   VOLUME XXVII                                        January 1, 1951 - ,Grand Rapids, Michigan                                       NUMBER `7

                                                                                   from Thy avenging visitatipn. The whole world is on
                                                                                   the brink of. a terrible abyss. We are  311 hovering on
                                                                                   the very brink of the abyss which we created.
                                                                                          And all know it, but all do not pray.                   .  -.
                                                                                          But we will  -pray, 0 God !             "                        -_
        At The E&ning Of The Year                                                         `For Thou  &rt our Shepherd !  `-  *
                                                                                                       8
                -'
                         L`                                                                                    ,-  -c---3
                          .  .  .  . Thou  make&  us a strife unto our  n'eigh-
                       bours: and our enemies laugh among themselves.                     Thou art dwelling between the cherubim ! And
               ' ' Turn  us again, 0 God- of hosts, and cause Thy face
                       to shine; and we shall be saved. . .  ."                    that is beautiful., For it brings to, -mind. the ark of
                                                              .-Psalm 80.  i the Covenant. And the Ark brings to mind the mercy
       0 God!                                                                      seat. And the  mercy seat brings to mind  the blood
       Thou Shepherd of Israel!                                                    of the innocents.            And  .-the blood  6f `the  ..i&ocents.
       Thou that leadest Joseph like a flock !                                     brings to mind the Blood of L'Emaocence  par excellence!
       Thou, 0 God ! that dwelleth betweeT  the cheiubim !                         It brings to mihd Jesus, our Saviour.
       In the darkness of this hour we have but otie prayer,                              And so we  take  courage  to pray. .  -            +
  nay, it is a suppliant cry : IShine forth !                                             If it were not, for LTwnoce+we  we would not dare                      *:
       If only Thou wilt shine forth within the depths df                          t, pray. .
  our hearts and minds, then all will be well with us,                                    If it were not for, Jesus we would not be able to
  for then we will be saved.                                                       pray. If it'were not for the Christ of God we would
       We have, sung it so `very often : Shine `Thou from                          not want-to  pray. And we may not ,pray to -Thee  out-.
a b o v e !                              -m                                        side of that Mediator. It is only when the Christ of
       It is so very dark. It`is dark in our world of men.                         .Gbd, dwells  with His Holy Spirit in us that  we are
  After sixty centuries the world of men is on the brink                           a c c e p t a b l e   i n   T h y   s i g h t .
  of a terrible war.  Atid we are co-guilty. The `fault                                   And so  ve come in Jesus' Name before Thee  in
  is ours too. And we better take it to.heart for we are                           this dark night and pray : Shine .forth, 0 Shepherd of
  the only people that have been taught to pray. There Israel !                                        "`.       '
  are so many who pray not for they cannot pray.                                          Forgive- graciously all our sins which we have in
       Shine Thou from above, `and  instill. the  need of. common with the wicked world. During the year that
  Brayer and supplication within our hearts!                                       is now spent lie also have sinned.  -with that world.
      -Our world of men is so very wicked. We have                                 `That world of wickedness, namely, the lust of the eyes,
  &own ever more wicked. Since that day when Thou                                  and the lust of the .flesli,and  the pride ,of life, has also
  earnest  down to earth to visit us in our sin `and guilt,                        lived -in us during this past year, and so`we @ition.
  and criedst unto us :" Adam, where are thou? we have                             Thee to forgive our many sins for the sake of the blood
  corrupted our way as a -race of men, and this evening                            of       Jestis.
  of the year finds us in horrible sih and guilt.                                         `0, shine fdrth \vith the- light of. Thy -salvation in
       And the wrath- Ff::Thine is revealed from t&e hea- .our hearts, and we shall be saved.                                          And. then the
  vens.: There is a rumbling of the thunder of the ap-                             wicked  `world shall see the difference. And we shall
  protiehing war that is- t&r.ible.                 It ma*kes our hearts           be as walking Evangels iq the midst of them, ,and -our
.  cPinge with  febr. And  at. this late date  we. cannot                          walk and conversation shall be a witne,rs .`for Thee.
  travel to fields and cities where there is no danger                             I$ shail either draw others to the sheepfold, or it shall

                               \
                                    P


      1 4 6   ~                                            T H E   S T A N D A R D   B E A R E R
                                           -
      condemn them now and in tLe dajr of Thy final visita-                   division, they loudly say: Is that beautiful, glorious
      tion. But shine forth,. 0 God of our-salvation ! .                      Zion? .Is that the city,of which it was said that it was
                                  mc\3.                                       "The' perfection of Beauty, and The joy of the whole
                                                                              e a r t h ? "                    f?
          0 God!                                                                  ;O God, f orgiv,e !
          Thou Shepherd of Israel!                                                Turn us again, 0 God of hosts, and cause Thy face
          We would humbly speak of Thee of our conduet of                     to shine ; and we shall be saved.
      Israel in Israel.
          Israel is  Thy  church on earth.                                                     -         -?-
          It is the congregation of believers in the Lord Jesus
      Christ and their seed.                    '     '                          ,OGod!.                 .-          -
          Israel has always been throughout all the ages,                        .Thou Sheptierd  of Israel !
     for Jesus has gathered them from the `beginning df                           Cause Thy face to shine upon us, and we shall, be
      the world, even till this late  day; And we are  per-                   saved !
     .suaded that He will continue to gather them until the                       When  thhe vine  which Thou hast brought  out of
\     last of  ,God's own are saved,  and time ended. And                     Egypt corrupted herself (and we belonged to that vine,
      then Thou shalt be all in Israel. And that shall be                     and we are and were ashamed of our part), then Thou
      h e a v e n .                                                           earnest : Thou hast cast out the heathen, and planted it.
          But the churbh of. the Lord Jesus Ghrist is a very                      There be many :amdng us that remember it very
      sorry spectacle. She has forgotten the name of her                      well. 0, we know that Thou hast done this time and
      God and spread abroad her hands unto. the Baalim time agaih: we read the history of the church in the
      and the Ashtarotk;. And there was a culmination even                    Old Testament and in the New. And we have noted
      in the. year. which is now almost gone. We are ashamed the same terrible, but also beautiful rhythrh in Thy
      of ourselves as members of the church of Christ. We                     dealings, with this vine from Egypt. They corgupted
      are divided as never before. We are'broken in many themselves ; they cried because of Thy visitation ; they
      different branches and churihes and denominations pepented  ; and Thou' earnest to cleanse Thy vine ; and
      and sects. And we all claim the name of the Shepherd                    Thou wouldest plant .her again. And they corrupted
      of Israel, and boast ourselves of the  Saviour Jesus                    themselves anew. `And the same rhythm repeated it-
     Christ. 0 Lord God of Hosts how long wilt Thou be                        self.  0, it was awful and terrible when we see the
      angry against the prayer df Thy people?                                 part of our unfaithfulness through the ages. But we
          It is now very `much worse than in the days of                      marvel at Thy love! when we see the wonder of Thy
     wicked and cruel Rehdboam. In his days there also                        patience and forbearance with us.
     was a division. of the hosts of Israel, but the `children
      of the Most High were only divided in two camps'.                           And, yes, we remember it very well. When the
                                      .                                       church corrupted `herself in our days, and when we
     And now?                                                                 cried tears in our suffering, Thou earnest: drove out
          `0, we know that Thou wert behind it. The rend- the heathen and planted us. o
     ing of the Kingdom of God was of the Lord. But we
     also know that it came about by the wanton wicked-                          We have lived in the days, and many with me, that.
     ness of Israel-. We tiill not hide behind Thy glorious                   saw the shining face of Jehovah, and we were saved
     counsel and say : it was of the Lord ! And in the midst                  again `and again.
     of our great wickedness we will not wash our filthy                         We even remember the details, the very particulars
     hands in innoceney and say: we are  .elean,  without                     of that wondrqus  visitation.
     transgression !                                                             Other generations spoke for a long time of the parti-
       !  ,O God! In th'
                              IS very late hour on the clock of the' culars of their  own individual salvation which followed
     history of the world we confess our sins, we confess                     the shining face of God. Some spoke of Henoch, others'
     our part in the awful debacle which the church mani- .of. Noah, the preacher of righteousness: 0, how these
     fests in this present hour! We are sorry for our Bins.                   men were hated ! ILater-  we have heard of generations
     Forgive !                                                                which spoke of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Still later
         And we know, that Thou gavest tears for bread, they remembered Gidedn, Bar+, Samson, Jephtha,
     and Thou gave@ us tears to drink in great measure.                       David also, and Samuel and the pyophets! These men
         The world, the wicked world saw all this and they lived and spoke, even after they were dead. Do you,
     laughed. Thou  makebt  us, the church, a strife unto beloved, remember the testimony which the Holy Ghost
     our neighbours: and our enemies laugh among them- gave of Phinehas?  Listen: "Then stood up Phinehas,
     selves. With one more s'cornful `glance they look back- and executed judgment: and so the plague was stayed.
     ward, on the way to their temples of glory (but it is And that was counted unto him for righteousness untb
     not: it is the lobby of bell) I and seeing our strife and al! gen&ations for evermore."
                       . .                                           \


