacrificial Lamb upon Whom all the fury of the wrath
by God Himself. He *is the Lamb of God in the first of God is to be pour& out. He is the transgressor, `is
place because He is God Him&f. Of course, our Lord not merely treated by God as ,a sinner among many,
is lamb in  :t.hta human nature-the sacrifice for our sins but is  D;he Sinner, the Greatest of all  transgressors,
was brought in our flesh and  blo,od. Yet,  Gcd Himself must therefore hang upon the cross symbolically be-
became that sacrifice. It is God Who bought us with tween the two malefactors, because  HB takes upon
His own precious blood. It is Jehovah Himself Who            Himself the guilt of many and bears the +niquiity  of
became this lamb,  Who1  HLimself  bore  the sin  aIf the us all.
world. Secondly, in close connection with  this thought,        Besides, we read so strikingly of Him that  .He
Jesus is the Lamb of God because, as according to the        takes uzL?ay  our sin. This word means, firstly, to take
human natune,  He was prepared and ever enabled by upon  oneself,  and secondly, to  take +away. Hence, the
God. Of God He is become for UB wisdom, righteous- w,ord  signifies to take upon oneself with the purpose
ness, *sanctifications  and redemption. Of God, by the of *taking  it away. Jesus takes upon Himself our sin.
overshadowing of the Holy Spirit, He was brought             In this  r,espect  also He is  the  Lamb of God. It it
forth out  Iof the virgin Mary; by Jehovah He was particularly in :the light of this fact that all natural
strengthened,, even unto1 the end, :to finish the work iambs must fall short o.f being even a perfect symbol
unto which He came;                                          of Christ. As such Christ is unique. Truly this can-
     This Lamb of God taket.h  away the sin of the world.    not be de&red of any animal in the Oid Diepensatio,n.
It is not our purpose at this time to emphasize the Never did it occur that a lamb in the Old Testament
thought  Ithat the world  of  this portion of Scripture took upon itself :the sin of God's people. The burden
refers to the  new world  of God's eternal love, as it       of Israel's guilt was simply laid upon it. And it ,lay
shall be  sawed, but now lies under the  cures of sin.       in the very nature of the beast to receive it and bear
W,e would rather emphsize the thought that Christ is it without murmuring. But  J~essrus  is especially in this
the atoning, expiatory Lamb of God. That He takes            respect  tF;e  L;amb  of God.  Not only  &.XS the Christ
away the sin of the world does n,ot mean, of course,         refrain from rebelling. Not only does H,e permit Je-
that He Himself became sinful, was polluted with sin.        hovah tcl lay our guilt upson  Him.    But He voluntarily
If in this sense the Lord had borne our sin He could assumes our guilt and, accordinlg  lt4al the human nature,
not  bva been this Lamb. For the idea of submission actually wills to bear it. Cons&us of Hlis calling as
is presupposed by a lamb. And, as sinners, we are            Head of Ia <guilty  people to bear (their sin the Saviour
rebels, who are not and cannot be subject to the law         is not merely passive but  *a,mazingly active in His  obe-
of God. That Jesus bore  our  sin means that He took cdience, willing for God%  sake and for righteousness'
upon Himself the guilt of sin. Sin, the spiritual power sa.ke to be the Lamb of God that taketh  away the sin
of :darkness,  whereby we wilfully refuse to gllodfy God, od the world.
wilfully with all our heart and mind  snd soul and              Finally, when . did Christ take upon Himself our
strength "miss the mark", refuse to live according to sin? Apart now from the truth that Jesus is the Lamb
our calling to glorify; God, is guilt. Guilt is obligation of  God Which  is taking  away the sin of the world. His-
tot pay. Sinning against God we become indebted tu torically Christ took upon Himself our ,guilt,  firstly,
                                                                       .


258                                     T H E   S T A N D A R D   B E A R E R                                   ._._
when He was baptized in the river Jordan. When that the latter are indeed to be found in Scripture and
John refused to baptize Him Jesus willed it. And in- that therefore no one need & alarmed by the discov%ry
asmuch as the baptism of Jesus in the Jordan was a that the teaching of common grace is at variance with
sign of the baptism wherewith He would be baptized Scripture, as  ithe acaflict  can be but apparent. Wrote
upon the cross .of Calvary (for of that baptism elf the Zwier, (I translate), "The Bible is one whole; it is! the
cross all baptism is a symbol) Jesus8 wills tot be boptized     product of one Iauthor. In explaining  cony part, there-
by the Baptist, thereby voluntarily,  ,at the very begin- fore, one must take account of the whule. This ,is what
ning of His public ministry, eek His face towands  the we mean, when we say, that we must explain according
cross and assumed its reality in all its' fearful eonse- DOI the nma2ogia ficki,  or, if you will, de analogia,  Sc-rLp-
quencos. Secondly, throughout His entire walk upon tiyae,  the agreement of the Scriptures. In the Scrip-
[earth  Ghrist ever took upon Himself our sin. Healing tures we have  to do with a perfect, consonant whole:
the sick II&e thereby not only wrought miracles but also           Thme  are in the Scriptures no actual contradic-
signs  of the power of Hits grace whereby He would tions. There  oan be  nx,  contrad&ion between  icne
deliver His people  from   all sin and its results. Bat part and another. In a Ihuman writmg  t&is is possible,
when He then healed the sick and wrought signs He for human logic is defective, as it  was impaired  by
assumed the cross of Calvary as the only way in which sin. Hence, w.e at times happen upon  contradictions in
Zion would be redeemed through righteousness fr:*rn the worb of the best scholars. But in Holy Writ, inn
all iniquity. And, finally, the Saviour took upon Him- spined as it is by the Holy Spirit,. cc~ntradictions  ,are
self our guilt upon the cross, The cross did not bear impossible. In the Scriptures from  G,eneeis  to Rove&a-
Jesus but Jesus bore the cross. Never did the perfect tion there is perfect harmony.                 I
Serva,nt  of Jehovah falter; in the full consciousness He
bore the infinite wrath of w in perfect obedience to               There are,  ,bo:wever,   upparer&   mcxtradictions  in
the will of the Father. Hje bore our guilt until He had Holy Writ. But  sif we encounter these, two doctrines,
taken it away, had paid. the last far-thing, had blotted which wte anot possibly harmonize with our defe.&ive
out all guilt, had reconciled His  peo4ple  with God, and human l.o,gic,  then we confm our Iimpotence,  without
merited for them everlasting life.                              risking  tan attempt to harmonize the  two.  All such
                                                 H. V.          attempts end in  tragedy.  The history of  t.he pa& as
                                                                w&l as of the present yields many examples of this.
                                                                In such cases therefore we. acknowledge both truth
                                                                to be the teaching of Holy Writ, and! though we cannot
                                                                perceive the oneness of the two, we nevertheless be-
                                                                lievingly affirm that they merge in a higher, divine,
                                                                unity,  `%i&  oplossen in een  Ihooger,   goddelij,ke   een-
                What They Are Doing                             heid" So far the reverend.
                  (Reply to Rev. D. Zwier)                         In  the above excerpt, mention is made of apparent
                                                                a~~3 GX&L&  colztradictions. According to the writer of
       The brethren, exponents of the theory of common these lines,, the former only are to' be found in the
grace and of  &he well-mean&g  other of salvation, have Bible.
hen told ov& and over that, through their marshalliing             In dealing with this sentiment, it is well to have
Scripture on the  side of their theory, they set the befiore our mind rtrhs answer tool the question: when is
Bible at varianoe  with itself. In defending themsel'vm         it allowable to speak of the existence of aa contra&c- _
against this charge, the brethren have 0o~rmede.d that tion. The question is to be answered thus : "A contra-
there  is indeed conflict between their  theorku  (the diction exists when two sentences or propositiions  stand
brethren, of course, call their views not theories but in relation  of opposition, so tiat only ona can be true?"
doctrines) and Scripture. Their contention is, how- We may take *as an illustration the two& propositio,nsns:
ever, that this oonflict is o.niy apparent and thus nut "All men are by nature  totally depraved" "No men
actual. They  oomctly  m!.aintain that their can be no `ore by nature totally depraved." Now it is obvious
actual  contradceions  in the Bible.                            that both cam# be true. Here, therefore, we! have to
       What I  wi:sb to make plain in this writing is, that,    do, certainly, with an  ucm contradiciton. Sot, an
despti &ir cuntention  to the contrary, the brethren actual contradiction 6%~ when Qnly one of two prop
are foisting not  wp~~r@& but  act& contradictions up positions  cxvn be i?ue and thus ~I~KU one of the two
on Scripture. The data. which will be needed ti sub- mu& be .faZae; Hence, ,o.s Zw%er tells his readers, there
&anti&e  this charge will be gathered mainly from the can be no u&u&  contradictioa  in Scripture, for if there
recent   articl~es  of Rev.  Zwier,--articles appearing in w(ere, it would have to' b.e said of Holy Writ that it sets
"De Wachter".                                                   forth the lie. But the reverend informs. his readers
       The  bnethren  have begun to <distinguish between that Scripkure  does contain apparently contradictory
real and apparent contradictions. Their contention is pairs of propositions, and! these, according tot the rever-
                                                  r


                                      T H E   S T A N D A R D   BEARBR
                                          I - _ - - c - l - e - " - - -                                                      259--
end, are again of two kinds:  la) those that man by shall havle to be and &IO, actually is, "Nat Gad's but
his defective logic is unable  to reconcile, or, otherwise man%. God's logic is perfect."  This is in substance
,said, the oneness of which man is unable to perceive, Zwier's answer, derived from his writmgs. In these
but which, as they merge in a higher  unity,  tit  is,              writings the  expresetion   "gabrekkige   menschelijke   lo-
stand in a relation of harmony to each ,other according gica"  ,occurs over and  over.  The  term "gebrekkig",
to God's logic (but not :acco.rding  to the defective lrog~c ilowever, is lout of place tie. What Zwier  shtouid  say
oif man), are not to be classified with the cccU%l contra-          is, "Taking the divine logic tas our criterifoa, then hu-
diction;  b) the  apparently  contrary pairs of propo- man logic is altogether land absoluteiy illogical, that
sitions which man, the believing student of Scripture, JIS, oontrw to, the laws of thi&ing laccordmg  to wnich
can and  does  harmonize, that is, the unity of which lhe God thinks. This is <what Zwier should say ; and he
do= perceive.                                                      actually does say it  t&rough  his  &l?rm.ing  that two
   Now ;the reverend in his writings sets before his trulhs oan defy human logic and can still be merging
neaders specimens of both kinds of arppawntly  oe.ntrary            in that higher, divine unity. Now if this be true, man's
pairs of propositions. The specimen of I&E appare?ztly'             logic  Iand that of God stand: in relation of opposition;
aontrary pairs of propositions; (oontained in Scripture)            and if so, man's logic is not merely "gebne~kkig"  ; it is
that defy man's defective logic, that is, the unity of thoroughly false. What man  ttinksi is always in  Bc-
which  {tie:  mind of man cannot  d&over*   .is  found in ocrdance with laws of thinking that are wnong.
a writing from the reverend's pen, appearing in "De                        So then, human logic, if Zwier's appzaisal  of it is
Wachter"  for Nov. 29, 1938. "The Reformed Confes- correct, is a complete  fai:ure, absolute darkness. I
sion," wrote  Zwiler, "which, las we know, maintains two can't understand how Zwier, should, he be attaching
truths, which WR cannot possibly reconcile with each any value whatever to his appraisal lolf human lo.gic,
other, on account of the fact that the  ~two seem  to dare think and not &one think but pen and publish
exclude each other, namely, on the one  hand  God's what he thinks as well. Butt ,Ue; dare. the even, won-
sovereign, unconditional and immutable election, and derful to; say, dare tell w people, despite his total lack
on  t.he  &her  hand the full responsibility of man  m of confidence in "de menschelijke  logica"  his reazom
specting  Ihis choice, leaves in ~this  respiect  man's! mind ing to the ,effect that we incline toward rationalism,
unsatisfied." (I translate as literally as possible. The that,  as students of Scripture, we are rationalists. The
meaning of this sentence evidently ia that the Reformed daring ,of the brother !
Confessio%  fails to  satify man% mind in respect to
what it  teaohes  regarding God's  e!ection  and man's                     The explanation loif ,the brother's  doin,g may be the
responsibility, namely that God% el~ection  is so~vereign          following. Zwier  has thought on our case. And the
and that man, nevertheless, is fully resptcmsible  for his oonclusion  a& which he arrived is that as students of
choice. G.M.O.) . Were then we have to do with a pair Scripture we are rati~onalists. But consider that Zwier
of  prapositions  that, according to Zwier, defy not God's holds to the view that man, through sin, has Itost his
but man's logic. Zwier calls them  ama.rcntl?J contrary capacity  to1 think cogently. Now I itake it that Zwier
propa&,ilons  of a class that cannot be harmonized by felt assured that .all his readers were fully aware of
human logic. But does this reasomng of Zw-ier make his holding to this viewi and that therefore they would
sense? Let us shew that it does not, by getting at the say when reading what Zwier wrote #about us, "What
boatom  of the matter.                                              Zwier means is &hat the deniers of oonrmoa  `grace are
   The two propositions  or truths with which we  naw               rationalists according to Zwier's corrupt logic and that
have to do jarer : a) God's el~edio'n  is sovereign. b) Man thus,  *according  to  divine logic not they but Zwier
is responsible for ,h.is choice. Consider n,ow that Zwier's .and  his+ colleagues are the people with rationalistic in-
aontention   lis that these two  {truths,  contrary though clinatiorm as theoJo~gian,s."             N0w I assure Zwier &at
they be according  to :human logic, merge i,n a higher, the majority of his readers are not aware of his esti-
divine unity, "zich oplossen  in .een hocgere,  goddelijke, mate of the capability of the hw mind. This being
enheid". Thus the .expression  "hoogere  eenheid" must true, Zwier finds himself  undoer the necessity of mak-
denote in Zwie& thought-structure God's logic. In this ing this plain to1 his readers, that  rthey may know how
structure then w.e come upon 2 kinds of logic, God's and he wants them to understand his iappraisal  of us.
ma&s. And from the &-cumstanc~  that, according to                         But  let us proceed. Zwier, as was shown, affirms
Zwier, the two truths in question merge only in that with emphasis that, whereae  there can be no actual
higher divine unity, it must of necessity follow that crontradktio  in Scripture, the two truths in  qu&ion
God's logic and man% 1,ogic stand  in relation of oppo- cannot be  a,.ctuully  contrary. But,  wheireas  Zwier's
sit.Poin,  so that what is logical and true according  rto view is that there are two kinds of Iogic, human and
Gods' logic is illqgical  and untrue aoaording to8 the logic divine, the  questi,ops must be put, "according to  wh.ose
of man and vice!  versa. But this compels us to face the Bogic  `is there  no  actxaJ  co&X&?"  This question  calls
question, "Whose logic is lactedly  characterized by il- for but one answer : "There 6s no actual conflict accord-
logicalness,  GKKUS  or man's?" And  Zwier's.  answer hg  90 God's logic. According to  God's logic  the two