                                                   T?HE  S T A N D A R D   B E A R E R                                    I.47

      0   G o d !                                                  A full Gospel was preached and lived there. And it
      Thou Shepherd of Israel!                      '              was all of God. #God reformed His chtirch in nineteen
      Shine forth in the beauty of Holiness, and we'shall          hundred and twenty-f our. There was \ exactly nothing
 b         e            saved.:                                    o       f            man  in'it:
      0 yes, we remember Thee; how Thou didst `terrible,                But we were saved.
 things which we looked not for.  .JVe  were  in great
 bondage of corruption, and the corruption was of our
 bwli making.                                                            0 God!
      But Thou spakest and Thou calledst a man of Thy                    Thou Shepherd of Israel !
 choosing,  and we were planted again.                                   Why ha+t Thou then broken down hep hedges, so _
  I I still remember how the psalms of David were                  that rall they which pass by the way do pluck her ? The
 sung in the old Eastern Avenue chlirch, and how they boar out of the wood doth waste it, and the wild beast
 sounded different, much different. And Israel breath-             of' the field doth devour it.
 ed again. +4nd there came a diffe>ent  sound, a sound
 unmixed tiith the false sound of man-worship. For                       History repeats itself.
 that is the testing stone of the ages: What  do you                     I must go back in the psalm and quote another verse
 think of  *God  and',of man? The wicked had built a               which  sorr.ow  we quoted before: Thou makest us a
 fence around about wicked man: they were going to jstrife unto our neighbours : and. our enemies laugh
 defend ,reprobate!  man. And the Three Infamous Points            among themselves.
 were accepted. And the preaching in Israel was in:                      History repeats itself with abominable  yegularity.
I harmony with those wicked lies. They lied continually            It were  hoping too mu&h to think that we would be
 about God: He did not hate man exclusively ! He loves             possessors df this beautiful sunshine of God's face un-             . .
 man, wicked, reprobate man, even thongh only for the              disturbed. The wild boar and the wild beast are ever
 span of life  ori earth ! And they lied continuously rampant. And they are the devil. And the devil is
 about man also: man is not so wicked as he is painted             the liar.
 by some quaint preachers, but he can do ,that which is                  And, 0 God ! we all are guilty. If we search" our-
 good in the sight of a perfect and holy God !                     selves honestly we will discover that. there is no one
      0, how we loathed that Baal-worship !                        among us who is nqt guilty of the heinous sin that the
      But a .different  sound was heard there, tihere God          foul&me!ling `lie of the devil is. again corrupting Thy
planted His vine  anew.                                            h e r i t a g e .
      And this vine prospered.                *                          We  ha$e not  watched' over Thy heritage as we
      Thou preparedst room before'it, and didst cause              should have.
 it to take deep root, and it filled the land.                           There were tities; 0 Thou Shepherd of Israel, that
      Is this not true? It began in Grand Rapids and               every man, woman and child of Thy vine abhorred the
 Kalamazoo. `But today it is spread all over the world,            foul lie of Hynsianism  among us. We fought against,
 They will read this meditation in Transvaal.                      we loathed it;we cast it out, and we-threw up barriers
      And for many years we have basked in the Sun-                against it.
 light of the Face of God.               '
      We were saved  imder the shining  canopi of a                      But now we walk delicately and speak softly. We
 bquntiful heaven.                                                 allow the  ,foul visage of that corruption to appear
      From many pulpits the beautiful truth of God was             ampng us again and again.
 heard anew.                                                             ,Btit this insidious speech is becoming louder and
      10 God ! This vine which Thou plantedst in `1924             more strident. It acts, as it ever did, as though it is
 covered the hills with the shadow`s of it, and the boughs         p&t and parcel of our heritage, of the vine which Thou
 thereof were like the goodly  cedars. She sent  h&                plintedst.
 boughs unto the sea,  aizd her branches unto the                       -And so,  ,O God,  we pray Thee,  ,return  again, we
river.                             -.                              beseech `Thee, 0 God pf Hosts, cause Thy face to shine ;
      Is it not true? `There ie many at this time of writ;         am-j we shall .be saved !
 ing who could give testimony to the truth of $his state-               `:Why should the heathen say : Their God has for-
 ment. Even among those who cruelly cast us out (but               saken them? Why should they laugh, and say: they
 they did not know, and we knew it not, that this thing            haye become like one of  us?. And indeed, 0 Thou
 tias of the Lord) there be many who would tell you                Shepherd of Israel; unless Thou return, tie shall be
 that they breathed eSsier  under the shadow of this               as j&e salt that haslost its .sayour,  and as the cleansed     _
 vine of God which was called Protestant Refdrmed `swd6.e wallowing its&f in the mire.
 IChurches fop these last twenty-six years.                             $&urn again, and we sha.11 be saved !
      Salvation in these churches was: wondrous and- full.                                                       G. Vos.  a


                                                                                                             .-                                                           I
     148                                                                 T H E   S T A N D A R D   B E A R E R

                            .The Standard Bearer
                 Semi-Monthly, except Monthly in July and August
                                       P u b l i s h e d   B y   `O
                       The Reformed Free Publishing Association
                           Box 124, Sta. ,C., Grand Rapids, Mick                                                   :      The Declaration Not A Mistake
                               EDITOR: - Rev. H. Hoeksema.
       Communications relative to contents should be addressed to                                                          In another part of this issue of  The  Sta&ard
     REV. H. HOEKSEMA, 1139 Franklin St.; S. E., Grand Rapids,                                                          Bearer an article appears of the Rev. B. Kok under
     Michigan.
       Communications relative to subscription should be addressed                                                      the heading,  `.`The Declaration a Mistake".
     to Mr. J. BOUWMAN, 1350 Giddings SE., Grand Rapids 7,                                                                 On this arti,cle the present editorial is a refleetio-n.
     Mich.  Announcements and Obituaries must be mailed to the                                                          I invite the reader, therefore, to read the article of
     above address and will be published at a fee of $1.00 for each                                                     Rev. Kok first, before turning-to this present editorial.
     notice.                                                                               J
     Renewals:-Uniess                                                                                                      The Rev. Kok -writes: "I am-becoming more and
                                        a definite  request`for  discontinuance is re-
ceived, it is assumed that the subscriber wishes hi`s subscription                                                      more convinced that, `The Declaration of\ Principles'
to continue without `the formality of a renewal order.                                                                  adopted by our last synod to ,be proposed to QLW chur-
     Entered as Second Class- Mail at Grand Rapids, Michigan.                                                           ches was a sad mistake, and that we as churches should
                                                                                                                        reject them. I base this contention not so much -be-
                                                                                                                        cause of their doctrinal content, but rather, on the
                                                                                                                        following grounds: first that the decision to adopt
                                                                                                                        these declarations and propose them to our churches
                                                                                                                        was contrary to article 30 of our `Church Order. Sec-
                                                      %+?Ezv                                                            ondly, that the-Synod  of 1950 acted too hastily in this
                                                                                                                        matter. Thirdly, that this action of synod has been,
                                                                                                                        and, if *God does not graciously forbid, would be the
                                                                                                                        cause of dissension and schism in our churches. Fin-
                                                                                                                        ally, that the questions`involved are extra-confessional
                                                                                                                        and hence may not determine membership or non-
                                                                                                                        membership in the church of Christ."
                                         C O N T E N T S                                                                   The Rev. Kok writes that he, bases his contention
     MEDITATION-                                                                                                        that the Declaration is a mistake "not so much" on
                At The Evening Of The Year . .._...._________________________ I...: _____ -145                          their doctrinal contents. That  %ot so much" is an
       `R e v .   G e r r i t   V o s                  . . .                                                            expression which `is, of course, ambiguous in itself.
                                                                                                                        It seems to suggest that Rev. Ko.k is also opposed to
     E D I T O R I A L S -
                The Declaration Not A Mistake ____________._.  _ ________________________ 148                           the contents of the D.eelaration.  How much he is op-
         R e v .   H .   H o e k s e m a                                                                                posed to it is a question. But I wish he would have
                                                                                                                        stated clearly just in how far he does not agree with
                The Declaration, A Mistake _._..._...._..____________~  ________________ . . ...153                     the Declaration of Principles. In these troublous times
                    Rev. B. Kok                                                 .                                       we must state very clearly what we mean, and not
i                                                                                                                       have recourse to ambiguous expressions. This is neces-
                Unnecessary and Necessary Things . .._.._.._._ 1 .__.. __ .___._______  156
                    Rev. J. Blankespoor                                              --                                 sary especially because, as the Rev. Kok suggests; he
                                                                                                                        envisions~ the possibility pf a. schism in our churches.
                What Is The Truth ? . .._.________....._................~...........~.~.~..~....  -159                  I say once more: I do not look for a schism. I certain-
                    S. Reitsma, Hamilton, Ont.                                                                          ly will not work for a schism. I would deplore a
                                                                                                                        schism. But nevertheless, if it comes We must be very
                The Rest Qf Brother Ten Elshof's Article _____________.._____  161
                Rev. Petter's Fifth  Instalment  ._....._....._______.................... 162                           clear in our minds what the schism is about, so that
                   Rev. G. M. Ophoff                                                                                    we can take sides definitely. That is very important.
                                                                                                                        Besides, I also deplore the fact that the Rev. Kok bases
     FROM HOLY  WRIT-                                                                                                   his contention that the Declaration is a mistake 6`not
                Exposition Of Hebrews 10:19-25  ___; _.________.  _ ____________________....  166                       so much because of their doctrinal content" but be-
                 Rev.  Gee; C. Lubbers                                                                                  cause of other reasons. `I say I deplore this because
                                                                                                                        thus once more the principal question is avoided. And
     IN HIS FEAR-                                                                                                       that principal question is -simply wh'ether  or not the
                A Healthy Attitude ..z _____: ______..._._____  1; ____.._______.____._..~........~....  164
                    Rev. H. C.  Hoeksemba   '                     '       '                     \-                      Declaration of Principles is th.e confessions.
                                                                                                 :     Yc                  The Rev. Kok, however, has four grounds. These
                                                                                                                        four grounds I will briefly discuss in the present edi-


                                                                                             ;
                                       TH.E  S T A N D A R D   B E A R E R                                                 149

  torial. To make this editorial more pleasant reading           Committee wanted a definite f&m as a basis for the
  I will split it up into four sections, following the order     organization of churches, they should have -appealed
  of the four. grounds which the Rev. Kok offers.       _.       to the calling church, from the .calling church to the
                                                                 classis,  and from the classis to synod. But this would
                                                                 be a fundamental mistake. How can a synodical  com-
                                                                 mittee appeal to consistory or  classis? They  I have
               . Synod Had a Mandate.  -`-                    " nothing to do with the local consistories and certainly
     The first contention of the Rev. Kok is' that. synod        have nothing to do with the classes. And therefore
  violated article 30 of the Church Order, which I quote the Mission Committee certainly went the proper ec-
  here once more: "In these assemblies ecclesiastical            clesiastical way when. with their request for a form
  matters only shall be transacted and that in an ecclesi- they appealed directly to Synod.
  astical manner. In major assemblies only such mat-              Now in the Mission Committee the question arose
  ters shall be dealt with as -could not be finished in          repeatedly : on what basis could they organize churches,
 minor assemblies, or such as pertain to the churches            especially in Canada and among the Liberated immi-
 of the major assembly in common."                               grants? Repeatedly they faced the question what was
     I have already answered the objection that was              binding in the Protestant Reformed Churches, espec-
  based on article 30 of the Church Order in my answer           ially with regard to the covenant and the promise.
  to the Rev. Blankespoor. But I will gladly repeat' and. And I quote from the r.eport of the Mission Committee :
  elaborate a little on this answer, in order that the           "This same question as to what is `bindend' in the
 churches may understand that the Synod of 1950 cer-             Prot. Ref. Churches is raised by those w-ho seek organ-.
  tainly did not violate an article of the Church Order.         ization: Now it is true, that our missionaries labor
     The main question in .the Rev. Kok's,mind seems             among them and instruct them in the specific doctrines
  to be whether or not Synod had a mandate, and there-           God has entrusted to us as Prot. Ref. Churches,: but
  fore had a right to compose such a document as the             we would appreciate having something uniform and
  Declaration of Principles and propose it to the churches       definite to present to those groups, particularly when
  in order to be `adopted at our next synod.                    they request organization. Therefore, your committee
                                                                 requests synod to draw up a form that may be used.
     `This the Rev. Kok denies.,                                by, those families requesting organization into a Prot.
     And this I most emphatically maintain.                      Ref. congregation. We believe that this would serve
     I maintain this on the ground of the last part of to remove all misunderstanding and aid toward unity."
  Article 30 of the Church  !Order,   .namely, that such            There was therefore a definite request by the synod-
matters must be dealt with in major assemblies that              ical Mission Committee which could only appeal to
  "pertain to the churches of the major assembly in e,om-        synod, and which the synod.had  to consider. There is
  mon." Now the Mission Committee is a synodical therefore no question at all as to whether the synod
  committee,. appointed by the synod to interest them- ,had a proper mandate before it.                              ,,
  selves in and consider all matters that pertain to our
  mission work. They do not report to, the consistories  ;          Now the committee of pre-advice in re this matter
                                                                 came to the synod with the following advice:
  nor do they report to the classes. But they report
  directly to synod. There can therefore be no question            "a. To adopt the following clear-cut expression as
. that the matters pertaining to the Mission Committee           one which should appear in each request for organiza-
  certainly belong to synod. This is also true of matters       tion, along with. the denial of common grace and the
  pertaining, say, to the Theological School. Suppose            Three Points of 1924, and profession of adherence to
 the Theological School Committee proposes such an              the Three Forms .of Vnity and -the Church Order of
 important matter as the appointment of an additional            Dordrecht and professing the Scriptures to be the
  professor for the Theological School. Must they go infallible' Word of God (as stands to reason) : `The
 to the consistories, and * through the consistories to          promise of the Gospel, both as to the will of God to
  elassis? We know better. They simply make a nomin-             save His poeple'and the execution of His will to save
  ation and place the nomination before the synod, in            them, is not general, that is, it does not include all the
  order to accept or to reject or to add to the'nomination .baptized  children `of the church, but is particular, that
 and then choose and appoint an additional professor.            is, it pertains only to the,elect  of God.'
 `That belongs to the churches in common. The same is               "b. .To send the; above, proposed `expression to all
 true of the matters pertaining to, the Mission, Corn-          our consistories for their reactions and to advise them
 mittee. They do not appeal to the minor assemblies,            to bring their findings to Synod via Classis, since such
 but directly appeal to the synod, because it- is like the      proposed action ought to follow `the proper Reformed
 Theological School Committee simply a synodical com-            Church Political way of consistory, classisand  synod."
 mittee.    The Rev. Kok  think,s. that if the Mission. Acts of Synod, 1950, Article 63, p. 54.
                                                                          I


150                                         l'HR  S T A N D A R D   B E A R E R

       The Synod agreed with this advice in principle,              The Rev. Kok underscores the following. sentences
but did not deem it sufficient. .And therefore it decided       out of my writing: "And under such circumstances it
to appoint the same committee of pre-advice, together is deplorable that the synod so narrowed the denomin-
with the theological professors as advisors, to draw            ational walls that within them there, is room only for
up a broader form. And the result of this action is .those  that subscribe to the view of certain theologians
the proposed Declaration of Principles.                         to the exclusion of all others."
       And therefore I maintain that the synod had a very           This exactly touches the point.
definite mandate, and. that it violated no principle of             For in the Declaration of Principles I  maintain-
the Church Order whatsoever.                                    that we do not narrow any denominational walls. We
       The Rev. Kok quotes elaborately from what I wrote        simply quote the Confessions. Once more I want to
concerning the action of the Synod of the Netherlands,          emphasize that the whole Declaration is almost entire-
1936. That is rather cute of the Rev. Kok, because he           ly a quotation from the Confessions. And once more
makes it appear as if -1 myself condemned the action            I wish to state that one that has objections to that
of our Synod of 1950.                                           Declaration must definitely point out that it is not the
       But in the first place, let me say that I still main-    Confessions and is not directly based upon the Con-
tain all that I wrote concerning the action of the Synod        fessions, but that it is extra-confessional or `anti-con-
of 1936 in the Netherlands. But the quotation which             fessional,
the Rev. Kok makes `does not apply to our Synod of                  In the `second place, do not forget that we as Pro-
1950 at all. The Synod of the Netherlands, of 1936              testant Reformed Churches have a different history
had no mandate to take up the matter concerning the `from the churches in the Netherlands before 1944.
"meeningsgeschillen" whatsoever. `The question was              The result is that we have developed a rather definite
simply introduced on the floor of the synod by, I be-           and beautiful conception of  th'e covenant, based upon
lieve, one delegate and one professor, or maybe by two the Confessions, and especially upon the Baptism Form,
delegates&I speak from memory. But the fact is                  which we do not like-to see corrupted.
that in 1936 there was no mandate. And therefore the                In the third place, do not forget that in 1924.we
delegates had no calling from the churches to consider          were cast out by the Christian Reformed Churches
and discuss the matter concerning the different doc- because of our denial of common grace and very em-
trinal opinions that were debated in the churches. But          phatically and more,  particularly because we denied
in the case of our Synod of 1950 it was quite different.        that the preaching of`the'gospel is grace.for  all, includ-
The synod had a .definite `mandate because it had' to' ing the reprobate. Now, Heynsianism, as we all know,
consider a question from the Mission Committee con-             is common grace applied to the sphere of the covenant.
cerning the proper way to organize Prot. Ref. Church-           According to Heyns the very essence of the covenant
es. And therefore the comparison which the RevKok               is the promise of God. And that promise is  well-
makes between my writing and the action" of Synod,              meaning for all the children that are born under the
1950, is not to. the point -at all.                             covenant, that is, to all the children that `are baptized.
       I still maintain, therefore, that the Synod of 1950      Only, the promise is conditional, a condition which
did right, and `violated no principle whatsoever of the         must be fulfilled by those that are baptized when they
Church Order of Dordrecht.                                      come to years of discretion.. This we denied. And
                                                                because of our objection to this pernicious doctrine,
                           -           -                        which is simply Pelagianism and Arminianism we were
                Not Hastily, But High Time.                     cast out from the communion of the Christian Re-
                                                                formed Churches. And instead we maintained our
       The next ground of the Rev. Kok why he thinks .own conception of the covenant,. which is .definitely
that the Declaration is a mistake is that the Synod             based on the Confessions and on the Baptism Form,
acted too hastily.                                              that, namely, the covenant is an eternal covenant of
       To this -1 answer that the Synod ' not only acted        friendship, that God establishes His covenant only with
wisely and not too hastily, but that it is high time that       the elect, that the children of the promise are the only
a declaration such as the synod proposed is adopted             seed, and that God establishes His covenant with His
by our churches.                  -                             elect unconditionally. .
       Again, this-second ground of Rev. Kok's objection-           Now at present we confront the question whether
to the Declarations  of Principles consists almost entire- we shall throw open the doors of our churches-for this
ly of quotations from what I wrote in the past. And pernicious doctrine of Heynsianism. For as was evi-
again, let me say that all I wrote there I still maintain. dent from the very first numbers of the Reformdie
But it is not to the point as an objection to the Declara- (after the war) the Liberated, although they do not
tion of Principles.  j                                          officially maintain any doctrine of the covenant, never-


                                        T H E   S T A N D A R D   B E A R E R                                           151.