.260                                     T H E   S T A N D A R D   B E A R E R
                           -                                    -
truths are, must be, certainly, in perfect agreement. me that in this case he is asking far too much of that
 This must be, Zwier's answer. Now whereas Zwier's                   mind of his. He ought to be more considerate of his
 conception is that God's logic and  ma,n's  logic stand in mind. There is also such a thing as a man trying to
 relation of opposition,  ttis answer  of.his   is equivalent stretch his mind too far. Supposing that mind should
 to the statement, that according to human logic, the snap. What then? Zwier ought to say one  o:f two
two truths in quest&m ase not mereLy  apparedly but things: either that according to human logic the two
actually contrary. Zwier also literally asserts this. truths in question w~?rn to exclude esch other and thus
        Attend once .mcIre  to this statement from his pen, actually according to this same logic do YU)~,  or &at
 "Maar   als we  deze ontmoeten,  &wee   merstukken,  die these'same  truths according to this same logic (human)
wij met onze gebrekkige menschelijke  logica  onmoge-                actually   exclude each other and thus do not merely
1ij.k  kunnen  rijmen. . .  ." Now if words have mean- seem.
 ing, then the thought here express&  4s that these                     Now if Zwier should resolve to address. himself to
 "twee  leerstukken" are actually contrary doctrines  a.c- the task off purging his thought-structure from this
 cording to human logic. `I&is must be, as these two oontrad'iction, his first act should be to carefully ex-
truths merge  nut in  `-eea hoogere  mensch~lijke   een- am& the  apression  "gebrekkige menschelijke  logi-
heid" but "in eon hoogere, gloddelijke  eenheid".                    oa".      What  d:oes Zwier have reference to when he
        So then the teaching of Zwler IS that the two truths avers that human logic has been impaired by sin? Dr.
 are in ae&uaZ agreement ticcording  to Gods logic and W. Thomson distinguishes between pure and applied
 in a&u& clti~greem~t.  aocording  to the Ioic of man. logic, "Pure Logic' is the science of the form, or of the
 This, of course, is  not what  Zwiter   literany  teaches.          form&i laws, of thinking, and not of tthe matter. Ap-
 But it is implied  in his reasoning.                                plied Logic teaches the application of the laws of think-
        As has been shown, what  Zwier literally affirms is ing to those objects about  which men do think." Thus
 the very opposite, namely that the two truths in ques-              applied logic signifies: a) the laws of thinking as ay
 bion  are only in uppared and thus not in actual dis- plied;  b) the objects about which men do think; c)
 agreement but in actual agreement with each other and               what men think  o'f  thee objects ; d) the thinking
j this certainly r&t according 8o God's but moording  to mind.
 man's  logic. How could two truths seem to be in actual                     A question. Dow  in Zwier's thought- structure the
 agreement according to God's logic? This cannot  be. expression "gebrekkige menschelijke loglca"  concern
 What Zwier must have  melant then is that the two pure logic or applied logic? Otherwise said, when
 truths  Seem  to us (not certainly to God. Things do Zwier maintains that the two truths in quest-ion  cannot
 not seem to God)  to be contrary acoording to human be harmonized by impaired human logic, was he think-
 logic and thus are not, according to this same logic,               ing of man's mind or of the formal laws: according to
actually  contrary.                                                  which the process. of thinking should be conducted?
        Tlms there is a strange conflict in Zwier's thought-         Now it is plain froim Zwier's entire rfas.oning  that he
 structure. He teaches that the two truths in question had not the above distinction  befo,re his m.ind when
are  acaording  tcr human logic  actually  cantrary  and he penned his articles. So the que&ion is: what is the
at once not actuaLly wntraq but c&y apparanetly  so.                 view or conception which Zwier either wittingly or un-
 If the latter  Abe true, why cannot the two truths be wittingly broached in his articles. This can be known.
harmonized by human logic. If two such truths-truths Zwier avers, does he not, that the  twoI truths in  ques-
at bottom one-defy human bgic, this logic must be tin cannot be harmonized by human logic. Now such
"gebrekkig" indeed. If Zwier has any confidence in a statement must be made to  a.pply not only to practi-
his appraisal  of human logic, it is hard to understand cal logic, that is, to the mind of man and to the capacity
how he dare think one thought. But he dare think!                    of man's mind to think but also to the laws  .according
        It is safe ito say that Zwier will experience consider- to which the process of  thinkin3g  must be ctmducted
able  difhculty  in getting himself to admit that this               (pure logic). Hence, Zwier's statement to the effect
oarntradiction  is actually present in his thought&rue-              that the two truths in question  cannot be harmonized
ture. But he will have to come t.0 it. Any attempt on by impaired human logic, must also mean that
,his part to bring unity in this structure without purg- as a result of man's fall the two truths in question can-
ing it  frlo,m the  conception  that two truths, which can- not be harmonized by cthe applicatioin  of the laws o,f
not be harmonized by human logic "zich  oplossen in thought (the pure logic of man),  F;Lnd  that thus not
een  boogere,  goddelijke eenheid" must of necessity re- only man's mind but also these very laws were effected
sult in his piling mmsensie  upon nonsense.                          by in. Consider that the state of things Zwier de-
        Zwier ought to, purge his thought-structure from scribes: is due to, sin When man was stiI1 uncorrupted,
this contradiction. I am well  awa,re  that Zwier  has               the state of things, according to8 Zwier was difflerent.
been endowed with the kind  of a mind capable of Then, such truths as now defy man's logic could be
believingly  winding  itseIf  about two truths actually harmonized by the application of the laws of thought
contrary according  tot human logic. But it seems to                 (human logic). Then such truths merged not only in


                                        T H E   S T A N D A R D   B E A R E R                                          261

the mind of God but in the mind of man as well. What mortals men. with fine minds. We call them capable
then, awording to Zwier, has ha,ppened to the laws of people. Some of the men in this  gr;oup are so very
thought, man's pure logic? From Zwier's teaching to capable mentally that we call them brilliant,.  TD this
the  ef%ect that since the fdl the itwo truths in question group Zwier below. He i:sl a man with a fine mind.
merge in Gold's mind only and thus cannot be recon-             Zwier  is a capable man. Why then did ,his mind fail
cibd by the pure logic of m!an, it must fiollow t&t, in to function according to the laws of  valid thought?
Zwier's thought-structure; the laws of human reason-            According to Zwier, the reason is that his mind has
in,g  ehave been literally reversed by sin. Now I ask, is been so impaired by sin that he is incapable of this.
this true? Assuredly not. Yet this is what Zwier Now  is this true? Assuredly  I-I&J. If Zwier believes
actually teaches. According to Zwier, when man feI1,            what ihe says, he ,has no regard for his mind whatever.
it ceased to be true that if all men are mortal and if Now this is not tight of Zwier. He should have a high
I am a man, I am mortal ; ceased to be true that, if regard for his mental capscities. For he has a good
a reasoning  is  to be  valitd, the syllogism must have mind. It seems that I think mulch more of his mind
three  plroipositio,ns  and only three; that every syllogism that he does. He disqualified his mind in his articles.
must have it:hree terms and only three; that the middle I, on the &her  hand, hold high th& mind of his. And
term of a syllogism  must be distributed at least  o.nce;       ia  dc~&ng so, I  cam sincere.  H,ow I  wish that Zwier
that no term may be distributed in the conclusion that would correctly appraise his mental  cap,acities   ! A man
was not disltributed  in one of the premises ; that from wKan inferior complex can't do good work.
two negative premises nothing can be inferred  ; it                What then may be  the reason that man's mind fails,         '
ceased to be true, when  ma.n fell, that twice two is           or, better said, refuses to function  +&cording   ito the
four, that the-  sbcrrtest  distance  betwes.n two points       laws  of valid thought? The reason is that  mar@
is a line; that Then two thin,gs  are equal to the same ethical nature has been totally oorrupted  by sin,. The
thing, they are equal to each other.                            result is that man loves rthe lie and ha&es the truth.
     If the laws of human ;thinking have been reverseti         So, as under the sway of his great antipathy .to the
by sin, if from the point  of view a9 pure logic God's truth and in hiis spiritual blindness and stupidity, man,
-ZJUCJ  is  equiva&nt  to  man's  nay, how could God  ev3er     we all by n,ature,  cannot will  ta conduct  &he process of
make Himself understlood  by man. How could we know our  thinking accor:ding  to the laws  of valid reasoning,
wh'at God is saying to us in His  Wordr  What is the            if we discover that in doing so we a&mnce  the cause
lo+gic  o,f Scripture, human or divine. He who says that of the truth.  Maa by  nafure will engage in cogent
it is divine and then adds that the laws of thought have thinking only when he  sees that by  doing so he ad-
been reversed by sin, declsrm  that t'or man the Bible          vances  &he causie of the lie. The result is that what
is a closed book. On the other hand, he who says that tihe flesh thinks about God is always a lie. And the
the logic .cb Scripture is human lafld thereupon main-          essence of this lie is that Gc&is darkness.
tains that the laws of thought have been reversed by               So then, the reason that the natural man's practical
sins, declares that the Bible is a conmtenation  of !ies.       logic (what  man thinks) is always corrupt when the
W'htat have the breth!ren,  what has Zwier come to in           objects  of thought are the things of the Spirit, is not
their endea,voNr  to: give their theories a show of plausi-     that, as Zwier has it, the! laws of &ought have been
bilirty  ?                                                      reversed by sin, is not further than man's mind, pure
     Now the above observ&ilons  concern pure logic. As         Eeaslon, has been so impained  by sin that Ihe is no longer
tc practicaI  logic it can be extr;emely  faulty. The practi- mentally capabfa  of ooaducting the process of thinking *
cal  l,ogic that  on& encounters in the articles of Zwier is    according to the vaIid  Iaws of thought, th,e peason  is
in one word w&tcbEd. I will adduce more proof of this man's corrupt heart, his antipathy to the truth to-
in the sequence of my article.                                  gether witih the resultant spiritual blrindness.
     W,hrvt is the  expltanation   of the  metchedness  of         The faulk lies with man's heart. And of this Zwier
Ztier's  practica1  logic? The answer: The failure of seems to be unmindful. According to Zwier, the fault
Zwier's  mind to function according to God's law,, of lies  firstly with the laws of thought and secondly with
valid thought.     How  is this failure on the part of man's pure reason. Attend to this  fno.m the brother's
Zwier to be saccounted  for. According  to, Zwier him- pen, "Wat de geloovigen betrefit,  zij  z&in ten eenenmale
self, the  r;eason  is that man's mind has been impaired c1nbekwaa.m  om bet woord Gods te kunnen waardeeren.
by sin to rthe extent even  that it has become impossible Hun verstand is verduisterd, hlin logica is verdorven,
for him to conduct his process of thinking according hun zinnen  zijn verblind, zoodat ze  wa,nneer   ze de
to the laws of thought. Is this true? Now we  a11               S&rift lezegn,  van de heerlijkheid  van Gods openbaring
know it to be a fact,, of course, that there are men nie'c begrijpen" (De Wachter for Feb.  7,1939).
of extremely low intelligence.       Grown up men and              Notice the expression,  "bun  b,gica is verdorve-n".
women there are with the mental capacity of a child             Let us translate here, "The logic of the natural man
of five or seven years old. We Gall these peoplle  stupid. i!s corrupted." Now  ik is evident from the clause that
On `the other hand, there is also to be found among fo!lows  (hun zinnen zijn verblind) , that the te,rm Logic


262                                     T H E   S T A N D A R D   B E A R E R
                              ~---                          ---_
in the above sentence, mu& be made to apply to the               Not,  certainly by his mental incapacity to think cogent-
nci&. Zwier has it then that the reaEm the natural ly but by his love of a theory-the thwory of common
man  carmolt  understand the things which are of the agrace.  Hence, not  l&s  mind but his will  ia  at: fault.
Spirit,  i,s not that  he  is  h&eful  of  -the truth and  c:f Zwier will reply that his illogical reasoning is found
God, is  noit that he is prejudiced  against  Christ on ac- in  Scriptur;e.  Doesn't Zwier realize that to maintain
count of his being dead in sin, but the reason is that           this is to rail at Scripture, is thus to rail  alt God?
his mind, his mental oapacity  to think in agreement             Dcesn't he realize that the laws of  %ought   are as
with the laws 4cf thought, (has been. too much impaired sacred  as the ten commandments and that thus k@
by  sin. And in the next paragraph Zwier tells his               violate them o,r to use them Eor the advancement o:f the
headters  that this is the teaching of Paul. He quotes life, lis &in? If SQ, s,hould  the sacned  writers loC Holy
Paul to  the  folBo.wing   efffect,  "Maar  de natuurlijke Writ be accused of departing from the laws of rbhought?
mensch  begrijpt (l&e lo:rigind  has receive, aocept)  niet Is the Bible a wicked book? There is not  Boone illogical
de  dingen,  die des  Gee&es God's zijn ; want zij zijn rea.sonin.g,  not 10.1118 pair of contra.ry propositions to be
fhem dwaasheid, en ,hij kan ze  niet  yerstin,  omdat zij        found in ther whole of Scripture.
geestelijk onderscheiden w.orden" (I Cor. 2 :14). Does1             One  more  illustration. Zwier  b,elievEs in `a  we:ll-
the apostle teach here that the natural man cannot waning offer of salvation to the reprobated  tha!t thus
understand the ,truth on account o,f his being dievoid           `God  rin His  blve wills  to save them. On the other
otf  tie mental capacity to think cogently? Indeed no:t          hands, Gold also wills not to &aye them, according to
Mark the clause, "for they are  fodishness  to him. . . ." Zwier. According to tihe l*aws of thought we have to
The thought set forth by this clause is that man by do  lIeire  wirth contrary  pno#positicms.  But  accordin,g
nature mocks with the things  ~o;f  bhe Spirit of God. ti Zwier, the propositions are only apparently  ooatra-
Why does  Ihe mock? There can be but  one reason: he dictory and thus not actually. How, is this departure
h&es these things. And hating, he can neither will to from the la*ws of thought on the part' of Zwier to be
reoeive, accept no,r know, *and spiritually discedrn them. accounted fior? Again by ithe love of a theory.
Thus the fault lies not with man's neas:oning pow= but              The two propositions last cited are, according to
with his corrupt will. Christ teaches  tihlis, too, and          G.08.s  an8 `man's logic actually contradictory.  Thiq
even more pointedly, "And in this is fulfilled the pro- tolo, as was shown, is Zwier's teaahin,g, despite the fact
phecy of  Xsaias. . . . se&ng'  (that is perceiving ration- that he tells his resd.ers thalt there Iare in Scripture no
ally) ye shall isee (ye *&all have rational understanding actual  oontra.dictions.  And, as was  a&l+  he tries to
of the truth),  and;  shall not perceive (that is, spiritual- put the peoiple at ease by telling them tha,t they neled
ly discern, ap@eciate, eval'uate  correctly) .' ' Tlhie truth not worry as ithere  are moTe such contrary "truths"
here set forth is that what the  natural  man rationally to be found in Scripture, namely!  suclh truths  1a.s "God's
perceives through. the glass u3,f the wordl, to wit, the &e&ion  is sovereign"  snd  " man is responsible for his
things heavenly, does not sfand  qut in his mind as a choice".             How,ever  in a following  articlle,  I  shall let
blessed reality. If  ma.n   th:ncagh  sin  lost his mental Dr. Gerhardus Vos of Princeton tell him that rightly
capacity to think in agreement with the laws of ocnsidere.d  these two truths <aare not contrary, not even
thought, he has b&come  like unto the irrational b$east          apparently so. By yuoting from his wlo,rks I shall let
and, if so, he-according to Christ, has no sin. Zwier            Vos tell Zwier, that it is exactly the Pelagian who, as
should realize  `t&at ithr;ough  his affirming that as a  re-    driven  by rnadice, puts the& two truths over against
su!t of tihe fall man lost his reas.oning  power, his1 ra- each otbef.
tio.nal   intellige.nce,  he  deaies  human  resprasibility.        Orus w!ord in concl&on. In his most recent artic'e,
How strange that Zwier does the very thing against Zwier had much to say oin the subject of ratiolnalism.
which he in his most recent articles over and  ovex              Whaf he wrote was meant,  of  course,   fo'r our eyes.
warns.                                                           What in e&ech  he tells his readers is &his:  "Know w,eJl,
       L& me now prove lthat when man departs in his that tlhose  men are smitten with the contagion of pa-
thinking from the laws of thought,  the fault lies n~lt tionalism. Th.ey and their teachings are therefore to
tith his mind but with his will. Scripture Iaffirms  that be shunned as a noisome plague. I, Daniel Zwier warn
whatsoever is not out of faith ,is sin" (Rom. 14 :23b).          mu.
Zwier, to be s,ure, *accqtts  this scripture. Now the pro&          W'hat now <according to Zwier is i$ to be?ieve? To
noun "whatsoever" r&&s to every conceivable work                 believe, accoEd?ng  to: Zwier, is to affirm from the heart
of man, Ieven tot his eating and drinking. IIence, ac- that God's logic and man's logic exclude each other and
cording to the law!& of thought it  fo!loiws that, whereas that thus from the p&t oC view of pure logic, God's
the  natura.1 man  always acts from the principle of un- yea is equivalent  to, man's mg. To believe, according
belief,  ad1 his  wo,rks   are sin. But  Zwier's   con&~sictn    to Zwier, is to a.ffirm that through sin G:od's laws of
lis  th& all the works 04 this man  are not sin in the thought for man were reversed, that twice two became
sight of  Ocd.  Hoaw  is  thh departure from the laws            eight, black white and white black. To  believe, accord-
of thought on the part of Zwier to be accounted for?             ing  Do: Zwier, is to suspend God's laws of thought  and


                                                T H E   S T A N D A R D   B E A R E R                                          263
                -J""...s             -_lll-.                                                                                      1
to glory in thle illogical. And who, <according to Zwier,                 nation, death, endless Ihell. And there is such a world
ds  .the rationalist? He it  % who, when minding the -where the curse of a righteous God must operate; a
things o:f the Spirit of God places his intellehct  in th                 world of corrupt and guilty men over wbase  unright-
service  of his faith and conducts the process of his eousness the wrath of God must be revealed. There
thinking accordin,g  to GodTs laws lolf thought. I want is a hell where God's wrath must burn eternally, and
to: sky, however, that, if this is rationalism, then all B grave that must consctitute  to this hell the corrido'r.
the prophets and apostles including Christ Himself Sin must have dominion; for mean ,in Adam, his cove-
were rationalists.             What is rationalism? What is nant  hea.d, transgressed the  oommand  of God.
Eaith? These are questions to be answered in a fo,llow-                      Out of this w&d He will pass. But how will this
ing article.                                                              be possible? Consider Wat He tis united to B people,
   So, through this insistence that Holy Writ is in con- guilty and dead through trespasses and  Ein. Hlow can
flict writh itself, through his pointing his finger at us. He pass with these unto the Father. Know that He
and crying, ra;tionalists  ! rationalists ! People beware! will bear the griefs of this people, carry their sorrows,
Through the above vicious descriptions of rationalism be wcunded  fur their transgressions, and be bruised
and faith, Zwier seeks to shield. his eilrpositions of -his               for their iniquitiVes. So will He dehver  them from this
theories a.gainst  attacks upon them by this magazine world  and go with them to the Father, because He
and to gain his readers for these theories.                               takes the way  elf the cross. Loving His own, He will
                                                      G. M. 0.            love them unto the enId,
                                                                             Such was His resolve. And to this resolve He gives
                                                                          ~pression,  through His washing their feet. Through
                                                                          this act He declares to them, though they do not under-
                                                                          stand, that He till cleanse them from all their sin, and
                                                                          set them in heavenly places.
                                                                             He washes their feet. The disciples are amazed.
                He Washeth Their  Fe&                                     Pe6er  is even prolvoked. But he keeps silence until th?
                                                                          Lord comes to him, when he says, "Lord dost thou
                                                                          wash my feet?" *The  others  to their sh,a.me have per-
                             Then cometh  he to Simon Peter: and Peter    mitted Thee to perform this  labour  upson  them. But
                            saith unto him, Lord doth thou wash my        I `will not. Do masters wash their servants' feet?
                       feet ?                            John 13:G.       Nay, Lord, it shall not be'
                                                                             Peter's  remonstranoe  springs from  8 mixture of ig-
    Christ washes the feet  of His disciples.                             norance, pride, and love  o,f Christ. But in replying
    Hlow  great the  love IIe bears them. How firm His! Christ touches upon his ignorance only, upon  this lack
determination to offer Himself. Ho;~v the zeal of God's of understanding. "What I do  thou knowest not now;
`house consumes Him.                                                      but thou shalt know herleafter."
   according to John, it is hfore the feaist  of the Pass-                   Peter is not to; be reasoned with. Taking  Iittls
over. He knows that His hour has come that He shall notice  elf what Jesus  h.as said, be- replies with ve-
depart lout of this world unto the Father. He kno,w,s                     hemence and finality, as if *he were the master and
that the one way that  leads out of this world will take                  Christ the  ser.-van% "Thou shalt not wash my feet."
Him into the) company of strong bulls of Bashan, who                      He has spoken. Let the Master here. Should Peter
will beset Him round, gape  upan Him with their mouth, realize of a sud&en what it would mean to him should
as 8 raving n.nd roaring  lion. He knows. that on this Christ do aa ih'e bids Him,, he would be struck with
way He will be the reproach of m*en, despised of the                      amazement at the foolishness  an,d sinfulness of the  re-
people, that all they that see Hilm will laugh Him to                     sistence he now  shopws Christ.      What he  virtu&Iy
scorn, shoot out the lip, shake their h,elad iand say, "IIe               has said  tc: Christ is, "Thou shalt not cleanse me from
trusted on the Lord that Ee should doliver  Him ; let my sin in Thy blood. I sefuse to be slaved by thee. I
fiim deliver Him, seeing  H-e delight&h in Him"  Ke will perish in my sins." Christ makes him feel  some?
knows that in the abyss through which the way leads, thing  elf this through His replying, "If I wash thee  II&
all the waves and the billows of Cod's wrath will go thou lo.& no part in me."
over Him. Yet He is resolved to go by this way-the                           The full meaning of this r.eply,  Peter at this time
way of Golgotha,  with its terrible cross. Such is His `is unable to grasp. Yet the reply is sufficiently mea*
resolve ; for He knows that the way of the cross  alel~ ingful to Peter to break down all his resistance,  ,and to
leads out !of this world. A.nd lout of this w&d He will cause him to yield his entire self tic: Christ. "If I wash
now pass. Out of this  worl:d!  What a terrible and thee not, thou ,hast no part with me." Rut if the mat-
woeful reality this word  zctorld  signifies. VorZd stands ter stands thus, if to be  wasihed  by the Lord  is. to have
for sin, for this earthy, for corruption, misery,  svo~,                  part with Him, let the Lord then wash him, and not
suffering. Say world, and you say wrath, curse, dam- only his feet but also l&is hands and head. For, though


264                                       T H E   STANDAriD   B E A R E R

he sees not the ne~cessity of the cross, his s.o,ul  cleaves       being administered  unto!  by Christ the Lord. What
unim  Christ.       The words of Christ have therefore `he gives is not what he had first received but what
pierced  hisheart.  So  hue instantaneously replies, "Lord, he possesses of himself.
not my feet only, but also my `hands and my head."                     Christ only serves as Lord. And Lord  ,of His people
*So does he go from osne extreme to the other, because he indeed is. As their Lord He redeemed them by His
he loves anid because, loving, he understands not and is           blood from the  po!wer of Satan and from all sin. If
ca,rnal.                                                           He, the Lord, washed their feet, they  who are not
       But he is  also. a man reborn. So they all a,re with Iords but servants oaght to be willing to dlo likewise.
the exception of Judas. He is therefore  essentia;lly l3or a servant, certainly, is no greater than his lord.
clean. He thus feels  hi'mself  greatly  drawn,to  Christ.            And the servants of Christ serve one aanother as
The love of Christ  is in his. heart. He  is already washed poor in spirit, wh'ose service is so much good frui,t that
in Christ's blood. He  need&h  not "save to wash his they bear because they by a living faith abide in Christ,
feet, but is clean,  +wery wit", he hears Christ say Who is their sanctification  a& justification,
this to him. So. does the washing of the feet  corn? to               Opposed to this service is that  ol the proud, of those
signify daily, sanctification.                                     who lord it over Chr&t's heritage, the masters in the
       Having washed their feet, Christ explains  tb; them church, who usurp Christ's place in His kingdom and
the lesson of His doing. They must be willing to serve carry on as though the flock were their property upon
one another. Not so many hours ago, they had again whom they may impose their own yoke. In serving,
been disputing among thesmsielves  who was tot be the they seek self. They are haughty and vain. They will
grea,test  in the kingdom. The ambition of  each of wash the feet of athers but themselves will be washed
them was to be  rais,ed   to the highest place in His              by no one. They judge others but themselves will not
kingdom. The mother of two  oC their number  had be  judgd.  They deem themselves fountains  t'hawgh
.even put in, a request in behalf of her" two sons. Could they do not drink from the stream of  `grace that floweth
her sons each sit on His right and on His left hand                from the throne of ,God.
when H,e would come into His kingdom. Thus they are                                                                     G. M. 0.
men with worldly  ambiticns.  They are looking for-
ward to ruling. They must look forward to serving.
Their Lord and Master serves them. He washes them                                   '
in the blood He will shed for them. He saves them                                              NOTICE
from  +all their sins. He washes their feet. So He now
slays to them, "Ye call me Master and Lord : and ye do                Those who wish to subscribe to. "De Reformatie",
well; for so I am. If I then, your Lord and Master,
have washed your feet; ye also ought to  wwh one can 80 so by sending their srubscripti1c.n  to R. Schaaf-
another's feet."                                                   sma, 524 Henry St., S. E., Grand Rapids. Price $4.25.
       It is., of coursE', a s,piritual service to which Christ
here alludes. It is a service that consists in the one
working for the  p.erfection  of the other and  fcr the
edifying of the body of Christ, till they  a!1 come in                                   IN  MElMORIAM   *
the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the
Son of God. It is a service that consists in the one                   Ma een Echtvereeniging van bijna  vijftig  jaren',  nam de
res%c:ring  the other  that has been overtaken by a fault,         Heere heden  tot Zich den 5den Januari, 1939, onze gehefde Man
in considering one another  to provoke unto love and               en Vader,
good  works1 in the one warning the other, if he be                                       W. HOEKSTRA
unruly, in the one comforting the other, if he be feeble- in het  voile geloofs vertrouwen in zijn Heer en Heiland in
minded, in the one s.upptc;rting the other  if Ihe be weak,        den ouderdomvan 82 jaren  en 5 dagen.
in the one praying for the other, if he be spiritually
sick.                                                                            Namens  zijn bedroefde Echtgenootc en Kinderen
       So. shall they serve one ea,nother,  not as lords but                                    Mrs. W. Hoekstra-Marra
as servants. The proud man will serve you too, but                                              Mr. and Mrs. A. Hoekstra
only as lord and <not as servant of Christ. It means                                                                    Denver,  Cal.
that  ihe serves not in humility and love, but in the                                           Mr. and Mrs. J. De Fouw-Hoekstra
pride of his heart. He will wash your feet but not as                                           Mr. and Mrs. Tony C. Hoekstra
one whose feet need w.ashing.          Hence, he has never                                        en  Rleinkinderen.
been washed by Christ and therefore has no pcrtion                     Grand Rapids,  Mich.
with Christ. But he will  serve, providing those served
wiIl receive him as lord in Christ's stead. In a word,                 *Because of errors in this Obituary which appeared in the
he will, serve but not as one who himself has need of February 1 issue, we were asked to reprint ,it with corrections.


 THESTANDARD
                            A   R e f o r m e d   S e m i - M o n t h l y   M a g a z i n e
             PUBLISHED BY THE REFORMED  FREE PUBLISHING  ASSOCIATION. GRAND RAPIDS,  MICH.





 Vol. XV, No. 12.        Qmtaradas   nmnd  elms mail
                         matter  at Crrnd Z&d&.  Yich          MARCH 15, 1939                             Subscription Price, $2.00

                                                                            king of Israel. To be sure, the second Psalm is strong-
          M E D I T A T I O N                                               ly pruphetic  and speaks ultimately of the Messiah and,         .
                                                                            His kingdom. Hardly a P&m is quoted so frequellltly,
                                                                            comparatively, in the New Testament  es this  little
         The Raging Of The Heathen                                          jewel among the songs ,of Israel. But a mi&a,ke we wlould
                                                                            make nevertheless, if we would interpret  this  psalm im-
                     Why do  6he  heathew rage,  and the m&iatdy in the light of its ultimate realization and
                 people imagine a. v&m thing? The kimgs                     significance, and not consider, first of all, that its  pro-
                 of the  &wth   set  t&m.s+elves,  and the phey  ihas  a historical-typical basis. T.he Anointed of
                 rulers take coumel  togefihw,  say&g, Let the Lord mentioned in this inspired bit of Hebrew
                 us brea?c the+ bands aswndm9  and  cast                    poetry is the one thaitl speaks i,n verse seven: "I will
                 away their cords from  us.                                 declare  the decree: the Lord bath said unto me, Thou
                                                         Ps.  2:15.         art my Son ; this  Iday have I begotten thee". And the
     Foolish raging !                                                       subject of th& sentenoe  is the author of this psalm.
     The heathen furiously rage !                                      `    And the author of this ps.aIm is David, Israel's royal
    And shall norE He, that sitteth in the heavens, !augh?                  singer. For thus did the Church of the new dispen-
    For, they are  r&n&$,  they set themselves in battle sation refer to this prophecy, when it broke forth in
 array and they take counsel together, khey pl~ot and prayer  <and praise: "Who by the mouth  of  rthy servant
 conspire,  against the Lord end His Anointed !                             David ha& &d, Why did the heathen rage, and the
    Concretely their fury is dine&d.  against the Anoint- peepIe imagine vain things?"
 ed of Jehovah.          Their deepest purpose is to rage                      David, the son of Jwei was the Lord% anointed.
 against the Lord. But Jehovah is in the heavens.                              Was not Israel the kingdom of God? And was not
 He doeth  whatsoever  hath pleased Him. Him their David the man &ter God's own `hearti!, foreordained,
 fury cannot reach. But to give vent to their fury called and empowered to represent Jehovah in this
 against the Lord they rage  against  His Aointed. Dues kingdom, and, on the b&s of the Mosaic legislation,
 nqt!  `the Anointed  o.f  Jeho&vah represent Him in the                    to  rule in God's name? And were not many nations
 earth, in the visible creation, in the world of our ex- made subject unto  *him? And did they not, hate him,
 perience?  Is not an  en&&d one a servant of the end  ha&e the law of the Lord, His people and His
 Lord', one that is endowed with power and authority oause?  . . . .
 from  on nigh to appear officially as of the panty of                         But the Scriptural term  David  is also David's house,
 the living but invisi.ble  God, to speak for Him, to act the generations of the son of Jesse!
 upon His authority, to rule in His name? Hence,                               For, with David God had established His  cevenent
 against this Anointed I.$ the Lord they <rage and plot                     And  as always, so also this covenant is made with him
 and prepare the battle for the very reason that He is and his seed, in the Tine of his continued generations.
 the Lord's Anointed:!                                                      lit' is of this eternal covenant, of these sure mercies
    Who may he be?                                                          of David, that Psalm the ei,ghty-ninth. sings : "I ,will
    Against whom are ahl the powers of khe world so sing of the mercies of the Lord  for ever: with my
 furious?                                                                   mouth will I m&e known  thy faithfulness to aI4 gene%
    He is David !                                                           tions. For I have said, Mercy  shall be built up for-
    And David is, first of all, the son of Jesse, who was ever: thy fai+thfuIness  shale thou eotablish  in the very
I, &led from tend&g  his father's slheep to become the heavens. I have made a covenant with my chosen, 1
                                                                                                                                   `:

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

have sworn unto Dfavid my servant, Thy seed will, I               He it is that is always in the loins of David's
establish forever, and build up thy thr.one to all genera-     generations, and upon Whose destruotion  the powers
tions. . . . I have laid help upon one that is mighty ;        of darkness are bent when  fiey  ,are furious against
I have .exalted &e chosen  out of &he people. I have David's! house!
found David my servant; with my holy oil! have I                  It is He that finally appears as the holy child Jesus,
anointed him. With whom my hand shall be estab- against Whom dB the powers of hell are let loose!
lished ; mine arm  &IO shall strengthen him.           The        And why?
enemy shall not exact up.on him ; nor the son of wicked-          Does not David  rule in righteousness, in the name
ness afllict him. A&i I will beat down his foes before of the Lord?
his face, and plague them  that hate him. But my                  Does  ncfi Jesus  laf  Naaareth speak the words of
faithfulness land my mercy shall be with him, and in eternal life and pass through the land  djoing `good, al-
my name shall his horn be exalted. I will set his hand ways good?. . . .                                           ,. .
also in the sea, and his right hand in the rivers. He             Why, then, do the heathen srage?.  . . .
shall cry unto me, Thou art my Father, my God, and                Foolish raging!
the rock of my salvation, And I will make him my
firstborn, higher &ban the: kings of the earth". . . .            Wicked fury!
   And how the heathen are always furious and rage                0, how they rage!
against David and his house in  his generations !                 HOW  wickedly they set themselves against David
   HQW  ioften the  kings!  of the earth set  themseIvee       land his house and his throne and kingdom in the old
against him and his people and gather against Jeru-            dispensation  ! Was ever royal house hated as was the
salem and thw daughter of Zion tto, destrog  them from house of David? Was ever kingl,y dynaslty the object
the earth !                                                    of so unreasonable, insane, ins&able  hatred as was
   Yet, in deepest ,&se and in its ultimate realization the line of David's generations? Could not they, and
this Psalm speaks ob the Christ, of Whom David and the people under their dominion with them lament in
his  house were but types and shadows, Iand in Whom truth: "Many a time they  `have afIlict&  me from my
the  line of David's  generaitions  culminates. The  oov~+ youth  ; the plowers plow& upon my back, they made
nant with David is essentially the covenant of the bong their furrow#?
triune God with Him, Whom He had appointed to be                  Why do the heathen rage?
heir of a11 things, both in heaven and on  etartb. To             Why are they s@ furiua against the Christ, when in
Him, God said, before the world was!: "Thou art my spite of all the attempts of the powers of darknes to
Son, &his day have I begotten thee",' an eternal Word pr,event   His coming, He finally appears?
of God finding its historical realization in the resur-           Is not itheir fury insane? How they are  dl gathered
n-&ion of our Lord. To Him  He made known the                  against  that one Man, the holy child Jesus! Big men,
decree, which in  time the Christ  Qnnounoes  and for men of power and authority, kings and rulers of the
the realization of which He suffers and batties to the earth, men of renown and power in the chukch, leaders
end:  "Ask 009 me and I shall give thee rt.he  heathen for of the people and the people themselves, Jews and
thine  inh&tance, `and the uttermost parts of the earth Gentiles, Pharisw and Sadducees, Herod and Pilate,
for thine possession". He is the Anoint&  of Jehovah Caiaphas  and Annas,,  the Sanhedrin and the Reman
Who shall sit on th@ ithr,one of David, not in its earthly soldiers,-all  tare set against Him, and their fury seems
form, but in its eternal and ,heavenly  glory ; net as ruler to be inexhaustible! Does it not appear insane  when
over earthly nations, but as king over all things in           Herod, plotting to destroy the child &susI d&ermines
heaven and on the earth. . . .                                 upon  the wholesale slaughter of all  tof  Bethlehm's
   This is evident from the Psalm itself.                      chiIdren? Is there not something irrational in the way
   This is plain from all the Scriptural passages where they are forever watching  Him, Who) passes through
this prophetic song is quoted.                                 the land doing golod?  How they spy upon Him? How
   Thus the  Church  understood it in Acts  4:25-27:           they attempt tu cat& Him and kill Him almost from
"Why did the heathen rage, and the people imagine              the very beginning of His public ministry ! How they
vain  thinp?  The kings of the earth  stolod up, and plot and conspire and lay their snares in s.ecret 1 And,
the rulers were gathered together,. a~gam&  the Lord           when &hey finally find: a traitor, that will sell his own
and against his  C%risrt. For of a  truth against thy soul for thirty pieces of silver, and take Him captive
holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed,  both Herod         in the dark garden of agony, how they rage ? They
and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and 8he people           come against Him, Who was defenseless and never
of Israel, were gathered tog&her". . . .                       carried a *sword+  armed to the teeth, as egainst  an evil-
   He is the Lord's Anointed!                                  doer; they bring all hinds  ,of insane accusations again&
   It is He that is in Davild,  that is the Root o; Diavid,    Him; they beat Him and buffet Him ; they spit upon
and because of Whom the heathen rage against the               Him and blindfold  Him ; they mock at Him  and revile
wn of  Jeee!                                                   Him ; they scourge Him till the blood  runs down His


                                        T H E   S T A N D A R D   B E A R E R                                            267

 back; they  cro!wn Him with  a crown  of thorns and               And God sent His Anointed.
 clothe Him in the mock-ruya.1 rolbe ; they try to satisfy         And the Anointed appromhed  man with the cords
 their wrath by infiicting upon Him the most cruel and of the Dord.
 the most shameful death, the death of the cross; and              And they became furious! Away with this man!
 even then they are not satisfied, still they rave and         Crucify Him! . . . .
 rage, and mock and  revi,le!                                      Why do &he heathen rage?
    Did ever man suffer as He suffered?                            Wicked rebellion !
     Was  ever man the object of hatred as He was
 hated?
     Did  ever aI! the world rage `its;' they  raged about
 Him?                                                              Vain imaginati0n  !
    And why?                                                       Why do the people imagine a vain thing?
    An ,accusation  they cannot find. To ally evil deed            For a vain thing, an empty thing,  a thing that is
 they cannot point. Even when the Roman governor impossible of accomplishment, that must needs  endi in
 asks them the -question: why? they can only answer, utter and comp?!ete  failure, do they imagine!
 that hhey wouId  not have brought Him unto Pilate if              Do they not see? Have they no understanding?
 He were not  ian evil-doer. And,, when Pilate, in spite Can they not perceive the utter vanity of setting them-
 of Himself, must express the verdict that he can find1 selves against the Lord and His Anointed? Do they
 ,no evil in the man, all they are able to reply is : Crucify not  undierstand  that He that sitteth in  t-he heavens  1
 II&n ! Away with Him ! Give us Barabbas and let shall laugh at their futile raging? Do they n& hear
 Him be crucified! . . . .                                     the thunder of the  decree,  announced by the Lord's
    Why dlol the heathen rage?                                 Anointed: Henceforth  shall! ye  see the Son of man,
    A rational  `answer there is not. But there isr the sitting at the right hand of God, and coming  wirth the
 reply of sin: "Let us break their bands asunder and clouds of heaven? The Lord hath'said  unto me!?. . . .                     .
 cast their cords away from us !"                                  They hear not, neither do they see, nor do they
    That is their purpose:                                     understand with their heart!
    The desire to realize that purpose motivates them              And; they rage and rave against  the Lord and His
 in their fury.                                M               Anointed !
   Wicked ,rebeIIion  incites them ?                               And, hehold,  they seem to succeed !
    Imsurnection  against the Lord and  a.gainst  His              The Gentiles in conjunction with carnal.Israel  set
 Anointed !                                                    themselves4  against David and his house. And they
    Their bands, the bands of Jehovah and His Anoint- appear TV ha$ve the vi4ctory  ! The house of David ap-
ed, they break ; their ocrds  they would  casrt; away from pears  tu be destroyed. The  throne of Israel is cast
them in their fury.                                            into the dust. First E&r-aim  breaks his bands asunder
    Bands of righteousness and truth, of :h&ness  and and casts his cords away. Ju&h alone is left.  -Then
love they are; the cords of the precepts of the Most the powers from without  ally themselves  with wicked
High. they have in mind. For these `are hhe'banda  of Esrrael from within, and David's house is ro$bbed  of its
the Lord, and these are maint&ned  by His' Anointed.           g1xx-y and power ! In ca.ptivXy  the glory of the Lord's
    Time was, when man's inner life, his heart and Anointed is trampled under  fc&. A plaything of the
soul, his mind and will and  all his inclinations and deL      nations is the roSya.  dynasty that was to have dominion
sires were harmoni+ously-  unite& by these bands and forever. The tree of David is cut down to the
cords of the Lord. From  within man was bound by glm.l~~.  . . . .
tha. For in true righteousness, holiness, truth, the              Yet, the Root of David  remams  !
Creator ,of heaven aand earth had formed him. Then                The ro3s of Jesse !
he  did not feel them as bands that  Iimited his liberty.         A root in :a dry ground, but a root, neverthdess  ?
Bound from within by the cords  of the Lord he was !And it lives ! And it  sprouti! It  yieIds a branch!
rt'ruly free. . . .                                            And it grows! And th,e heathen recognize Him! This
    But the arch-liar came. . . .                              is the Lord's Anointed, indeed! The heir? And again
    And the dealdly  poison of the lie was instilIed  i+nto    they  ra.ge,  a.nd  `again; they  seem  6x11  overcome! They
man's ,&art: Ye shall be like Cod. . . .                       diestroy Him from the earth ! . . . .
    And he felt the  bandg of Jehovah, of the love of             But He rises from the dead!
God, of truth, right~usness and holiness as cords of              And He is exalted to glory, high in the heavens,
oppression  ?                                                  far above  ,all principality and power!
    His liberty he felt as bondage!                               And He comes again., the  Lords?  Anointed!
    And ever since he raised ithe cry of insurrection:            To establish His Kingdom forever!
,I& us brsa$ their bands asun&r,  let us cast their yoke          Hosqnna  in the highest!
away! . . . .                                                                                                  H.  H,


                                       T H E   S T A N D A R D   BEAR'ER                                              271
                                                                             -    -
    Vandaar, dat  bet  verwijzen   naar die vermaning
van Kalamazoo niets anders  is d,an eon holle!klarik.                             Yankee-Dutch
    Aheen,  wie het nog  nooit  ernstig  opnam  met die
vwmaniw en  dus nog  nimmer   een  paging  waagde,                                       HI.
om de "gemeene  gratie"  verder te ontwikkelen  binnen           (This particle is a continuation of the one that ap-
de perken door de dxie punt& gesteld, kan  naar die peared in Vol. XV, No,. 3, pp. 52, 53. Material of a
vermaning verwijzen en  zich er op beroepen.                 different nature had the preference and till now crowd-
    Zoo lang de drie punten  er zijn en w.ordsen  gehand-    ed out this closing article  one the  lab.ove subject. Ed.)
haafd, komt +er van die verdere  studie niets.,
    Niemand heeft bet tot nog toa gewaagd.                       The question remains: what may be the causes
    En wie ,het ooit zou probeeren,  zou spoedig de on- that the people of God in the world so often relapse
mogelijkheid  er van  i&en.                                  into a jargon 0.f Yankee-Dutch in doctrine and in walk,
    De drie punten  moeten  earst uit den weg.               so that it seems so difficult for them to maintain and
    Dan eest kan men weer  beginnen.                         co~nfess the pure truth of the Word of God in their
                                                   H. H.     generations?
    ,,                                                           Why do we not, why can we  not remain Reformed
            IK HERHAAL MIJN VRAAG.                           in doctrine and walk, in confession and life, in the
                                                             full and pure sense of the  wordt?
    In  verband met bet artikel van Ds. H. J. Kuiper             The passages from Scripture to which we referred
begen  de ,komst van Dr. Schilder deed ik de vraag :         furnish the answer.
"En zou Dr. Hepp olok invloed gebad hebben op den              * In II Kings 17 we find that the attempt is made to
hoofdredakteur  van The Banwer?"                             ;instruct  those that are foreigners with respect to.the
    Ik her&al thans die vraag.                               covenant and the commonwealth of Israel in the  pre-
    En ik zou er oak gaarne een antwoord  op hebben, cepts of Jehovah and the knowledge of God's rzovenmt.
hetzij  dan van Dr. Hepp, van Ds. H. J. Kuiper of            They did not belong to the people of God. They were
van iemand  anders, die th& weet.                            not born in the covenant-line. They were introduced
    Men heeft mij  we1 kwalijk genomen,  dat  ik dene from without and bad taken up their residence in the
vraag gesteld  `heb in het publiek. Maar niemand gaf land of Israel. They were not G&s people. But they
een a&woord  op mijn vraag. En dat ware tech niet were qafraid  of the li.ons God sent among them. And
moeilijk   geweest.  Werd Kuiper niet door  Hepp  be-        for their own  8afety's sake they sought instruction in
invloed, men zegge ,het even, en ik zal gaarne  hekennen,    the knowledge of God. Hence, a priest of the Lord
dat ik ,(qok al waren er we1 reden  voor in het verleden)    was sent to instruct these aliens in the precepts of
                                                             God's covenant. They tried to keep certain religious
Dr. Hepp verkeerd heb voorgesteld in die vraag. Maar
men n&me bet mij niet al te kwalijk, dat ik de dingen,       fo*rms in order to escape the wrath of theI "god of the
die in `t get&p geschieden, zooveel mogelijk lie&t open-     land". But at heart they cared not for Jehovah's ser-
                                                             vice,  .and they continued to serve their own gods.
baar. Als men van die geniepe dingen  zelf veel heeft Yankee-Dutch religion was the result.
ervaren, dan ontwikkelt bij lemand  van zelf de neiging,         Here we may find one of the chief caus.es 0.f the
om alle geheime  werkingen en besprekinsgen  tegen  een
persoon,  meedoogenloos  in `t licht te stellen              fact, that the Church is always exposed to the danger
                                                             of nslapsing  into Yankee-Dutch in doctrine and life.
   En ik herhaal  thans de vraag met nadruk.                    Always these foreigners,  khat are spiritually es-
   Ik zal zeggen waarom.                                     tranged from G,od's  covenant, are found in the Church
   Er wordt hier dour  een kerkeraadslid der betrokken of Christ in the world. They tare born from the genera-
gemeente  het volgende  verteld.                             tions 0.f God's people, and they are introduced from
   Dr. Sc'hilder trad in die bepaalde  gemeente  niet og.    without. For, as to the first, all is not Israel &at is
   De vraag was : waarom niet?                               cf Israel. What is born in the Church  &es not all
   De zaak was wel op den kerkeraad besproken Dat belorrg to the seed of the promise. Just as `there is d-
was v&r Dr. Schilder naar Grand Rapids barn. Er ways the true, spiritual  sesd in the generations. of
waren  er we1 van den kerkeraad, die er voor waren  om       believers,  so there is always the c-arnal seed. They acre
Dr. Schilder te  laten optreden. De leeraas kwam  ech-       in the Church, but not of the church. They are not
ter ter vergadering met een brief van Dr. Hepp. En born of the promise. In their deepest heart they are
,dat besliste de zaak. Men besloot  om Dr. Schilder ni& ungodly.  Tlhey love not the truth, but the lie. They
te verzooken.                                                care not for the covenant and. precepts of the Lord,
   Als `t niet  waar is, last men het dan even zeggen.       but they hanker after  thie: things of the world. Often
   Is `t we1 waas,  dan wordt het tijd, dat die dlngen       they fall away from the Church in the world, as dead
in het Ii& gesteld worden.                                   branches drop  o,ff the trees,  *at an early age. In that
                                                   H. H.     case they are a cause of sorrow and grief according