  theless  almost without exception embrace this Heyn-             make such a promise, they expelled us on the basis of
  sian conception of the covenant. That is the. question           `ecclesiastical insubordination.'
  which we confront. If we do, I propose that we apolo-             ' "Now, you certainly will understand,  amice,  that,
  gize to the ChristianReformed Churches and admit                 after 1924, our churches are no longer open to th.e
  that the doctrine of common grace, as they adopted it            doctrinal errors of the three .points; and that we cer-
       in 1924, especially with a view to the preaching of the     tainly `do not receive anyone into our communion that
       gospel and to the promise for all, was principally cor-     propagates those.errors.  Our church doors are closed
       r e c t .                                                   to them. Hence, the rejection of all that is taught in
          In brief, the question: shall we embrace H,eynsian-      the three points is binding in our churches. That is
       ism; or shall we remain Protestant Reformed?                the official stand of our Protestant Reformed Churches.
          The Rev. Kok quotes me as if, after I wrote those        In other words, we still stand on the basis of our Three
       sentences, nothing happened. But that is not the case.      Forms of `Unity but now as infierpreted @a distinction
       It would have been much more to the point had he            from the error$ of the three points. That is officially
       quoted me not in regard to what was done in the             binding.
       N*etherlands  but in regard to our position here as             "And that also implies that the rejection of the
       Protest.ant  Reformed Churches. He should have quoted       Heynsian conception of the covenant is binding in our
       me, for instance, from what I wrote in "A Letter to         churches, and that there i's no room for the view of the
       Dr. Schilder" in the  Standarcl:Bearer,  Vol.` X&V, p.      liberated in our communion." .
       508, .ff. There I wrote:
          "Before 1924 we stood on the basis of the Three              And a little later in the same Letter to Dr. Sehilder
       Forms of. Unity pure and simpl.e, without any addi-         I wrote:
       tions, and without feeling the need of any separate             "Now, the Liberated Churches- reject the  Kuy-
       interpretation of those confessions.                        perian view of common grace. But they are not con-
                                               We were all in
       the Christian Reformed Churches; Within those chur-         sistent, for they still maintain the Heynsian view. .Do
       ches we did not at all think alike.                         not say that this is not true, amice, and that you have
                                               There were, of
       course, supralapsarians and infralapsarians, there no officially binding view of the covenant. -For in the
       were those that held the Heynsian conception of the         first place, you refused as churches to be bound by the
                                                                   decisions of 1942;1943. and 1946, and,. in -the- second
       covenant and others who held the theory of. presup-
       posed regeneration, and still others ,(like myself)? who    place, all that is ever written by the leaders of your
                                                                   . churches supports the Heynsian view of the covenant.
       favored a still different conception. Within the same " When you say that you stand on the basis of the Con-
. church there arose the  .controversy  concerning  com-           fessions, you mean that the Heynsian view of the cove-
       mon grace. Did all this difference of opinion and con-      nant, excepting, perhaps, his theory of preparatory
       ception mean that I contemplated the organization of        grace, is the true interpretation of those Confessions
       a separate church? It never entered my mind. We             in distinction from the interpretation of the synodicals.
  were, at that time,  ,of the opinion that our confessional       And that means that your churches still maintain "bet
  walls were wide enough- to harbour many different                puntje van het eerste punt', with application to the
       theological views, and would gladly leave it to free dis- , covenant. For what else is the conception that the
       cussion to determine which one of all these different        promise is for all the children that are born in the
       views would ultimately gain the victory. . . .
  8                                                                historical line of the covenant than that of grace for
          "We stood on the basis of the'Three,  Forms of Unity     all, elect and r.eprobate  alike? Certainly, the Liberated,
  without anything further.                                        however they may wish to separate election, and espec-
          "But whoever claims that this is still the ease does     ially reprobation, and the covenant, cannot deny that
       not know what he is talking about.                          there are reprobate in the historical line of the cove-
          "To be `sur,e; amice,  you can quote me to the effect    nant. And if they maintain that the promise is for all,
 that we r.ecognize  no other standards than the Three             head for head, `they at the same time maintain that
       Forms of Unity. And this is certainly true. But you          God:is gracious to the reprobate.
  *must never, forget to add: in  dtitinc~ioti  from the               "`Auzd the i-ejection of thefirst point of 1924 tic&es
       ` T h r e e   Poirzts'.                                     it b&ding upon all our churches to reject this view of
          "You must never forget the Christian Reformed            th.$Liberat,ecL"
       Churches put us in a corner all by ourselves, and that         ,:I maintain, therefore  :'
  from that corner they forced us to fight for the truth..           - 1. That in the Declaration of Principles we do not
          "They~  cast us out.                                     narrow any ecclesiastical walls, but simply quote and
          "They demanded of us a promise that we would             refer .to the IConfessions If this is not so, let anyone
  never teach anything against the `three points', and point it out, including the Rev. Kok. No more than we
  when we refused because< we could not conscientiously            narrowed ecclesiastical walls wh,en we condemned the
                                                                       :


S52                                                T H 'E   S T A N D A R D   BEARE<R

 -doctrine  of Dr. Jansen in 1922 with an appeal to our but by those who within that church agitate against
 Confessions, no.more do we narrow. any ecclesiastical              that doctrine' and against that confession or try to
 walls by condemning Heynsianism with appeal to our                 compromise and throw open the doors .of that church
 Confessions and to our Baptism Form.                               to doctrines that militate against the confessions' of
        2. That the Synod certainly ,did not ,act hastily,          that church.
 but that it was high time that such a clear-cut declara-               That is schism. And those that cause such a separa-
 tion was drawn up, lest our churches be swamped by tion are the schismatics.
 the Heynsian view of the covenant as introduced by                     As an illustration of schismatic utterances I will
 the Liberated into our churches; That this danger                  quote from the letter sent to Chatham by Prof. Hol-
 exists is very evident. I refer you to the history of              werda, a letter, by the way which was never publicly
 our congregation at Hamilton as it was published in                contradicted. According to that letter the Revs. de
 an article by' the Rev. H. Veldman in the' preceding               Jong and Kok reported .in the Netherlands as follows :
 Standard Bearer. And I also refer you to the article                   "His conception (the Rev. Hoeksema's) regarding
 of Mr. IJtsma from Chatham, as well as to the letter               election et& is not church doctrine. No one is bound
 by Mr. Van Spronsen.                                               by it. Some are .emitting a totally different sound.`?
        Do not misunderstand me.  I  am not narrow`minded.          This, of course, refers to the relation ,between  election
 I do not believe that we are the true church .in the               and the covenant, which hits at the very heart of the:
 sense in which Mr. Van Spronsen wants us to main-                  Protestant Reformed truth. This I consider schis-
 tain this doctrine, while all the rest are false churches. - matic.
 I even would like to have correspondence still with the                The opinion of the Revs. de Jong  .and. Kok was
 Liberated Churches in the Netherlands. I still have                "that most (of the Protestant Reformed) do not think
 respect for men like Dr. Sehilder and Professor Veen-' as Rev. Hoeksema and Rev. Cphoff." Now no one will
 hof and others. In fact, I have respect for Prof. Hol-             deny that the Revs.  ,Cphoff and Hoeksema are  un-
 werda. But -mind you, I love them as brethren, and                 doubtedly Protestant Reformed. If most of the Pro-
 I have respect for them, and I want correspondence                 testant Reformed people disagree with them, they, the
 with them, however, outside of the pale of our church-             Protestant Reformed people, are not Protestant Re-e
 es. Hamilton as a congregation does, not want to be                formed. This I consider schismatic.
 Protestant Reformed. A man. like ,Mr. IJtsma is not                    According to them "`sympathy for the Liberated
 Protestant Reformed and never will be, very likely, _ was great also in the matter of their doctrine of the
 according. to his utterances. And I will have resp.ect' ~covenant." And again, "for the conception of the
 for them all, but not as members .of the Protestant                Liberated  ,there  is ample room." This means that
 Reformed Churches, that must answer the second ques- there is ample room in our churches for the Heynsian
 tion in baptism whether they believe the doctrine that             heresy, and that for that Heynsian heresy they throw
 is taught here in this Christian church.                  ,        our doors wide open.
       -Let us be honest before `God, also as churches.
           . .  '                     "'     s.                         All this I consider schismatic talk.
                                                                        But the Declaration of Principles is entirely based
                                                                    upon the Three Forms of Unity. It certainly repre-
                     ,        Schism ?                              sents the doctrine of the'Protestant Reformed Church-
        The Rev. Kok also speaks of dissension"and schism,          es. And therefore it can never be the cause of schism.
 and is afraid that the Declaration of Principles will be               But if a split must come in our churches, as the
 the cause of ,a split in                                           Rev. Kok suggests, and as others have also intimated,
                              on?  churches,.
        My answer is two-fold. *                   L i;             and as it is even rumored in the' old country, I hope
                                                                    that the issues that divide those that deviate from
        1. That I would deplore more than I can express a           those that want to maintain the Protestant Reformed
 separation `in our churches, which are already very                truth-are clearly stated.
 small.                               _ Ii                              We must not, for instance, talk about the responsi-
        2.` That if the Declaration of Principles, which is         bility of man, which no one denies4 The accusation
 nothing but an expression of the Confessions, after it             that Reformed people deny the responsibility of man
 has been thoroughly discussed .and criticized, and, if is an old, old story. It is aimed not oniy at the doc-
 necessary, corrected, is the occasion of a separation in           trine of election, but also at the doctrine of justifica-
 our churches, I can only weIcome such a split.                     tion by .faith alone. This, therefore; is not the issue
        Let me expiain. What is schism?                             a t   a l l .
        1; is the- act of causing division and separation in            [Let us rather state the issue as follows: The Pro-
any church, certainly not by those that strictly adhere testant R,eformed Churches want to shut their doors
 to the confession and doctrine, of that particular church,         against the I.ezjnsian'heresy, while those that do knot