272                                   T H E   S T A N D A R D   BEAREiR                                             4
to the flesh, but they cannot corrupt the Church. But established, to Christ! Lifelong misery is: frequently
Lsometimes  they remain, for whatever carnal reason the result. Very few instances excepted, the Lord
theq  may prefer to do `so. Outwardly they profess the usually reveals that He risk not pleased with our assum-
truth, although they are nev,er very definite in their ing another yoke with the unbeliever. He, whu before
confeission.  Outwardly they walk  i*n the way of the marriage, perhaps, gave  superf&l  reasons for the hope
precepts of  the Lord, though they hate to bear His that he might be "brought to CJhrist",  after marriage
cross. They remain with  t.he Church-visible. And usually soon reveals that he is  a.n enemy of the Church.
others, for various reasons, join themselves to the When children are born, their baptism  ,and instruction
Church, although they are not living members of the in the truth of the covenant  devulves  upon the believ-
body of Christ.                                               ing party. There is no unity in the most important
       These- are foreigners, laliens  to the commonwealth    thing in life. Cooperation is lacking. When the un-
of the people of God, and will never be anything else. believing party is the father, be usualIy  refuses to sup-
Y&, they are instructed in the knowledge of the truth. port the instruction of the children  in  a Christian
They receive mstruction  in catechism, in the heme, in Sohool. Unless the mother in that case is very strong
the school. They are un& the influeme of the Word and is willing to bear the cross she took upon herself
of  God. But at heart they are carnal. They hanker by her marriage  with an unbeliever,  $t.he children will
after the work%  and its lust. They servo other gods. not learn to speak the language of the people of God.
Surely, they do not desire to deny themselves, to take They learn  the jargon of Yankee-Dutch.
Up their cross, to follow Christ. % suffer with Him              Frequently, however, the marriage-relation is en-
they cannot consider a privilege of grace. `They hate tered into with members of other churches than our
the antithesis. As long as their religion daes not bring own. These are ignorant  of  ,tie specific doctrine of
them into trouble with tie world, dl is w&l. But as our churclues, are not acquainted with their confession.
soon as it demands that they take a stand and make In such cases two very essential matters ought to be
a definite choice, they rebel. The result is that they s&M  before the matrimonial union  is accomplished.
will oppose the truth in its definite form. Although There is, first of  al, the church-question. It is,  of-
well  awae  that they  belong to a Reform& Church, course, very important that man and wife belong to
`whose confession is definite,  a.nd whose faith demands the same church. And it ought to be a matter of ex-
a walk distinct from and in antithesis to the world,          treme importance to our young people, when they be-
they gradually try to exert t.heir influence in favor of come acquainted and keep company with young men
a "broader view" and s more liberal walk in the world.        or women from othm churches, with a view to mar-
And if the Church does not watch land these im&ructed         riage, that the latter  are ready and willing to become
foreigners increase in number and gain in influence; member with them of the church in w!hich God gave
the!result  will be that the sharp and distinctive lines them a place. And this ought to be definitely settled
`of the truth are more  ,a& more obliterated. Preaching before the marriage,is  solemnized. A mere  promise is
and instruction gradually become "broader"; in ordztr         not  sufllcient.  The change should be  efFected  before
to leave room  foT a walk in  fellc~wship  with the world.    marriage is entered into, nor is there any reason why
The Church begins to speak  a  hopeless jargon of this  should  not be insisted upon. But from this fol-
Yankee-Dutch!                                                 lows,  the necessity of instruction. T&e question as to
  . -A second cause to which wle must call attention,         our church-membership  is Ia question. of conviction, a
:and which is closely connected with the first, is men- question of the truth pure ,and simple. Everyone is in
tioned  in the p&sage  from Nehemiah 13. There the duty bound before God and his conscience to join him-
evil  .of intermarriage is  emp,hasized.  The Israelites self to that church in the world, which is the purest
took unto themselves wives from the daughters of the manifestation of the  Hody of Christ. And this is a
Philistines,  Moab and,Ammon. The result of the union question of the $ruth One who leaves the church in
was `a mix& race, unholy children born of that wedlock, which God gave him a place from infancy, merely
that spoke half Hebrew and half in the language of because he desires to take to himself ,a wife who is a
the heathen. A Yankee-Dutch brood spoke  Yankee-              member of a different church, sins before God and his
Dutch! VI&at else could you expect.                           own  oonscience.  And one who joins our churches for
       That this-evil of intermarriage is by no means con- tihe  ssme  reason, without regarding the question of
fined to the time of Nehemiah, but is rather frequently the truth,  ia equally guilty of a grave sin. Fur by
praotised  in our own day, I need not say. Sometimes          leaving our own church and joining another, except
children of the covenant have no scruples to choose from the heartfelt conviction that in the church we join
their companions-for-life from the world and to mter there is a purer manifestation of the Body of Christ
into matrimony with downright unbelievers. The pious on earth, we help the cause of the false church These
e.xCuse  is sometimes offered  t.hat one never knows two matters, therefore, .which  are intimately relat&?
whether he or she may not be instrumental to bring should be settled before marriage.
her or him, with whom- the matrimonial relation is               Qften,  however, these are the `very things that are


                                        T H E   S T A N D A R D   B E A R E R                                     .^_.  3%
                                                                                                                       ..L
 neglected. The result is that through marriage parties catechism-rooms, our homes ancf our. schoojs. And we
join themselves to our churches that are not thoroughly should put on the whc$e armer of God, and fight the
 instructed in and acquainted v&h our doctrine, and good fight, never compromisiq.,tith  the.enemy,  giving
in their deepest heart are not insympathy with it. The no quarter. `For we wrestle not with flesh and blood,
 church is weakened. The element that has no know- but  againti  principalities, against powers, against the
ledge or a very superficial knowledge of our Reformed rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual
 truth increases. And also through this  caxxse the wickedness in high places. Wherefore, my  beloved
 church  gradually  loses hold of the truth and begins to brethren, be ye steadfast,  unmoveable,   ahvays  abound:
speak Yankee-Dutch.                                           ing in the work of the `Lord, knowing that your labor
     And in proportion as! these evils make their inroads shall not be vain in the Lord?
into the Church, the very means we possess to instruot                                                       H. H.
young and old will be corrupted, and Yankee-Dutcrh  willi
 be spoken in the home, in the school, and in the Church.
 Hew can it be different? A stream rises no higher
than its source. If by the peopIe at large, that con&id
 tute the  Church   in  the  worId,  the pure truth is no
 longer known, maintained and confessed; if the carnal
 element  increases  and gains in  influences and succeeds               As To Writing Pamphlets
 in introducing  sits Yankee-Dutch  in&o the Church, it
wiP1 not be long before the same jargon is heard- in              R~centiy  it ~ccured  more than once that some well-
the Christian School, in the  Catechism-rco,m,  from the meaning brethren in the" West considered  certain
pulpit. For, these Yankee-Dutch suppIy our colleges articles I. wrote in the Standa.rd  Bearer, particularly
and seminaries with students, and &hey  presently b in connection with the coming of, Dr. Sehilder  and the
come teachers and preachers. And from the same criticism of Rev.  H.  J.  Ruiper,  su&iently important
Yankee-Dutch source school-boards and  consistories           to be published  in pa*mphlet  form.
are flhed. Under the cloak of a Reformed confession               Without consulting me, cr even informing me about
Arminiamsm  is being taught and preached. And under it, they took these articles to the  printer;transformed
a pretense of Christianity the children of the covenant them into pamphlets, signed my fu1.l name to them,
are  ledt into the world.                                     and  distribut& them among the public in their neigh-.
     Do not say that these things are rather abstract borhood.
and not rear dangers among us. They are so real that,             I hereby inform the recipients of  guch  ramnhlet
unless  `one rather willfully closes  his eyes to the truth, that I am in no wise  respcnsible.for  such publications.
one caninert help to ask the question whether the Chris-          cif course, I am responsible for the contents  as they
tian School is not  a lost cause. W%en one pays atten- appeared in our Standard Bearer.
tion to the instruction that is actually given in our             But for their appearance in $amphlet-form  5 dis-
schools; considers the Iarge place given to various claim all responsibility.
smrts, &so &at in scme~cases the Christian School ac-
tualiy  and very seriousIy  interferes with Catechetical          There  ,is a  difference  between publiihing an edi-
instruction  ; watches the si?ly programs, plays, pag- torial and printing and distributing pamphl&s.
eants, movies, that are offered in the name of Chris-             When the Iatter  is done you leave the impression
tknity  ;  list+ns to graduation speeches  (and  I[ have that you consider the material of special importance
heard some that are  Pelagian and others that are mo-         and that you wish to. use  it;  ,fcr propaganda  Fur-
dern) that are delivered, how can one help to be filled pcJ.ses.
with dismay and  glcolmy apprehensions for the future             And the particular articIes that were published and
of the Christian School and even for its present state? distributed in pamphlet form by the brethren in the
If one  Ioves the pure Hebrew and detests  Yankee-            West, I do not consider of such special  impbrtance
Dutch, `he will love and work for the Christian Schoo!,       at all.
indeed ; but he cannot be enthousiastic  about an institu-        Yet, by the form in which these pamphlets were
tion that bears the name of a Christian SchcoI, while issued. without an introduction by the pamnhlet-maker
it teaches our children and youths the  hoMess  jargon and with my name signed in fuh at the bottom, the
o f   Y a n k e e - D u t c h .   '                           readers must receive the  impression  that I am person-
    Eternal vigilance, therefore, is plainly our caKng. ally responsible for their publication.
We must watch and pray. Watch as individual Chris-            I am not.
tians, antd wa.tch  as officebearers in God's Church on          And I  kindIs request that the  bretti&  involved in
earth. Watch over ourselves, lest we forget the pure the future refrain from  th& publication of  a,ny  pam-
language of the Ward of God and lapse into the corrupt phlets under my name without my consent.
idioms of false doctrines ; watch over our pulpits and                                                     :  H; H.


zsu                                    THE  S T A N D A R D   B E A R E R
i                                                                                                                               -
bet licht van de. doorloopende  leer der S&rift te ver-
Maren.                                                                               What They Are Doing
   En wie dart do&, zal oak toestemmen,  dat. in Matt.
5:44, 45 en Luk. 6 :35, 36 de volgende  gedachten op                                  REPLY TO REV. ZWIER
den vcorgrond s&an:                                                         In defending themselves against the charge that
   1. Gods liefde heeft zich aan de Zijnen geopenbaard thncagh their marshal!ing  Scripture on t.he side of their
en doen  smaken, als eene liefde, die in staat is om de                 theory, they set the BibIe  at variance with itself, the
vijanden  te  bemhmen.  Dit is metterdaad de eenige brethren have conceded that there is conflict but mdn-
liefde Gcds  waarvan  in bet verbapd sprake is.                         tain that this conflict is not actual but only qqarenf.
   2. Gods kinderen, in wier harten  die liefde Gods                    Zwier  tells his  odors  (so I have shown by quoting
is uitgeztort  en die doze  Iiefde Gods als'een  litafde tot            from his writings in "De  Wachter")  that  appare&y
de vijanden  hebben   lgesmaakt,   moeten  nu die Iiefde contrary  `truths, ati indeed to be foun&' in Scriptme
Gods openbaren. Ze mceten  dus niet sl&hks  liefhebben and that therefore no one need ts be alarmed by the
hen, die bun liefde betoonen, maar cok ,hunne vijtinden,                circum&ance that there is no organic connection be-
ais hunme vijanden, die (hen smaden en vervolgen, lief-                 tween  wlh;wt  he  calls the doctrine of  commun grace
hebben, zegenen, weldoen.  Daarin   vertoonen   ze dan and the other doctrines  of Scripture in that this lack
bet beeid buns Vader-s, dire in de hemelen  is.                         of connectirc,n  is only apparent. Actual&,   Zwier means
   3. Als een  algemeen   beeld   meet  hun daarbij  VOOT               to say, that there is connection.
ooga staan het doen Gods in de natuur, & Hij .zijn                          In my previous article under the above caption, I
zon  do& opgaan over  boozen  en  goeden  en het  doet                  stated that I purposed to, show that, despite his  con-
regenen over rechtv.aardigen  en onrechtiaardigen.                      ientioti  to the contrary, Zwier is foisting  up>n the
   Maar van  eexr  guustige gezindheid Gods jegens                      Scriptures   adual contradictions, and that he does this
aJIe Zijne vijanden, met name jegens verworpen  go<: through a thoroughly  dleceptive  reasoning. Let me
delcozen,  is ,hier  in het minst geen  sprake.             .           once more put this reasoning into words, "There are
   Nu mag Ds.  Zwier   deze  verklaring   bestri@en.                    a.ppare&ly  contrary truths to be fo,und in  Ho!y Writ
Maar hij stelle ens dan eerst juist -vxxnr. En hij  ver-                 (such truths &s Gad's election is sovereifl, and Ma?n is
kIare dan zelf den tekst in bet licht van de doorloopende               rmble  for  & choice) which we cannot harmonize
leer der S&rift, volgens dewe!ke regen  en zonneschijn by our  defetive human  Ic& In  all such cases we
geen gunstbewijzen  zijn aan de verwoqxngcddeloozen,                    confess our impoixnoeJ  acknowIedge  both truths to be
geen  bewijs  van. eene  algemeene  goedertierenheid Gods.' the teaching  c?f Holy Writ and  beheving?y  affirm that
   lk  acht, dat het  drievoudig   sneer  van Ds. Zwier, they meTge in a higher divine unity, `Tzich opleesen  in
dat niet  haast verbroken  kon  worden,  hiermee gehee1' een  hoogere;  gcddelijke, eenheid." Let me again say
vernietigd  is.                                                         that a  mure nonsensical reasoning than  .the one with
                                                   H. H.                which we here have to do could not possibly be drawn
                                                                        out by any mind. Let me  andyze this  reasoning
                                                                        a  little more thoroughly than this has been done. To
                                                                        begin,with,  what ,are we to understand by this "hoogsre,
                                                                        goddelijke,  eenheid". An abstraction? This can't be.
                                                                        Whereas such scriptural truths as cannot be harmon-
                                                                        ized by  human  logic merge  "zich  opioszen"  in this
                                                                        %enheid",  this `eetieid" must needs signify the logic
                        A PRAYjER                                       of God. Now the term logic when used of  G&i can
                                                                        signify; net to be sure a process of thinking, the draw-
       Oh, Strongest of the strong! Be Thou the stay             .      ing out of a reasoning (there can be no processes in
       Of the weak creature  that Thy hand has made ;                   God's  thin,king) but the Iaws of thinking  in, God ac-
       I am so helpless that each moment brings                         cording to which all the truth-elements in God's mind
       Some new, some pressing retion for Thine  aid.                   constitute one organic whole.        Ntiiy  buw can two
                                                                        truths, which cannot be harmonized by the applica-
       Oh, Wisest of the wise! I nothing know,                          tion of t& laws of thinking (human Iogic) be organic-
       I  am  zo ignorant,  se' poor, so blind!                         ally connejed in God's mind and according to God's
       Be Thou my Tleacher,  be my Light, my Guide,                     logic? `it can't possibly  lx  unl@ss God's logic and that
       Show me the pathway that I  cannct f&d.                          of man stand in relation of opposition. But would
                                                                 1      Zwier want to  main~in this? He may  no*. HOW
       o'h, Kindest of the kind ! I' come to Thee                     ..-oculd  God communicate His thoughts to man were
       Longing for favors that I sorely need;                         `:  9hiis true? How on the basis of such a conception
       Open Thy bounteous hand, for Thou art  ,He                     ' can it be maintained that believers can' have fellow-
       Whose choice it is to give, in word and deed.                    ship with God through Christ? Can Zwier say?