                                                   T H E   STANQ,A,RD  B E A R E R                                                     153
                                                                          ..--                -           ,.
  caye for Protestant Reforrne'd truth want to'open B&e,
 doors of the churches wide tq~admit that heresy.                                      The  Declaratitq  .A  Mistike
                                                                                                    ,'                 *
     But the adoption of the Declaration of P-rinciples.
 can indeed serve to purify the Prote'srtant  Refqrmcd                               I am beGbming more aid.more convinced  that the
 ,Churches and to bring to light clearly what divides us,                         `Declar&ion of Principles' adopted by pur last Synod
 but is itself certainly not a `cause of schism.'                                 to be proposed to, our churches was a-sad mistake, and
           /                 -              -                                     that tie as Churches should ,reject them. I base th&
                                                                                  contention not so much because of ,their doctrinal con-
                     .IntraXonfessibnal.                                          tent, -but rathkr on the following grounds : First that -
     The finai`ground upon which the Rev. Kok bases                               the decision to adopt these decltiratipns  and propose
 his contention that the Declaration is a mistake reads                           them to our Churches was contrary to Article 30 of
 briefly as follows : "Fbally, I object,  to the `Declara-                        our Church Order. Secondly, that the $ynod of 1950
 tion of Principles' because the questions involved in                            acted too hastily in  this matter. Thirdly, that this
 this cdntroversy.  are of such ti nature that they are                           action of Synod has been,.and, if God does not gracious-
 either;  extra-confessional,' or at least' debatable, and ly forbid, will be the cause of dissention and schism in                            r
 therefore may not determine membership or non-mem-                               our Churches. Finally, that the questions involved are
 bership  iri the church of Christ."                                              extra-confessional and hence may not determine mem-
     It is deplorable that in this fourth ground, so-called,                      bership or hon-meinbership  in the Church of Christ.
 the Rev. K6k entirely avoids the issue. He does `not                                Allow  me to  elucidate these grounds as follows:
 .enter  into the contents of. the Declaration  of Principles                     First that-the decision of our last Synod to adopt these
 at all. He does .not discuss' it. He gays it is debatable,                       declarations and propose them to our Churches was
but himself does not--debate at all. He does not say in                           contrary to Article  3-O of  otir Church Order, which
 how far he .agree's  or sdisagrees  with the Declaration                         reads as follows: In' these  assembliks  ecclesiastical
 of Principles. And in this way he does not give us                               niatters  ohly shall be transacted and that in an ec-
 an opportunity to contradict him.                                                clesiastical manner. In major assemblies only such
     I say that this is deplorable, because after $1 this                         matters shall be dealt with as could not be finished in
 is the sole issue.                                      r                        minor assemblies, or such as pertain to the Churches
     ,One thing, however, `7 d.eny. And that is the state- of the major assembly in common." I cannot agree
 ment of the Rev. Kok ,that the Declaration is extra-                             with the, answer giv& to the Rev. Blankespoor in the
 confessional, that is, that it is outside of the Confes-                         Standard Bearer;.Vol.  27, pages 4-6, bgT the Rev. H.
 sions.                                                                           Hoeksema, namely, that the Synod of 1950 was justi-
     I claim not only that the matters touched upon in                            fied in making this `Declaration of Principles' because
 the Declaration of Principles are entirely within the                            it was requested to do so by its Mission  Cdmmittee.  ..
Confession, but also that the Declaration,,itself  is con- Apart from the question .%hethey or not this was the
, fessional tind is entirely based on the Three Fprms of                          reiquest  of the Mission ,Committee,  which I do not be-
 unity.                                                                           lieve, (The Mission Committee merely rkquested  Synod
     It is purely Protestant Reformeg.                                            to draw up a formal letter to be signed by all those
                                                                                  that desire to be organiied into's Protestant Refornied
     This claim I offer to the Rev, Kok as a subject;' for                        Church) .the Synod had no right to violate the prin- -
 debate. Let him debate it, and I will  answ,er. But                              ciple involved in Article 30 that only such matters shall
 let us not avoid the issue.                                                      be dealt with as could not be finished in minor assem-
     Let us not just employ big terms, but clearly state                          blies. -1 do not believe there was any need for such a
 and prove our contentiotis.                                                      request from the Mission Committee, and therefore
     `Then we will get somewhere.                                                 as memb$r of the Mission Committee was opposed to
                                                               H. H.
                I                                                                 this request, but even so, it is my firm'eonvidion that
                                                                                  this did not give the Synod the right to adopt  Jhis -
                                                         .                        declaration of principles and propose them to the
                          CLASSIS                EAST                             Churches. ,If there was any doubt in the minds of the
                                                                                  Mission Committee as to the-doctrinal po&tion  of our
 will meet in regular session Wednesday at 9 `o'clock A.M.,                       Protestant Reformed~Churches  in re this question they
 January  3, 1951, at Fuller Ave.                                                 should have made their request to the calling church,
   All matters for Synbd must be brought to this  Classis,  such                  which in this case would be the only authoritative body
 as: subsidy requests; and the reports  ,of the..Consistories on the              in this matter. Then, if no decision could be reached,
 iBrief  DeclarLion of Principles.                                                they could have taken this question to Synod by the
                                                         D. Jonker,               way of Classis, according to Article 31 of the Church
                                                         Stated Clerk.            Order.. Neither do I agree that Synod was justified

                                       .


  154 '                                 T H E   S T A N D A R D   B E A R E R

  because.it merely adopted this declaration of principles sound Reformed leadership, and. a profound `note of
  to be proposed to, the Chugches. To my mind this is            warning, to which .also w.e .as Churches should give
  exactly the opposite from all Reformed Church polity heed. Do not t&e above -accusations also concern our
  which always speaks of Consistory, Classis and Synod.          Synod of 1950 which drew up these ,`Declarations of
      That the editor of the Standard Bearer is well principles' without a mandate  fkirn our' Churches?
  aprare that this is tl!e Reformed position in`re Article       The circumstances tiay differ, but the principle  re-
  30 is evident from an article tihich he wrote in the ' mains.              -                                        \
  Standard Bearer in criticism of the Synod of the                  My second ground is, that the Synod qf 1950 acted          -
- Netherlands in re their adoption of a declaration of .too hastily in this matt'er of adopting these `Declara-
  principles concerqin'g  then dovenant.     After -quoting iions of Principles' in re the covenant. The doctrine
  Article 30 of the D.&O.  he writes as `follows: "The           of the covenant, i.e. the questions who are really in the
  meaning of this article is clear enough. Matters that          covenant?, are thereparties or parts in the covenant?
  pertain to the churches, and these alone;are transacted is the covenant unilateral or ilateral? ar.e the covenant
  by ecclesiastical assemblies. And-they are to be trans- -promises  conditibnal  & unconditional? etc.  .etc. has
  acted in an ecclesiastical manner. `The power of the           been a controversial subject in the Reformed Churches.
  Church is always spiritual; not political. To this also        for more than  300  years. Never have the  Refbrmecl
  belongs that the delegates to the major assemblies,            Churches taken a definite stand, but have always re-
  classis, pa&icular synod, general synod, are limited to        garded this subject as `extra-confessional' and thus
  their mandate from the- churches. Matters that are             allowed room for. differences of opinion. And I am
  to be transacted by the synod must be brought befo?e           wholeheartedly agreed with the editor of the Standard
  this bo,dy  in the regular way, i.e., by the way of over-      Bearer that we have no need of official opinions or
  ttire from .the minor assemblies. And such matters declarations on this subject  .by  .hie&chical synods.
  should be,treat@d by the minor "assemblies first, and,         He has stated time and again in the past that there
  if they cannot be finished there, be carried on td the         is no officially established and adopted doctrine of the
  majo? assembly."                                               covenant in our Reformed churches, and that in his
     "Now, before the Synod of Amsterdam 1936 (i.e. be-          opinion we should not have any such official opinions
  fore the time the' Synod met, B.K.) several points of but that these quest&s should be left to the discussioi
  .doctrine were matters of discussion and controversy           of theologians for a long time to come. Thus we read
  in the Netherlands, not officially, but among the theo-        in the Standard Bearer,. Vol. 22, p. 268 :. "Certain it is
  logians and semi-theolonians. .~ . . <There  was nothing ~ that when the leaders of the Liberated Churches insist
  official about this controversy. . .  .No action had           that .a11 the baptized children of`believers are really in
  been started by anyone (i.e. before their consistories,        the covenant, while "the Synodicals insist that only the
  B. K.) . Nor were there, before the Synod of Amster-           elect are reably covenant childcen, they are not refer-
  dam, any overtures from minor assemblies, requesting           ring to the saine conception of the covenant. The re-
  that body to take action and try to settle the doctrinal       sult is that. the discussion is never distinct and cl.ear
  points involved in the controversies.                          cut. There is still considerable tiisunderstauding be-
     "Yet, without any mandate .froin the churches, the tween the two groups. And under suc,h c'ircums tances
  Synod of Amsterdam decided to make the matter of               it is deplorable that the Synod so narrowed the denom-
  the controversies and differences of opinion its official      inational walls that within them thede is room only fog
  business !                                                     thos.e that-subs&be to the vieti of .certazn  theologians
     "They appointed a committee .to study the matter            to the exclusion of all others." (I'underscore) .
  and to report to the ,next synod..                                "For let it be emphasized once again, to date there
     `Whatever may have been the  iotives of those               is no clearly defined, officially adopted conception bf
that instigated this action (and I do not  belieGe that          the covenant that can lay claim to the name Reformed
  motives of a church-politically Corrupt action are ever        . . . . What right then, has the editor of The Banner
 -pure), the action itself was surely hierarchical,              to coin a particular view as "The Reformed View of
    .- `iO, reasdns were given for the action, to justify it.    the Covenant"?' It is by such methods that certain
  But they were utility reasons. There was too niuch             individual views become "current views", and that
  unrest ins thi churches! 1 It is for the benefit of the        gradually these "current views" are considered to b;
  churches that the synod shodd concern i&elf with the           officially Reformed, that all free disctission  of extra
  matter! But all this cannot justify  tXe fact that, in         confessional problems is smothered  and denominational.
  1936, the delegates to synod assumed- the position of          walls are built high and narrow.
  independent lords by doing, what they had not. been               "This,  td my mind, is exactly what happened in
  mandated to do. (I underscore).                                1924 when the *Christian  Reformed Churches officially
   `<This action was the beginning of trouble." Stan- adopted certain propositions on "common grace".
  dard Bearer, Vol 22, p. 341. In these wokds we have               "And in my opinion, the- same-tactics w.ere followed


                                        T    H    E         STA:NDARD  BEARER .                                                      155     _'

 by the Reformed Churches in `The Neth$ands,  whkn,                        which appointed a committee to study this matter on
 in 1936, they took hold of certain "current opinions" -a Friday evening, and then adopted the report of this
 and "differences of  opini%on" (meenings-geschillen) ,                     committee, without any changes, in, a brief evening
 even-without any overture or request from.the church-                     session on the following Monday?
 es, and thus attempted to smother the free discussion                         My third ground for objecting to the "Declaration
 about those problems by official declarations.                            of Principles" is, that this action has be&, and if God
    "The saddest thing of all is that in this way the                      does not graciously forbid, will be the cause of dissen-
 Church is split because certain theologians use the in-                   sion atid schism in our churches. Also here the recent
 stitute of the. Church, and that, too, concbived hier-                    history of the churches in the Netherlands should have
 archically, to impose their notions upon all the rest.                    been a-warning to us. Certainly there are differences
     "And the -cause of the truth is not served, but plit                  between us and the. `liberated?, and even though I am
 into a theologians' strait jacket."  -.  -                 .              convinced that all odr ministers are agreed in re the
    And in the same volume of the Standard Bearer,                         fundamental truths in re the covenant, yet also here
 page' 54, we read : "Not, indeed, as if it is my opinion                  there may be differences of approach and emphasis.
 that they should have, given a definite answ.er to the                    What of `if? Do we all have to think alike?. Must the
question.  : (i.e. the question of the covenant,  B.  K.)                  one impose his `view and conception upon the others?
 Even if' they could. have  reachecL   agr,eement on this                   Cannot we say as' did the Rev. Hoeksema at the con-
 point  amonzg   thems.elves,   they would; by offering  ai                clusion of -the .conference  we had with Prof. Schilder,
 ofXcia1 synodical  interpretation of the doctrine of the' `"fundamentally we agreed, and for the rest we agreed
covenant, only have imposed another opinion  on the                        to disagree'?? IOr as, the Rev. Vos stated at that time:
 churches.                                                                 "However, we agree with Prof. Schilder, and also our
    "And wi! have enough official `opinions'.                              editor of the Standard Bearer has stressed this con-
    "Our Reformed standards are sufficient as a `basis                     viction, that we ought to become sister churches, we
 ~of unity for the Reformed  ChurclJes. We are in no Ought to have ecclesiastical correspondence. Strictly
 need of `Three  Points' or other ofieial declarations by speaking, there is no Reformed covenant view. That is,
 hierarchical Synods:~  `They limit one's freedom within there is not one ICovknant  vi&w, be it Kuyperian, Heyn-
 the Confession too much, and cause dissension and                         Sian, &hilderian,  or Hoeksemanian which is conf &ssed-
 schism. 1924 here, -and 1942 in th.e Netherlands are                      Zy Reformed. There is for that reason room for friend-
 glaring illustrations of this fact.                                       ly debate and exchange of ideas.
     "No, but the  Synod of 1942 in `the Netherlands                         "Would to God that the Reformed Churches `in the
 should have confronted this fundamental question con- Netherlands had remembered this in  1942-44!, It
 cerning the idea of the covenant, in order that' their                    would have saved them from the  caTdina1  error of
 eyes might have been opened to the fact that they were                    throwing faithful. men out of the church of their birth.
not prepared to make any definite declarations on this                     If anything has ,become  plain to us through this con- _
 point whatsoever, and that t$ey could far better, and                     taci with Prof. ,Schilder,  it is that those churches have
 much more  sa?ely,  to be sure, as the outcome has                         grievously sinned. . . . In order to save+ a. pritiate
 proved, leave the matter to the free discussion by                         opinion of one theologian (the coventint  view of Kuy-e
 theologians and laymen, for a long time to come.                           per, B. K.) , and raising some formula to an accepted
     "I most definitely cannot agree with then covenant. church dogma, they have robbed themselves to -the
 view now presented and strqngly emphasized by the                          ex&$t of the church communion of a multitude which
 "Liberated" churches.                                                     wai theirs. . . ." Standard Bearer, Vol. 24, p. 101.
     "Nor do I agree with the `C&elusions of Utrecht'                         (`And agaip : "Yes, there are. differences -between
 or with the declarations made by the Netherland Synod theSiberated  Churches and us. . . . Pray, Rev. Toorn-
 of 1942.                                                                   T&t, did not the view of the Liberated Churches anent.
    -"But I deplore that they had the courage to make -the'.Coyenant  of Grace circulate many years in many
 any doctrinal declarations, or express official synodical                  of `&ur churches, and by many of your ministers be-
 `opinibns' about matters that were not ripe for such                      for&1942? And were they not considered good, sound
 dogmatical decisions.                                                      anc$ Reformed" , Why should we, and much more, why
     "In my opinion, the Netherlands Synod acted' very sho,uld you cast them aside  like the harlot and the
 rashly in this. matter."                                                  pubiican? After hearing. both sides, stich as we h&e,
     If theh, the editor of the Standard B,earer criticizes                we?$ave come to the' conclusion that the Reformed
 the Synod of the Netherlands as being too rash atid                        Ch@hes (bound by hierarchy)  have, sinned  griev-
 hasty in the matter of adopting official declarations                     ouqlj?t"
 concerning the question of the covenant, after giving                        `@we have learned to know Prof. Schilder as a be-
 it into the  hands of a committee for study for six lov&: brother in Christ, as a faithful servant of that
 years, 1936-42, what must we then say of our Synod                        sar@ Christ, as a man mighty in the Scriptures, as
                                                                              > .-:                                            1.
                                                                 .            : ::.i                                I
                                                                                 - :
                             I_                                       D


 156                                )If`,HE  S T A N D A R D   BEARER-

a truly'Reformed man whom to throw out o$ the church stated the .f ollowing : "After reading- the above repdrt
communion cries to hgaven. -Of course, theye  are dif- we are still of the opinioli  that the issues involved in
ferences! Do all the ministers in your churches think the Clark controversy are matters for discu&iori by a
alike on all dogmas ? Yo-u know they do not! Follow theological conference rather than grounds of com-
the oath you have begun to tread and you will end up plaint ag&nst the licensure and ordination of a candi-
with peace,  but it will.be the peace of the graveyard,      date for the ministry." If this be true, then I ask in
where no one disagrees with nd one. They are alike           all earnestness, how dan the issues involved  in our con-
still, but it is the stillness of death. The end of the troversy with the `Liberated' brethren, be grounds for
pathway you have followed in 1942-1946 is the path denying membership in the church of Christ to these
that will surely end with Roman Catholicisni where brethren and sisters in the Lord?
there is but one voice of authority : the Pope."              .     '                                        B. Kok.
    ". . `. . Rev. Hoeksema took a heavy step? Prof.
Schilder felt strange on our pulpits? I wish that you
could have se,en our communion, could have attend&d
our conferences, could have heard the words that were
spoken on both sides .&hich spoke of warmth, of love, .Unnecessary And~Necessany 7&h
of trust, of appreciation. And all this in-the knowl-
edge that we differ on some points. What.of it? `No                 `With this heading I refer to many discussions foimd
one has all the truth. And we will learn one from the in our circles of late about  "~onditior&".  For a time
other." (Rev. G. Vos,,Standard  Bearer, Vol. 24, p. $50).    I hesitated writing, about the issue because it has at
    Would to God that our last Synod had been thus           present somewhat "`died down'P. However., the matter
minded, it would have kept them from making- the is by no nieans settled. Therefore I at this time want
error of: building our denominational wall so high to write what I find  in my general observation of
and narrow, that within them the& is room only' for          things. In doing so I ,will quote a few different say-
those that sibscribe to a certain covenant view to the ings by different writers, and try to remain  jtist as
exclysion  of all others. Such action must necessarily objective as possible. All of these quotations have
. lead'to dissension and schism.                             been mentioned before  `in. these discussions in our
    Finally, I object to the `Declaration of Principles' periodicals, but I will repeat dding so to serve as a
because the questions involved in this controversy are basis fox my deductions.
of such a nature that they aYe either extra-confession-             First of all I will quote a few words of Rev. Ophoff,'
al or at least debatable, and therefore may not .deter-      writteniri Vol. `2' of the Standard Bearer, p. 47. Thepe
mine membership  o& non-membership in the, Church of Rev. ,Ophoff ,is writing aboiit Prof. Berkhof's pelagian-
Chyist. 1 do not believe that we as churches may de-         ism. Having quoted i;he professor about believing in
mand' agreement with the proposed "Declaration of the crucified Christ he writes: "The above quotation
Principles' as a requisite for membership in our Prd-        asserts that he who denies (but-we do r@ deny) that
testant Reformed Churches. Yet, that seems to be the'conclitionnl  (underscoring, J. B.) promise should
the purpose of our last Synod in adopting these de- be proclamated unto all without distinction believes in
clarations. Th& this is evidently-the 1~urpos.e  is espec- the free will of man." Furthey, "Berkhof gives his
ially evident from the fact that this declaration was readers to understand that we deny that the eondition-
drasirn up in answer to a request from the Mission           al promise to the effect that all who believe will be
Committee for a formal letter to be signed by all those      saved should  be. declared without distinction.        This
who desire to be organized into a Protestant Reformed .is the first lie. We do .not deny this. We maintain,
Church. I am convinced that if we as churches would most emphatically, that the conditional promise should
adopt these declarations then all further discussidns on be declared unto all without. distinction." Now I
these questidns  would be `smothered, and oiar denomin- readily believe that Rev. Ophoff wopld not write that
ational wall would be built too high and' narro.w. To way today. Today he most likely would speak of a
my mind the issues involved are matters for discussion particular  eromise  that must be preached to all, sub-
by, a theological conference rather ,than grounds $0         stituting the word particular for conditional.  _ Of
deny  meniber'ship  in our churches. I recall a state- course, this would mean that he  changkd in use of
ment made by the Rev. H. Hoeksema in re the Clark words. Butlet that be as it is. Even with tile preach-
controversy of a few years ago in the Orthodox Presby- ing of a particular promise he still will not deny, I'.m
terian Churches. In my opinion the issues involved in sure, the truths he expressed at that time. The general
that controversy weke just as fundamental as the issues truth exppessed  is that the preaching is general, but
between us and. our brethren- of the "Liberatkd' church- the content of the preaching is particular. Further
 es of the Netherlands and Canada, and yet, in the that only those who believe are saved. This we all
 Si+$ard Bearer of May 15, 1945 the Rev. Hoeksema believe. Regarding salvation itself this nsturally im-