                                                 T H E   STANDA.RD   B E A R E R  :`-'                                            281: -G
        But now  furtb.er.  What must Zwier understand exists. If Zwier's answer be that ithe reason is that
     by human logic?        Certaimy,  not merely  w$hat man between  these  two  .or three pairs  0f apparently contrary
     thinks  but also the laws of thinking according to which              truths there is no actual logical connection according
     man must conduct the process  or his  thi&ing.                 (If to human logic, then he must `hencefoath be honest
     Zwier in his use of  ithe term  buman   log-it has no enough to refrain from telling the people that according
     ,reference  also to these iaws #he should not at all have 6a his firm heiief  there are no actzcal but only apparent
     spoken   of human logic.)          Now  hoiw could the very contradictions  in Scripture.
     laws  of thinking have been corrupted by sin? Would                      In fme, Zwier Bhould be willing to admit after read-
     Zwier on second thought care to maintain that they ing this that the reasoning by which `he attempts to
     were? He should not because it is not true.                           free himself of the complaint on the part of soma of
        `I'his brinw us to an&her  question. Why, if these                 his readers lthat the pits God's Word a.g&nst  itself is
     laws  were not corrup&d,  and if there can be no con- a' complete failure. Zwier should crust this reasoning
nid between God's and man's  logic, cannot  Itruths                        far from `him. He should never use it again It is a
     between which there is organic connection in the mind reasoning as foolish as it is deceptive and dishonest.
     of God be harmonized by  !human logic? Can Zwier                         Further, let Zwier make up his mind to be honest
     explain?                                                              and resolve  to  +ed people that his theories of  co=
        Further. When Zwier assented that Scripture con- grace are  a.c&u~~Jly  in conflict with Scripture according
     tains truths  that seem  ltol be contrary but that  ac- to both God's and man's logic.
     cording to God's logic merge in  God!s  mind, did. he go
     to the tnouble  of seriously  facing the question, "Nuw                  Finally, let Zwior r&&n henceforth from endeavolr-
     just what can  this moan?"  Evidatly  he did not. jaug to  :ahay  the fears  lo;f `his thoughtful readers by
     He was too bent on freeing himself of  rtihe charge                   telling them that they need not be alarmed by the
     that he pits Scripture against itself. But just what circumstance th& his theories cannot be Iharmonized
     does the statement mean? Nothing. It is  meaning-                     with the teaching of Holy Writ by human logic in that
     .IZSS . Consider &is. If  %wo truth  mere in  Go&s Scriptune  containe  mom such pairs of truth that cannot
     Imind, and if  &d's   @ic and that  a4 man stand in be harmonized by this  logic,  Isuch  rtrut& as God's
     relation of                                                           election   is  sosereign~  and Man is  mzqnmsible   fo?  his
                     opposititm,   how can two such truths be
     a~&tntl~  and not  a&u&y   co&rum according to choice. In my previous &icle I promised to iet Dr.
     human logic? Once more. Zwier tells his readers that Geerb.ardus  Vos of  Prinaeton  tell Zwier that  these
     two such truths as defy human logic oniy seem to be two truths, if rightly explained, are not, according to
     contrary.                                                             human logic, oontrary but agreeable, the one to the
e                 We  ,ask,  "To whom  end according to whose
     Irogic?"  Zwier's answer shall have to be, "To man other.  Betwwn  these two  truths there is logical (I
     and according to man's  log,." Certainly it will not do speak now of human  logic)  connection indeed. I shall
     for him to say that two such truths sem to man to show by quoting from Vos' writings that this theolo-
     be  oontnary   accori$&g                                              gian has 
                                   to  Go&d's  logic; nor will  iit  do                 ak.o succeeded in discovering and exhibit-
     for him ti say that two such truths seem contrary to ing this oonneotion,  otherwise said, that he succe.eded
     God according to Ged's  logic, lor that they soem con- in harmonizing these two truths.
     trary to God  acoording  to man's logic. All  lthree                     Writes Vos (I  hanslate) : The decree of God  ex-
     statements spell nonsense. It is only to.m~~m  that two tends  also over the free acts of man. It is absurd and
     such truths can seem to be contrary ,and this acmrding impossible that what is. most important in the his-
     to man's logic. It means that according to man's  Iogic               tory  of th mrld should be withdrawn from the con-
     these truths  are not actually contrary. If so, how is ,it trol of God's counsel. If in this domain everything
     to be explained then that there can nowhere  be found is arbitrary, the course of history is given over to
     a mortal being with a mind capable of harmonizing capriciousness,  arid:  God finds Himself compelled 6o
     two such  truths by the application of the laws of await the final outcome. Yet there are thcs+e who in-
     thought? Can Zwier explain? He cannot. His answer sist that here an  exception  must be made, as the
     that  the mind of man has been  too impaired by sin rational sense seems to requine a kind, of casualty.
     will not  do tat all. By this answer Zwier involves Man says : if I am to be held responsible for my action,
     himself in a new difficulty.  FKK if the  n&cl of man it had also to be possible  for me to do contrariwise ; and
     can succeed in discovering the logical &nine&ion  be- if my action was determined by God's eternal decree,
     tween  most truths  apparmtly   contrary according to I could & no diff&. In a word, eternal certainly
     human logic, why should this same mind nclt be able and human freedom stand in relation of opposition.
     to eee the conne&ion  between any pair of apparently They are two ununitable concepts.
     contrary truths? Otherwise said, why should `there                       Now  this objection ought  6a be examined with
     be at the most only twu or ;three  pairs of' appurerttiv              great care. It is: not: the execution of God's coansel
     contiary truths defying the power of  man~smind  to "and my ratiotnal'freedom  exclude each other. Free&m
     perceive a unity that acmding to human logic' actually spells uncertainty so it is said. Therein subsists its

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

essenste. True it is, to he sure,  that c&ainty  and un-        Here freedom  Iand  certainly  are altogether compat-
certain&y are contrary  coneepDs.  It is evident how- ible. . . .
ever that the &e&&w  of God's counsel may not be                  It  ought to be clear  now that God c& actualize His
mcldified. If  the  two are  ununitable  so that either counsel without  determini&ically  limiting man's free-
must yield ground, ithm it is certain in advance that dom. Man's free acts ,are not uncertain and the CCJF
the s,econd will have to I&X way, that is tot say, we tailvty which characierized  them iis not effec6ed  by God
&al,1  have to modify our ,ildea :of freedom. We shall in a Materialistic, Pantheistic or Rationalistic manner.
SKY have to conceive  lo-f it, that it no longer subsists as    So far Vos.
,to iis essence, in uncertainty land absolutie casualty.            My first observation is that the above successful
       The paramount question is therefore: what' is atbmpt at Tieconciliationl  is repr?eEentative  of the main-
moral freedom,  that is bae aay, that moral freedom of viction  on the part of VXX, that Scripture cannot pos-
which every one's  ocnsciouness  affirms  th& it is in- sibly  contajn pairs of truth  ae&uully  oolntrary.   Zwier
separable from responsibility.                                  when he rea& this will say, "This, too, is my cons+
       Bow many ideas of freed&n are there?                     tion". What  Zwiier's   oooinvlictic~n   is, 1 know not, but
       1) The  Pelagian  idea of the free will which  a-        this  is  oertainl that the  t&&&g  of his most  recent
inotints   to  oautseless.  self-determination; Now' if man articles respecting the  matiter  nlorw being  deait with
is. to be fnee in' tb.2 sense, there must be no grounds differs fundamentally  asd  radioaily   froxr+  the teach-
from' which Ihe acts determining `his  condutit,   ~At'each     ing underlying the action  sf  Voe., consisting  5n his
point of tha a& of willing he must &-capable of-.con-           bringing  hamony between God's sovereign counsel
trary actions, and if this cannot .be maintained he is a;nd rational  freedom   or responsibility. This under-
not free. Thus .the character of man determin~es-  not lying teaching plainly is that Holy Writ cannat  pas-
`this will, but the will stands above  his character and tibly contain two truths (or conoepts or propositiqns)
by it dharacter  i.6 formed. Maru IIeaves God's hands `a a&.&y  cunkrary  amrding   ti human  lo&. The evi-
neutral  being, neither  go& nor bad. His nature is dence &at I am not ascribing to Vos a teaching not his
a  raitional scale in  ballaxce.- Not until the scale-  has is firstly the circumstance that `he harmonizes by human
shifted to  th8 right or to  khe left side  .is, man -good or logic the m concepts (sovereign counsel  and h-n
bad, holy  ro% unholy.                                          f-m  or accountability)  that  ,according   to Zwier
  2) The idea of freedom that must  also be applied cannot  pssibly be  brought together b$ the application
to- Adam/  . . .                                                of  th.e laws  of (human) thinking,  slid:  s&on,dly  the
   - 3) The third ,Ed.%-of  freedom is inseparately  con- stabement  from  Vos's pen  (contained.   ,in the above
ne&ed   wif& the concept  ~C-LYO and with  rthe concept excerpt) that "It is evident that the  cetiainty   o9 God's
rational being, IS'O thak it belongs inlot only to man but counsel may  not be modified. If the  two  (concepts)
to the pu1~~spir5t.s as' well and in the perfect senss also     arce  irreo&cilable,   .~QJ that either  mu$ yield  gronnd,
to  &Id. It  oc*rnes down to  this that man  alwa.ys acts &hen irt is certain tihtat the second tvli~ll,  have to give way,
from an inward constraint, as  ,there  is something that is  to say, we shall have to modify  uur  i&a of
within him under *he impulse of which he acts. `He is           human freedom."       The certain implication of this
t'hus being molved  not  as. machine from without but as        statement  is  that  th.e student  urf Scripture may  nclt
a psychical org'anism from within..                             allow t&o tiruth!s or scriptural  &ctrin& tot stand out
       1) Now i& is instantantly  evident;, that the so-called in his mind as co*rary in that to do so is to be taking
PeJagian  freedom of the will  .cannot  be reconciled with the stand that Scripture can be at variance with itself.
ad's decree. The UXELSOZU  is that as to its essense  it And as &is cannot  be, the believer finds himself under
spe~lls  unoetiainty,  a.nd is thenefore  irreconcilable with the n-sity of remawing  the conflict thnowgh  & modi-
every kind of certainty and thus ako with th.e certainty fication,  of &he faulty con-t. W$at Vos means cer-
of  God's  decree. So inrespective  of whether we have          tainly is not that the truth as it were a,ctua.&  given
to da with Adam Ior with fallen man, if man's will is           may  or may not be modified. The  meaninlg is, that,
fnee in the &la&n sense, man lies outside,the  scope if there be conflict, the Eault lies wtih our conception
of. Cod's counsel.                                              &f the truth, ED that what is to be modified is this con-
    2) It is. amewhat  differenrt  with the second free- oaption, idea. The sentliment here expressed was also
dom which on the basis of'  Script.ure  we as&bed  to that of men like Hodge, Kuyper and. Bavinck, in shout,
Adam, the possibility of deflecting from. good  $01 reyil. of every Reformed theologian of note. Wrotie Bavinck.
It `is to be observed firstly that Adamb freedom iS not "Iti;ien C&d! en zijn sehepsel  niet aadem:  dan als con-
causeless.  It is Adam's originally  holy nature  that currenten kunnien  gedult worden  en lab da ejene zijne
turns SKY sin and not his neutral nature chooses  in be         vrijheid en zijne  zelfstandigheid  slechts  behouden  kan
`half of itself fior evil.                                      ten ko&e  van den ander, dan rrtol& God ho8 langer hoe
    3) T.he third kind iof. hadtorn  is not in conflict with meer.beperkt  worden in a1jn wehn en willen ; het Pe-
God's decree. God can so work upon man, that man lagianisme  bant God  u% de  we&d!,  en leidt tot deisme
nevertheless can freely work from within. himself. en  atheisme,  en  zet de  willekeur,  de dwaasheid  van


                                       T H E   S T A N D A R D   R E A R E R                                            283-0
den mensch  op den trooa. Daarom moet de  otplossing            under consideration) `were during their lives ration-
van `h@t probleem  in een andere richting gezocht wor- alists. Now I wonder vvhet'her~  in (accusing us of this.,
den, nl. alzoo dat God, dolord& Hij God! en de wereld           Zwier speaks from honest conviction  or from some-
zijn creatuur is, door zi j loneindig groot weten en willen     thing else? He may put himself to a test. If he
de zelfstandigheid  en vrijheid der schepselen niet ver- speaks .from convictiop,  under the impulse of love of
nietigd  maa.r  juist  schept en  handhaaft"   (Gerefor-        the truth, .as driven by the holy desire to warn the
meend  Dogma&k, Deel. I, p. 390).                               ploople  against men whose teachings he regards as
    Mark the sentenoe,  "Daarom  mo& I& oplossing  van dangerous, he will,  Ihe must, without fail, also cry out
het  probleem  in  eene  andere  richting  gezooht   war- against  Vos and  Bavinck and Kuyper. Will ZwrieT do
dwl. .  *  ." The plain rimplicatilca of the thought here this? We shall  we.
expressed is that, whereas Scripture does not set forth            But. now further. Zwier should allow himself to
the lie, the cultivator of the science of-theology 4s &I understand that his oontention  to the effect that the
duty bound  ti so conceive  af all that may be known of two propositions "God's counsel .is sovereign" and,
God that the aggregate of his conoeptions  will consti- *`Man is  .responsible  for  his  .choice"-Zwier, I said,
tute one organic whole, devoid of conflict.                     should realize  that  :h&s   oontention,  to the effect that
    Zwier, as was shown, teaches the very opposite. these  It;wo propositions are contrary according to  man%
' His oontention  is. that if we .apply to Scripture the laws logic can be true only if, ,as Vos -explains, man's acts
of (human) thinlking,  we discover..,aotual  conflict, and lie outside the scope  .of God's counsel, thus  o,nly if
that thus there is allso tof necessity actual conflict in rational  freedom and moral  resp.onsibility  spell. un-
the thought-structure o:f the believing theologian. ' 1 I certainty for God,. which, of ,course, they do not. Is
am not  concealing  the  faot  thaf according to Zwier Zwier addicted to this. Pelagian -view ?a!f moral respcn-
the conflict cannot be actual, but ocuisider  once more `sibility  ? .If we ta,ke  Zwier. at his word, we find our-
that Zwier has it that it is only  aec%rding   83 God's &selves compelled to say that he is. He insists, does he
logic that the conflid is net; actual a.nd that thus ac- not,, that there is conflict *between  .the above-cited doc-
cording to man's  lo&c the  eon&t  is actual enough. trines. Then there is this language from him, "But if
I assure Zwier that this view loif ihis is nuwhere  to be we lencount- these, namely, two &odrines  which we
found in the works of any 109 the above-named theo- cannot possibly harmonize, with our  defetive,. human
logians. It is nonsense that was fed Zwier by the late logic, then we oonfess  our, ignorance without risking
Prof.  Heyns.                                                   an. attempt. to [harmonize  ;trhe two. All such attempts
    This then is the question: Can there be doctrines 04 end in tragedy."             What Zwier, means by this last
Scripture  e,ct&l?~  contrary according to God's laws statement is again plain from the following excerpt,
of thought for man (<and also for Himself) ? Zwier's "The Reformed Confession fails  to satisfy man's mind
answer is an emphatic Yea?. The answer of the stu- in respect to what it tea+es  regarding God's election
dents  of Scripture above-cited 3s  Nay. Closely related and man's msponsibilty,  namdy that God's election is
to this question is that other: are there or can there sovereign and that man nevertheless is fully .respon-
be doctrines of or concepts in Scripture which, though sible  for his choice.  Ho,w much more  acceptable  the
they be  rerxncilable   `as far  `as the (human) formal Arminian  conception that God's election and reproba-
lawsof thought are concerned, man's mind is incapable tion were Idetermined  by &he unbehef or belief vf man
of reconciling ion account of this mind being too much foreseen by Gad from eternity. This  onception  in-
impaired by sin. Zwier's answer to this question. is volves us in no logical  difficulties at all. (A&s: loopt
yea. Vos's  answes  is  mu,  this  camot  be.  There is         daarbij  logis&  zoo  mooi   bs  aa~ men `t  maar kan  be-
still a third question to be put: are the two1 truths or geeren) : God chose those of whom He foresaw that
propositions "Gcd's counsel is sovereign (`or, as Zwier they  wculd  b&eve and repent and persevere to the
has it, God's eledion is sovereign)  " and "man is a free end in their choice; He  rej&d those of whom He
moral agent (Zwier, m.an is ,responsible  for his choice) "     foresaw that they would not believe and repent. . . .
actually contrary according to man's logic. ZWkfS Superficially viewed, this is a nice and sensible solution.
answer is  :yea,   they  ure  this. V&s answler is :- ncty,     "They wthct  come with it seem not to ,realize that they
they  ure  rtot so if  correctly   expl,ained.    Acting upon offer up the one truth to the other. They saved human
ti6s conviction, Vm made an attempt at  reooncilialtien.        responsibility but  deni& divine sovereignty".  (De
And in this he was altogether successful. Thus ,accord-         Wachter,   NQV.  2 9 . 1 9 3 8 ) .
ing to Zwier's conception  ,of rationalism,  Vos is a              F.rom this language it is clearthat the tragedy (on-
rationalist. He did the very thing that,  ,according  to geluk) of which Zwier speaks consists in the loss of
Zwier, no believer ever atte,mpts  even, to wit, reconcile divine  suvereignty  and results, according to Zwier,
the sovertign counsel and ~mtioncd freedom.  Once more, from the doing consisting in harmonizing by human
according to Zwier, Hodge,  Kuyper and Bsvinck  and, logic the two  proposition  in question. Now Zwier
we may add, every Reformed theolo'ffian  of note (they `should realize  once more that this "ongeluk" will over-
all `spoke the same Ianguw in respect to the matter take him only whose* conception of rational freedom