                                     T H E   S T A N D A R D   B E A R E R                                            157

piies that man must believe. Without it salvation is of God, such as, e.g. the suretyship of Jesus Christ,
impossible.  Or  t$ express it in other words: if one          the perfect satisfaction of the Mediator, the  .act of
does not believe the Word,preachkd  he cannot and shall believing, which act of believing is a gift of God? This
not be saved. Which reformed person would deny this?           explains why I underscore the words : `within the cove-
  Then in'one of the articles of Concordia Rev.' Petter        nant'; in the expressions: Both are conditions, how-
quotes Rev. H. Hoeksema. Of the  many quotations               ever, within the covenant". From these words it is
given one reads, and I'm quoting now as Rev. H. Hoek-          very plain that Rev. H.  Velclman  also believes that
sema restates his interp&etation,of  faith and justifica- only when Christia`ns believe will they enjoy the sal-
tion in the Standard Bearer of F,eb. 1, 1950, p. ,198:         vation of God. Hence, if the Christian does not be-
"And secondly, although it is,true that justific&iofi in       lieve or live in faith he will not receive that enjoyment.
the objective sense is contingent upon faith, we must          This certainly implies .that the Christian must do some-
never f&get that faith is not of ourselves, it is a gift thing. Again, who of us dijes not believe that this is
of God. It is therefore not a condition which we must          possible only by the grace of God. All of us do. And
fulfill in order to be justified: God Himself fulfills         &is .Rev. H. Veldman calls a condition within the cove-
all the conditions of salvation". In the context Rev.          n a n t .
Hoeksema speaks of  j.ustification  in the objective sense,       Now Rev. Petter. Is he a Pelagian and therefore a
stating &hat in that sense God's people are justified -heretic? ,Of this he has been accused. He believes in
even before they believe, also that in the blood of Christ     conditions, doe&  he not 7 Does he deny the.fundamental
the elect have been. justifie'd, in fact they liave been `truths of Reformed -or Prot. Ref. do&ine? I haven't
justified in Christ from eternity. But in further speak-       found it in -any' of his writings. Does he deny unconi
ing about our subjective justification, i.e. the conscious-    ditional predestination, total depravity, etc.? Does
~ness of this justification, he says that tliis is contingent he believe in Arminianism or Pelagianism? Is anyone
upon faith. Now what does this' mean?  .. That man             of our ministers guilty of these things? Not that I
must do something of himself to receive  this? Never!          know of. I do agree with Rev.  Doezema that Rev.
That  it is a condition man must fulfill  of himself?          Petter could have emphasized these a little more at
Again, never! But this, that only when the Christian different times to prevent' any possible suspicion that
believes and by faith clings to Christ will he be` con- he does not agree with some of them. But thi$ does
scious of this and possess that person&l - absurance.          not mean that he disagrees with them. Far from it.
,This naturally implies, negatively, that if he doesn't n/lany of our ministers have made big sacrifices for
do this he will not 6njoy that assurance. Hence, the           our Protestant  Refqrmed truth  jln. the past. Their
personal admonition here is that we must, .as chris-           struggles have often been many, including financial
tians, live in faith, have a seeking and active faith.         ones.. Wonder why?, Because they love our churches
Other interpretation I cannot give to these words.             and  OUT truth. Just a few days ago I received the
  Next. In the May 11, `50 issue of Concordia Rev.             December issue of Beacon `Lights. In it the editor
Petter refers for the ,second time to $n Article {of Rev. writ& about our present day situations. `And he
H. VJeldman in which Rev. Veldman quotes from Prof. tiakes sweepirig statements. He writes that the very
Berkhof's theology. See Standard  .Bearer,  March 1,           foundations of our  church_es  are, in danger of being
`48, pp. 247b and 248a. Thereupon`Rev. H. Veldman              uprooted. He also speaks %f distortiori of our truth.
ansyers Rev. Petter in the June 15, `50 issue of the           Further, that we are in great danger of losing our
Standard Bearer, pp. 412, 413. First pf all he again           precious heritage. Again I say, these are indeed.sweep-
quotes his own comments on Prof. Berkhof,  made the            ing statements. But naturally we look for positive
first time: "It is' surely true that the surety of Jesus       proof in future. issues. After all  impr@ssions  are  no
Christ is bas'is for God's fellowship with us, that the        proof, only facts. And I for one, on the basis of my
justice of the Lord must be, satisfied before we -c&           own convictions, do not believe that such is true. And
again ):e received into Divine favour (Lord's Day 5).          I thank IGod that such isn't the ease.
And it'is actually true that to enjoy experimentally,             But, to come back to Rev. Petter's writings, let us
expe$entially,"  6onsciously the blessings' of the cove'- take notice  of some of the things he wrote in the recent
nant,  ive must consciously enter into the covenant of         past. Naturally, it is quite impossible fqr me to go
faith. But does this give us th& right to speak of the         into detail, but I will quote him in as far as it is neces-
covenant in a conditional sense: Faith ,itself is a gift sary to present his views.
of God. And we surely agree .with the last sentence of            First  of-all he says that there are no conditions
the above quotation : "B&h are conditions, however,            for the covenant. Concordia, March 31, `49. He re-
within (underscoring H. 8.) the covenant". Further,            states this in the March -30 .issue of 1950; and in other
"Are not. the conditions of the professor in this quota-       places. What does he mean by this? `This, that  .,as
tion the requirements which are absolutely. necessary far as entering, in+ the covenant is concerned there
shall the `Christian receipe and. enjoy the salvatioh -are no conditiqns. It is simply unconditional, wholly


  158                                   T H E   S `T A N D A R D   B%ARER

  the w&k of God)s grace according to His eternal elec-         true that the Christian at all times. is conscious of the
  tioh. Becoming a Christian is one hundred percent             fact that if he does not do such things (which he can
  the work of the Lord. But he does believe in conditions       do only by the grace of  God) he  will not taste the
  in the coyenant. See the same issues. What does he            Lord's blessings. I? this isn't true theti I have never
  mean by this? That, after we have become children             yet preached the full Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.
  of God, we must do sotiething of ourselves? Or that .The Bible contains any number of examples of this
  the perseverance of the Christian is dependent upon           coi+ept.  ~
  his own free will? Not at all. !Let me quote him from            But why is Rev. Petter (and possibly also Rev.
  ihese issues : "Now we  -do not mean that after the           Doezema by this time) called unreformed. In bur
  Lord has begin the process and carried it to this point       circles- he has been accused of being Pelagian, unre-
  of consciousness, man as it were takes it up atid car-        formed, and  .even a heretic. But why? Because he
  ries it to its completion. Indeed not. Salvation is the uses the term condition'to express this concept. Rev.
  work of God from beginning to  .end. Sanctification           H. Hoeksema and Others use the-term: in the way of.
  and preservation are His as well as expiation and're-         God saves His people in the way of their believing,
  generation.     The power to believe is wrought by `the       seeking and trusting. But Rev. Petter thinks that this
  Lord.  And so is the power to walk in sanctification          expression does not do justice to the idea, and that
  and perseverance. But in these the creature partakes          Scripture .in different places definitely presents these
  and acts consciously so that it becomes his act. He be- truths in such a conditional form. Writes he; in Con-
  lieves, he sanctifies himself; he perseveres, appropriates    cordia,  January 19, `50: "And we must not lose this
_ the blessings' of salqation." But doesn't Rev. Petter         point in the Bible by saying that the idea of command,
  sljeak  of faith being`a condition? He does, but again,       or requirement, or demand, or of way (in the way of,
  the question is what does he me&i? Then he has re?er-         I presume, J. i%) expresses and fully covers the Bibli: '
  e&e to the activity of faith. He means to say that            cal idea. These words do not. The idea in the Bible
  man, as a Christian, for we are speaking here about           in many connections is that of conditionality. It is
  regenerated children of God, must live in faith, seek,        purposely expqessed that way by the Holy Spirit in the
  yepent, confess and trust in Christ. These are acts of Bible. Arid we may not try to get rid of this because
  the creature, as a moral, rational being, wrought `by         of some prepossession." So the  differenc'e  in  ali the  _
  God in him. And only when the Christian so lives does         discussions finally narrows down to khat of a word br
  he grow in salvation and ever more experiences the            of terminology. As far as the concept is concerned
  same. And what if he doesn't do this? Then he fails           there is no difference, ,at least not as far as I can see.
  to experience  these blessings, `Let me quote some            And because one  us& the word conditions, in this
  more. Concordia, April 13, `50 : "And now in th%t one         sense, he is necessarily unreformed. With this I do
  picture God acts, and man acts. God works in us the not agree. I consider so much of the discussion we've
  willing and the doing. He does not only wqrk the been having unnecessary. IOften the discussions cen-
  ability to will and do, but He works the willing and the tered around the concept,  P&t& being accused of many
  doing itself. And we work this salvation (katergein,          things,' while ,it should be cetitered  only around the
  Calvin: perficere, ad  finem  percpcere) . So there is        word. To my mind big issues have been made unneces-
 nothing here which God does not energize. And yet sarily. If  some0 want to discuss the term, that, of
  we do not only do this that is said here, (katergein)         course, is their privilege, but let it be limited only to
  but we are also exhorted to do it, we do it as our own        the term: ->
  act, as deed of willing and doing." To me this is very           Two thipgs I surely fail to understand. In the first
  plain. The' Christian acts, does something. He is a place that-the exponents of the term condition are al-
  rational, m&al being. But his very a&in'& is the power ready branded as being unreformed. Who can rightly -
  of .God within him.' Now this requirement of acting,          call a man unreformed and a heretic? Only  .Synod,
  i.e.  bf active faith he calls a condition. Before the of course. And only when Synod does such do we have
  mind of the Christian this stands out: If I do not so         the right of the use of `such language. Secondiy, if the
  live`1 will not-experience &he blessings of our co&nant ,accusers of these exponents are so convinced of their
  God. .rSo I understand Rev. Petter, both from his writ-       heresy why don't they approach their respective  con-
  ings and personal conversations with him.                     sistories? `That surely is the Fhurch-political way.
         Notice now that the concept or'iclea expressed in         But what is necessary? I would say, abundance of
  the writings of all four men is identical. If' I am love. No, that doesn't me& that we have to sacrifice
  wrong in drawing this conclusion I  staKc$ to be co&          an ounce of principle, but it does mean that prin%iple
  rected.     But who  .will deny the truth expressed in        without love means nothing. I  Ccr. 13. Who does
  them? Isn't it always true that as children of ~God we not want to keep the truth the Lord has given us? All
experience His blessings  only. when we by an active            of us do, I'm sure. It is dear to our hearts: But let
  faith seek, s&ve and trust in Him? Aid isn't it also          us labor in love, discuss in love and always assume