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

and *human responsibility is that of the ,Pelagian,  and       sponsibility  and rational freedom, [the right concept.
who,  because he refuses to disallow this conception,          This having been done, the  cornlict will be gone.
.denies ithe sovereignty of the counsel in order  to rid       Let us put this to a test.  l),God's counsel is  solver-
his thinking of an unendurable oonflict. It means that eign, that is, it is determinative of the free a&s of man
one who is willing to purge `his soul of the lie cannot        and thus spells ceTtainty  for God Hn respect to those
possibly be overtaken by this "ongeluk". Was  Vos              acts. 2) Man is  ~1 responsible being. He is this be-
overtaken by this Yongeluk"?  Assurdy not. And the             cause he acts from inward constraint and is thus .re
reason  is rthat in making plain to his students that tionally fm
there   .:is  no  a&u-~J conflict according to man's  lo&u:       NOW  what   conflict may there be between those two
between the two truths in question, he disallowed the truths SO formulated. None whatever. But now place
lie, that lis, the Pelagian oonception  of human responsi-     in  rthe  r,oom  of the truth under 2) the  Pe1vgia.n  lie,
biliw and placed in $he room thereof the truth, the            "Metu .is a responsible being. He isr this .in that his
right concept. And this  5s what "harmonizing two actions cLre 9~~3 determined by a divine counsel" and
truths"  can consist  6.n.    Rightly considered  Eru&, there is  1cgica.l  co&lict,-a  colnflict that can only be
act& truths, need not be harmonized by human logic removed by disallowing the lie zrnd by placing in the
for  !the very  reaSon that between. truths that are           room thereof the truth.
a&u&y truths thm can be no conflict according  to                 When Zwier in his great consternation cries out,
man's logic. So, harmonizing two truths can only con- "Bewme,  make no attempt at reconciliation, lest ye
sist in man's purbing himself from the  lie that blinds be overtaken by an "ongeluk", he has his leye fixed
him to the truth. The truth as it is ,actually in Christ upon us Iand *his mouth close to our oar. I think Zwier,
&.sus  constitutes one organic, and thus harmonious upon ,reading  this, will ~XXI into it that not m,but that
whole. And this whole is the  me  Word of God.  Ac- he is the man in need of warning. We are having no
oording to  Ztier, God  ihas not His  one Word, but a "ongelukken" in the domain of logic but he. He should
number of unrelated words.                                     therefore be shouting in his own eau~.
       That Zwier tells his readers that `he who harmonize        Zwier avers (in the above quo*tation  from his art-
the two truths in question must. of mecetsti~ be over-         icle) that the  Arminian  conception  of the foreknow-
&&em by an %ngeluk" (q&l& is the word that Zwier ledge ;od God is a clever solution of ithe problem how man
uses), is  a&o amazingly strange. It shows  .khat,  if can be responsible with a sovereign counsel suspended
Zwier believes what he says, &he only conception of over his acts? They (the  Arm&m) seem not to
human responsibility and rational freedom  he knows realize, says Zwier, that "men lap die wijze de eene
of is that of the PeIagian. This accounts for it that he waarheid  `aan de  ander  heeft   opg&&d". And  t&n
could write, "How much more acceptable (from a Zwier makes this remarkable statement, "Do menscheL
purely logicai point of view, Zwi%r mea&) the Armin-
ian conception that God's election and reprobation were lijke v&ant~ordte!lijkheid  heeft  men gered.  . . ." Now
determined by the unbelief or belief of man foreseen is this &rue? Not at all. The fact is that thie! Arminien,
by GoId from eternity." Zwier  oould  not have written through his denial of the sovereignty of the counsel,
this (because it is as far from the truth  as it can be),      saves or rescues not but destroys human responsibility
if  %t were  not for the  fa& that  his conception of in that such a denial brings !him under the.necessity  of
human responsibility is  that of the  Pelagion. The re- conceiving of rational freedom  as causeless self-deter-
sult is that as often as Zwier renews his effort to re- mination. I shall Bet Vos  itell Ztier this, "Their free-
;ieve his mind of that insuf%erable conflict, he is over- dom, (the freedom of man's  ,aots G.M.O.) consist  in
taken by an "engeluk",  the ongeluk against which he their be,ing the expressiu;  of man's character and in
warns,  land which consists in Zwier's mind (not his their being in agreement with it. Were this not the
heart) repudiating  net that Pelagian conception of case, man would  not be  respumsible". Dog. Deel. I, p.
human responsibility  but the sovereignty of God's 127). Thi.~  sta$ement  certainly  is equivalent to  Dho
counsel. As often  as this takes place  Zw$ier  stands assertion that the Pelagian conception of moral free-
aghast Iat the doing lof his own mind. Denouncing ihis dom-the conception according to which this freedom
"gebrekkige  menschelijke   logica"  which is not at all consists  in causeless self-determination-spells the de-
"gebrekk&e"  as the refusal of his mind to tolerate struction of human responsibility. Now  as  the P&a-
contradictions in its thinking, indicti Zwier cleam @an's -denial of the sovereignty iof thf3 counsel necessi-
to the "two truths" (sovereign counsel and human tates the view that moral freedom consist in causeless
responsibility) that, sad to say, stands out in his mind self-determination, this denial  likewise spells the de&
as contra&tory. Now Zwier  shouti relieve his mind ,&u&ion of human  respcmsibility.  The. fact of the
of this contradiction.  Apd  {he can do so very easily matter is then that the saviour of human responsibility`
`and without being overtaken by an "ongeluk". It's so is not the Pelagian but the true, biblical teaching of
very simple. All that  Zwier  needs to do is to place. the counsel, m this teaching only allows one to hold to
in the room ti his Pelwgian conception of `human IX- the right concept&m  of moral or rational freedom I


                                          T H E   S.TANDARD   B E A R E R
-                                                                                                                        285
till let Voo tell Zwier also this, "AS the omnipotent, gate of truths that go by the name of Reformed theo-
almighty, and personal one, He (God) can so rule man logy, form one organic whole. This means not merely
that  the latter, though not without God's  ~41 and  per- that they are agreeable the one to the other but that
mission, acts with perfect freedom frcm within himself. they !are so related that if the one be true .the other
When  Gold sanctifies a man, He is operative in the depth must be true so that the one can be maintained through
of man's being, there where the &sues of life are and              the maintenance of the  &her. Let us take arz an illus-
"dan   beweegt   zich de  lge'heiligde   wil  vanzelf en  ongeL    tration the  two; truths:  1) God's grace is sovereign
dwonger naar buiten, niet  minder vrij dan  &of  hij               2) Man is by nature dead +n rtnespasses  and sin. It is
nooit  onder de  bewerking Gods  gestaan  had." And evident that .if grace on account ,of its being sovereign
now follows this momentous  &atem~nt  from  Vos'                   is the  sole power unto salvation, man is dead through
pen, "Het work God's vernietigd niet de vrijheid  des              sin and thus altogether devoid of power to cooperate
schepsels   rnaar is er  juist de  grondslag  van". (Dog.          with God in `his saIvotiun.    On the other hand, icF man
Deel. I, p. 130). In other words, the saviour of human has of himself strength, it requires  no sover&n De-
responsibility is precisely the biblid view of, the coun- liverer to save him from his sins. , It means that either
sel an& of its execution, &he view  that the counsel is            of  these two truths  stands or falls with the  c&h&r.
determinative 09 man's actioms.                                    And: `so it is with the two truths set forth by the propo-
     Now further.  Zw&r avers,  "How much more &ions : 1) God's decree s@ls certainty for God in z-e-
acoeptable  (from the  point of view, of pure logic, Zwier spect  tol man's acts. 2) Rational freedom and with
means to say. The  st&ement   immedia%4y  following it human  respo&bility  spells  certainty  for God in
the one I now quote reads, "`Alles locpt  daarbij  logisch         respect to %ese  same acts. If what either of  ah&e
zoo  mooi   10s als men `t  maar  begeeren.  . .  .")    How propositions asserts is true, the thought set forth by
much more acceptable the Arminian presentation, that the other m& be true, ,ae the essense of what both
God's election and reprobation were determined by the assert is that &d's  .decree  is determinaitive  of man's
belief or unbelief of man, foreseen from eternity by acts. This  being the case, the logical  a'greement  be-
God." Does this statement of Zwier  &t  forth  the tween the two truths set forth by these propositions
truth? It  does  not. Let me make this plain. The must attain to the highest possible point  ob perfection.
Arminian says, "God's counsel is xmt &&erminative  of In the light of these observations one  cannct help but
man's acts.     Hence,  the counsel spells uncertainty be struck with amazement by  Zwier's  contention that
for God in respect to these  actx" Now place over the  Arminian  presentation of  the matters in  qu&ioa
against this  Armindan  tenet the biblical  teaching of is much more log&Z* than the presentation of+ Scrip-
human responsibility- the teaching according to  which             ture. As if there can be much or anything that is il-
human responsibility spells not uncertainty but cer- lc*gic$ and irrational about the relation between truths
tainty for Got5 and what have you? And the answer: so closely and vitally connected that they stand or fail
a  pair of contradictory  (~a strictly speaking,  corztrary)       with eat%  other. How can there be even a trace of
propositions only one of which can be true. To remove contrariness between two truth  esse,ntialy  identical?
the conflict, the Arminian conoeives  of moral respen-             There cannot be. True it  is that the Arminian  pre+
sibility   as consisting in causeless  self-determin&ion           senta.tion  is much more acceptable  than the. presenta-
and thus of human responsibility as spelling zcncertuiir-          tion of Scripture. It is  this however from the point of
tu. So to  remove  tie conflict, the Arminian places view not of logic but  uf the sinful `heart.
in the place  of the truth the lie. He thus brings into               But, sonxone  may say, b it not affxx dl true that
being two lying propositions which read : 1) God's the two  truths,  1) "God's counsel is sovereign, 2) Man
counsel is not determinative of man's actions. 2) Man is  respoasible"  at least seem to us to be contradictory
is responsible. Hle is this as  ,his moral freedom spells according to man's logic ? This should never be said.
causeless soIf-determination.      This being true, ?Ks u&s What pray  ils there about  ithe  tm propositions: 1)
cm-e  not determined by God's  cewnsel.  Now  there is, "God's counsel is sovereilgn,  2) God's counsel is sover-
of course, perfect agreement between these twoi lies. eign", that even seems to. be contradictory to us from
D.it leapt  inderdaad log&h zoo mooi  los! ds men `t maar          the point of view of pure logic? Nothing whatsover.
begeenen  kan. But is what Zwier says true, namely, Burt  &n't thee a question *remaining &hat cannot `be
that the agreement between these rtwo lies attains to ~ answered, nla*mely  : if God's counsel is determinative
it higher point of perfection, en tdus Pogisch veel mooier         of man's actions,  how can man  be free and thus r+
los  loopt  than the  agrxment between the two proposi- sponsible fur `his acts? This question has been correct-
tions  tha,t  set' forth the truth about God's counsel and' ly answered by Dr. Vos, "When Gcxl sanctifies %\; man,
ma&  refsponsibility?  It can't  .be. How did Zwier Be is operative in the depth of ;kis being, there whm
ever  ooune by such a  netion?  Is the lie  mu& more the issues  of life are and "dan  beweegt  tich de geheilig-
rational and logical thlan the truth, Satan than God? de wil vanzelf en  ongedwongen  naar buiken  niet meter
     Let me make plain tog Zwier how utterly wrung he vrij dan &of bij nooit loader de bewmking  God's ge-
is in this his contentiron. As has been said, &he aggre- shan had." But how about the reprobated ungodly?


286                               T H E S T A N D A R D   ,BEARER

Paul. gives us the answer: God  give' them  ton unclean-      every kind of lcgic .not apparently but actually con-
ncss  thmugh  thie lusts  of  their  m  hmrt, so'  i&at, tradictory (contrary). NQW anybody who will deny
in their being given over by the Almighty, they act this. simply makes  d; laughing-stock  ,of him&f as a
from the `oonstra~int  of their own evil lust and in agree- ~logican. Such a one shows that  he' has no logic of
ment with their sinful nature  a.nd are thus rationally even the first rudime,nts of lcgi~c. Zwier a,nd the breth-
free. But, someone may ask, .is there not something ren have several more such oontrary pnopzitions  of
[here that continues to defy our powers of penetr&ion?        which ijt is claimed that they `are to be found in Scrip-
Indeed  there is, namely: how can  Goti  sanctifyingly        ture. But this cannot be. The Bible is  Godrs  Word.
operate in His peciple  whom He saves withont in the It sets forth the truth, not the lie.
lea& limiting  theair ration&moral freedom: And :                One word:  in conclusion. Zwier, the brethren, are
How  can God give over the ungodly ta' uncleanness fobting actual contradictions upon Scripture. Let
through their +vil lusts without implicating Himself them not deny but shew what they are here being ac-
in-their ,sins and without destroying or even limiting cused of is untrue. They  canncrt;. Now as the con-
in the least their freedom. These  questilbns   ar2r not tradiction spells the  .,lie, their doing is  unspeai&bly
to be answered. The Scriptural name  for"the doings terrible. Why don't they cast away from them their
of God that these questions concern is not  problem  but lying tenets and place in the room th.ereof  the truth?
mzjstery. To say that from the point of view of m~an's           Scripture .sets forth the mystery but not the lie.
l&c (and thus dso of  God?s logic) there is  anything AU God's works  are mysteries. And  Che mystery  is.
irrational  and illogical about the above works, is as        God.  .. Now to  believe  is not to compel  this mind to
foolish  as to say that there  ins  enmething  irrational enoomp~ss  two contrary propositions. To believe is
and illogical  la*bout the works of God consisting in his to worship and adore  The Mystery.
oausing  the sun &o rise and the flowers  to bloom and                                                  G. M. 0.
the trees to grow, and as wicked as to ray that there                       . . .
is something irrational aad illogical about God Him-
*self. How can there be conflict in God or in `his think-         What Had Calvin To- Do With The
ing or in His works? There cannot be. Well then,                           Death Of Servetus?
how can there be, according to ma,n's  loigic, conflict in
the truth about God, labo.ut His works. How `can there           S:D. V. of Grand Rap&, Mich., sent me t.h,e fol!ow-
be &nffilct in the thinking of Qod. as we: possess! it in i n g   c o m m u n i c a t i o n .
His revelation?                                                  In `fThe Standard Bearer" for Feb. 1,1939,  the Rev.
    In  `fine,  it ought  now to be plain to Zwier that       Ophoff writes, "Think finally of Calvin himself who
he should d:esist from telling the people. that according approved  otf the death of Servetus."
to human lio:gic the two truths in question are  actua!ly        In "Calvin's Calvinism" p. 15 I read, "It was a false
contrary  andt that therefore  ,they  need  not be alarmed report that Calvin was  theadviser  that Servetus should
by the discovery that `his theory of common grace ia          be put t,o death." It was most so4emnly  denied. On
in acnflict  with Holy Writ. The fact is that there is p. 20 we find the  salme statement. Will you please be
no conflict  between  the two truths in question. Let so kind as to explain.
Zwior  turn a&ay from these two truths and concentrate           Explanation. I take it that what the brother asks
solely  upon  his  theories*  I will do this for him. I me  to do is to explain how that there can be this con-
will now compel  him to admit that betwen every one flict between my report and that of the above-named
lcrf these theories and Holy Writ there is actual conflict work concerning CaIvin's attitu& toward the infliction
(according  to  God%  and man's logic.                        of the death penalty upon the heretic Servetus. There
   Scripture: God curses the  reproba%ed  ungodly. is but one expl~&nation:  seither the source  from which
Zwier : God ~bliesses the reprosbated  ungodly. Now each I drew or the source from which the author of Calvin's
of  thae propositions contains  la. term  tha& as  to mean- Calvinism" drew is corrupt. `Now my source was Cal-
ing stands in direct opposition to the other. They are:       vin's own letters which he wrote to his friends and
curs%%  Rhe  ungod&,   blesses   the ungodly. Now  will which I possess in S&&f's "History of the Christian
Zwiler deny that these two terms exclude each other?          Church". I consider  my source therefore as coming
No, he will  ncrt.  Consider now that the subject to pretty cl~cee to being absolutely rdia,ble.          It is thus a
which the one term (predicate) is joined  is Bdontical        conundrum to me how the .author of "Calvin's Calvin-
both as to meaning and as tm the form of the word to 3sm" oould tic informed his readers that the report
the subject to which the other term is joined. Consider to the effect that Servetus was put to death on the ad-
finally that the word cur&g  in Scripture has aIwam vice of Calvin has turned out to be, a false rumor. If
the  meaning  of cursing  a.nd  no  other meaning. The this is true Cilvin's letters are fictitious.        Though it
same must k said of the word bZe.wing  and of the term iis, of course, possible  that they are this, it is not very
r@probiccted  urngodly Gnd of the name G%J. What does likely; Though I wrote not  that Calvin advised but
it mean? That the two propositions  `are according to that he approv& of Servetus)  death, there <is not that


                                      T H E   S T A N D A R D   B E A R E R                                      287

difference in meaning between the&e  two words that petual   ,ruEe for the  Churoh. It is not in vain that
will allow us to say that there is no conflict here.       He banishes all those `human effections which soften
    Let me now quote from  O&in's letter to Fare1 on our hearts ; that he oommands pate.rnal love and all
the 26th of October, in which Calvin  g&s  rilr brief the benevolent  *feelings  between brothers,  relaitions,
summary  of the result- vf Servetus' trial, "The mes- and friends to c-se; in a word,  that he! almost deprives
senger has returned from the Swiss  Church=. They men of their nature in order that nothing may hin-
are unanimous in pronouncing that Servetus has  now        der their 6hoJy zeal. Why is so implacable a severity
renewed those Bmpious errors with which Satan former- exacted but that we may know that God  is defrauded
ly disturbed the church, a,nd that he is a monster not of  his honor,  uril~ss, the piety that is due to him be
to be borne. (Mark She statement, "that he is: a mon- preferred to all human duties; and that when His glory
ster not to be borne). Those lorf Base1 `are judicious. is  to be  as&rt&, humanity must be almost obliterated
The  Ztirichers  are the most vehement of all. They from our memories."
of Schafl'hausen  agree. To an appropriate letter from         It is to be considered that in the above Gcerpt Cal-
the  Bernesle  is added one from the Senate in which vin  is writing  in justification of  the death of Servetus.
the:y stimula!te `ours not a little. Caesar, the comedian, The above- cited language is a def@zce  of this death.'
(so he sar,ca&ically caI.lled Perrin. Schaff) after feign- Now  -defence,  certainly, is approval, and to  approve is
ing  illness  for three days, at length went up to the essentially to  a.dvise.
asembly in order to free that wretch [Servetus]                CaJvin%  defence  did not altogether satisfy even
(mark the expression, "in order to free the wretch".)      some of his best friends, writes Schaff. Zurkintden,  the
from punishment. Nor was he ashamed b ask that state secretary of Bern, wrote GaJvin Feb. 10, 1554:
the case  bie referred to the Council of the Two. Hundred. "I wish the former part of pour book, respecting the
However, Servetus .was without dissent condemned. right which the magistrates may have to use the sword
He will be lead fvrth  to punishment. tomorrow. We in coercing  `heretics had nott appeared in your `name,
endeavored to alrter the mode  of his death,.but  in vain, but in that of your council, which might <have been.left
Why we did not succeed, I defer for nanration until I to defend its own act. I do not see how you can find
me you."                                                   any favor with men of gedate mind in being the first
    Mark finally the sentence, "we. (namely. Calvin)       formalIy.to  .treat this subject, which is a hateful .one
endeavor.ed  to alter the ma& of his death, but in vain." to almost  a&"
Thus it was not the de&h  of Servetus t'h& Calvin tried        So wrote this friend to Calvin. He seem& to have
to avert, but simply the mode of his death.. Servetus      been unmindful  of the fact that Calvin was a  gud-
was sentenced to die by  fire. Calvin wished to sub- intoxicated man, and that such .a ma;13; cannot & d+
stitute the sword for the fire; but the wish was over-     t&t-red  from doing what he conceirves  to be a duty -to-
l-l&d!.                                                    ward God by t&e circumstanoe  that this duty is hate-
   `The expressions in CaIvin's  letter wh3ch I marked ful to men.
are certainly conclusive evidence that  C&in  npprosed         AJso Bullinger  wrote his objections, "I only fear
(approved was the word I used)  Servetus'  death.. that your book will not be so acceptable to1 many of the
Whether Calvin literally  &visl&  Servetus  death, this more simple-minded persons., who, nevertheless, are  a;t-
letter cif his does n& shew. But  this was not my con- tached  both to yourseIf `and to the truth, by reason of
tention. But even thoagh Ga.lvin  had not in the literal its  brevity.  and  consequent  obscurity, and the weighti-
sense a&vised,  it &all `have to be admitted that through ness of the subject. And, indeed, your style appears
his approving `he did advise. There is,. to be sure, somewhat  perplerred,  especirally in this work." This
lirttle  ,a&ual   diaerence  between approving of  the death friend, too, feared the re-action of men.
of `a tried tine, and ad&sing  that death.                     Calvin's reply reads (April 29,1554) : "I am aware
    Not only dissenters and personal enemies, writes that I have been more concise than usual in this  trea-
schoff,  but also, as  `Blezd  a&nits,  some orthodox and tice.  Hawser,  if  I  should appear to have faithfully
pious people and friends of Calvitn  were dissatisfied .and :honestly  defended the true doctrine, it will more
with the severitb  lof the punishment, and feared, not than ,recompence  me for my trouble. But thcagh the
wirt'hout reason, .that it would justify and encourage candor and justice which are natural'to  yon, as well
the  Romanists  in their cruel persecution of Protestants a's your love towards  me, Lead you  ito judge of me
in France and &sewhere. So under these circumstances favorabIy, there are others ,who assai1 me harsh.Iy as a
Calvin felt it  to be  his duty to defend his conduct, master in  cruehy  and atrocity,  for  attac,king  with
which he did in his work against  Bervetus.  In this my pen not only a dead man, but one who perished by
work we come upon a paragraph that reads, "Whoever my hands. Som'e,  even not  self-ldisposed  toward. me,
shall now  oontend  that it'is unjust to put heretics and wish  that I  ha:d never entered on the subject of the
blasphemers  to death  wiI1 knowingly and  wilhngly  in- punishment of heretics and say that others in like
cur their very LguiIt: This is not laid down on human isituations have held. their tongues as the best way
authority; tt is God who speaks  and prescribes a per- of avoiding  hatred. It is well, however that I have you

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

to share my fault, .if rzt fault it be; for you it was who baptism.
advised  .and persuaded me to it. Prepare yourself,~                    Servetus   was a `heretic  *and  a;  bl#ssphemer.   * He
therefore ; for the combat."                                         desired and railed against the Trinity.  Thus he was a
      Who was this man Servetus?                                     Socinian and Unirtarian  with Ieanings toward Panthe
:       Calvin repeatedly acknowledges that `he was re-              ism.
sponsible for  Servetus   fasllest.  "Servetus," he wrote               In his n&s to the Council on the 18th of Sept., he
to a friend in  Base], "escaped from prison in some over and over caIls Calvin a liar, an impostor, a miser-
 way or other. . . . At l&ngth,  in an evil hour, he came abIe wretch, a hypocrite, Ia disciple of Simon Magnus.
to this place, when, at my instigation; one of the Expressions as these occur, "Do you deny that you are
     Syndior; ordered him to be conducted to prison ; for I a man-slayer? I will prove it by your acts. You dare
do not disguise  irt that- I considered it my duty to put            not deny that you are a Simon Magnus. As for me,
a check, so far ,as I could, upon this most obstinate and            I am firm in so good a cause, and do not fear death.
 ungovernable man, that his contagion  might not spread You deal with  sophitical  arguments without Scripture.
 further.  We  `SW with what wantonness unpiety is You do not understand what you say. Ycu howl like
making progress everywhere, . . . . we see how very a blind man in a desert. You lie, you tie, you lie, you
     inactive those are whom God  has armed with the sword ignorant  .cahnnnia~tor.   M&ness  is in  you when you
     for the vindication of  His name."                              persecute to death. I wish that all pour madness were
            But  Calvin denies that he  uttered  a word. about still in the belly of your mcrther. I wish I were free
     Servetus' punishment. I quote, "I have not uttered a to make a  catalogue  of your errors. Whoever is not a
     wand abcut ,h.is  punishment, as all honest men will bear       Simon   Magnus  is  considered  a  Pehgian by Calvin.
     witness, and I  chahenge even the malignant  to deny it All, therefore, who `have been in Christiandom are
     if khey can."                                                   damned by Catin ; even the apostIes,  their disciples,
            Of course, this testimony of Calvin we accept as the ancient doctcrs  of the Church and aI1 the rest. For
     true. But the fact of the matter is that,  accordimg            no  one ever entirely abolished free-will except that
     to his own statements, he had Servetus apprehended Simon Magnus. Thou liest, thou lie&, thou lie&, thou
     by the civil magistrate at Geneva, This magistracy, tiserabb  wretch."
     aware of Calvin's  view  to the effect that it is the solemn       In setting forth ,his view of the Divine Being, Ser-
     duty of the state (and not of the church. The duty of v&us was equally as abusive. His fundamental doc-
     the church, acarding to Calvin is to convict and de- trine was: the absolute unity, simplicity and indivisa-
     nounce the heretic  theoIogic&y) to condemn and to ,biltiy   of the Being of God in opposition to the  tri-
     punish `heretics, tried, condemned and punished with personality of orthodoxy. He  calls  all Trinitarians
 death.                                                              "tritheists" and  "athe&". They have not one absolute
            Servetus and, as w;t5 shown Calvin approved and God but a three-parted, collective, composite God-that
through his approving advised.                                       an unthinkable, impossible  Godi  which  is no God
            He was perhaps .one of &he most remarkab'e  men at all. They worship  thtree  idols of the  demons,-a
     in the history of heresy. Quoting   S&off, he was of three-headed monster.
medium size, thin and pale, like CaIvin, 9his eyes beam-                Let us now raise the question  whether Calvin did
 ing with intelligence, and an expression of melancholy              right. His action is universahy  condemned by the men
 and  fanatitism,  Owing  tar a  physical  rupture he was of this `age and by.many  turf his own. But we obslelrve
     never  m+arried.     He seems never to have `had any that it is a question whether  G&in did wrong. W h y
 particular friends, and stood isolated  sand alone.                 should not the blasphemer be punished as well as  the
        His mental endowments  *and acquirements were of thief and the murderer?
 a high order, and plaoed him ,far &ove the heretics                    A final remark. It may be that in saying that the
     >f  his age  ,and  ahncst on an equality with the Re- report to the effect that Calvin advised the death of
formers. He was theologian, philosopher, geographer,                 Servetus has turned out to be a false rumor, the author
physician, scientist  and  astroIoger.  His discoveries,             of thib statement had reference to CaIvin's assertion
writes  Schaff,  have immortalized his name in the that he #had not uttered a word about  Servetud  punish-
 history of science.  H!e knew Latin, Hebrew, Greek merit., -However, in the light of om- findings, this state-
as well `as Spanish, "French and Italian, and was well ment of Calvin has little meaning. It certainly cannot
 read in the Bible, the early fathers  alnd the schoolmen.           be quoted to prove that the report to the effect that
His style in  frequentdy  obscure. He accumulates Calvin  sLpproved,  and made it known through  variOUS
argumenlts  to an lextene  that destroys &heir effect. He acts of his (such as his instigating the magistracy of
g%es eight arguments to prove that the saints in Geneva to apprehend Servetus, and  fm-ther  his request
 heaven pray for us; ten arguments to show that that only the mode oC putting Servetus to death be
Mela,nchton   and his friends were sorcerers, blinded by cha.nged)  that he a;pproved  ,and thus virtually advised
the devil; twenty arguments. against infant baptism; Servetus'  death,  has turned out to be false.
 twenty  five  treasons  for  the. necessity of faith  before                                                   G.  M. 0.