                                     T H E -   S T A N D A R D   B E A R E R                                       159

attitudes of love. Let us be very careful that Satan          article in the Standard Bearer with the articles of the
will not get an advantage of US. The sins of our old          Rev. Cammenga in the Concordia numbers of July 20
man so easily become  predominant. Loye is the way.           and August 17. I quote, the following from the article
Love is humility, patient and, meek. Love seeks the           in Contiordia of July 20 : `$?,econdly, although the Hol-    .
spiritual welfare of tkie brethren; Love ,defends  and .land immigrant in general is far better informed with
promotes  as much  as possible the honor and good             respect to Reformed doctrine than the average Chris-
character of our neighbor and brother. Love bears up tian Reformed member `in the States, yet in contacting
with each other's weaknesses. Let `s wash-one another         the Reformed immigrant it is very evident that the ~~
feet: Now of .a11 times it is expedient tha$,we  be &dm       memb2r.s  of the churches of the Reformed faith in
and collective. Surely in the times in which tie are          the Netherlands have also suffered from the spirit of
living, the last days. The devil would have  ti great         our day so that definite signs of error are horribly
pleasure in literally tearing our churches apart. Never       noticeable. Among them, too, the old stern, tried and
should we be hasty in .actions or in. drawing conclu- true Reformed faith is gone, and their living out of.
sions. mere there is love the Lord commands. His              the principle of the Church of Christ and living for
blessings. . . .and  there* only.                             the Church has well-nigh disappeared. Thirdly the
                                     J. Blankespoor.          spirit of hatred  atid antagonism toward us, so pro-
                                                              nounced in the States, is painfully evident in Canada
                                                              as well. Where and by whom this spirit was "pumped"
                                                              into them is not known to us, but that it was done is
            What Is The Truth?                                unquestionable. To them, whether they have never
                                                              seen or heard any of us personally, nor have ever done
                                                              so much as having read sdme of our literature-to
  ' With interest the-undersigned has read and refleet-       them we are schismatics ; a church, or rather a sect,
ed upon the various articles which &ave appeared in with a yery strange and never-heard-of-doctrine. To
our church papers. This, of course, is particul?rly ap- them we are a church with a gospel that knows of no
plicable to that which is being written about our church      responeibility  `of man, with a message only for the
labors in Canada. As con&story member of the Pro-             elect.",end  of  <quote. On& can hardly deny that the
testant Reformed ,Church of Hamilton, I think I can           language in this Concordia surely emits an entirely
say, in all modesty, to be acquainted ,with the mis-. different sound than that which characterizes the
sionary activity among the Holland immigrants, and            recent article in the Standard Bearer of December 1.
particularly with that activity in an establisjled church,       I wish to ask Rev. Cammenga : Why the change ?
consisting primarily of members of the Liberated              How do you account for the difference ,in your articles
Churches of .the Netherlands.                                 of last summer and the recent. one in the Standard
   When Rev. A. Camnienga expressed himself in                Bearer? Have you discerned of late among the immi-
the Concordia numbers of July 20 `and August 1'7 in grants in Canida any  ck;ange  for the better? To the
connection with %he difficulties of the labor a'mong contrary, I am of the convietion'that the last months
the immigrants I understood him fully and sympa- have taught us differently. Of course, I am speaking
thized with him with  ~11 my heart. And when he               &specially of .Hamilton.
promised us' in the August 17 number of Concordia,               Why are not the brethren and sisters of our P?o-
and I: quote: `TOther  difficulties in the Canadian field     testant Reformed Churches correctly informed about
we hope to consider in a future article," I looked for-       the labor in Canada? They are surely the ones who,
ward with much interest to this article in which he with their financial contributions, make the labor of
Mend&d  to consider these other difficulties. In the -Rev. Cammenga and Rev. Hofman among the inuni-
meantime Rev.  Camrnenga  visited us in Hamilton.             grants possible, and thejr are the ones who have al-
I talked. with-him and said to him that I bad noticed         ready brought several sacrifices for that w&k in Can-
in his Concordia articles that he had.encountered  diffi- ada. Why, then,. are they ilot being inSormed  accord- '
culties `with the Liberated immigrants, and that I            ing to the truth?,
looked forward with interest to his following article,           Upon reading this article one may posSibly ask the .
also with a view to the labor and conditions in the           question-whether I am personally against this work in
congregation of Hamilton.                                     Canada. And  then I must answer that `I cannot  be
   This promised article has until now not appeared.          sufficiently thankful that I at present bel6ng'. to our
Now, however, there appears in the Standard .Bearer           Prdtestant Reformed Churches, that we may hear the
of December 1, and to my utter amazement,  an article         purely Reformed preaching again, and that the pure ,
hy the Revs. Cammenga and Hofman, entitled : "Among administration of God's Word may once more be pro--
the Immigrants," which  6mits an entirely different           claimed from the pulpit. However, I consider it my
sound. I wish to ask our` readers  t6 compare this            holy calling to seek .for that church the good. This,
                                                                                          I

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

      and this alone, prompts this writing. And if we do              to be instructed by us, in seeking membership with
                                                                                                                              _
      mission work and would: organize new congregations              us."-end of quote.     .
      at the cost of our Protestant Reformed truth, then I               Again, we have read ih all amazement. We under-
      would say to the brothers .and sisters : "Is that the           stand this pakagraph to mean that these immigrants
      reason why you have stood firm for the truth since haye expressed the willingness to receive our preach-
      1924? Hold fast that which ye have, that no mai may             ing, and also, in seeking membership with us, to be
      take your crown."                                               instructed gy us.. And,later, on @age 118, toward the
 i           Now to return to the article  iri the Standard Bearer    close of the first paragraph, we read the same senti-
      of December 1. First we would quote the following,              Gents  : "In other words, they should not expect to find
      which we may read on page 11.6, second column, in the           or be able tb transplant their Church to this cou$ry,
      second paragraph : "It is encouraging that we can but must join themselves to the True Church as God
      testify of one another that we love the Truth and bow           has established and conditioned it here. We also be-
      before the Word of God. This latter, we have ex-                lieve that that is their desire. And that Church h&e
      perienced  time and again amongst them. Eve-n though bears the name : Protestant Reformed !" Please note
      it seems at times that they must re-state their position        from this latter quotation that it is the desire of these
      and forsake the contentions of some of their "leaders",         immigrants to fain themselves to the True Chuych of
      they are willing to be led by the` Scriptures. And that         God, that that True Church of God here is the Pro-
      they are fundamentally Reformed and that there should testant Reformed Church, that they do not .expect to
      be room for them in our felldwship, we are convinced." transplant their  Chtireh to this country, but  desire
             This statement by oui missionaries amazes me.            to join the Protestant Reformed Churches, for the sake
      Surely, this does not apply td Hamilton. It is simply           of. the Protestant Reformed Churches.,       I
      a riddle to us how anyone can write that they "are                 What, an amazing statement ! 1. would like .to ask
      Gilling  tq forsake the contentions of some of their            our missionaries: Brethren, where do yen find such
      `leaders' and are willing to be `led by the Scriptures." immigrants?. I must still meet them. Per&t me to
      The undersigned would like to know to what extent               inform our readers that this is exactly what the con-
      the immigrants here are in constant .contact with the           sistory of the .Pxotestant  RefocmLd  Chtirch at Hamil-
      Netherlands and are being led by their leaders in the           ton, has rejected. The poilit is exactly that they have
Netherlands. But, of greater significance is the  latter              refused to be a Protestant Reformed Church, but have
      part of this quotation of the article in the Standard -simply decided to open the church doors to all the
      Bearer. Had our missidnaries  written that they should          Liberated immigrants from the Netherlands.  :, The
      be given room in our churches if they agree to be in-           point is that this is exactly, the reason why the,, con-
      structed.in our, truth and promise not to agitate, the          grebation at Hamilton is about to disappear as a Pro-
      undersigned would have no objection. However, it testant Reformed Church unless something unforeseen
      seems to me that that lies in tile very nature of the           happens. The point is that the Church here has put
      case. But I cannot possibly "conclude that from this            the Liberated immigrants of the Netherlands above
      article.  ,Of course, I stand to be corrected. But, I           the Church whose name  Bhe bears.
      have  ullderstood  this statement in the December 1                I feel that it is my duty to aequaint our readers.
      article to mean that because they are fundamentally with `these facts, and call the attention to the article
      Reformed there should be room for them in our fellow-           of  ,the Revs. Cammenga and Hofman with which I
      ship. Revs. Cammenga and Hofman, is a man funda-                cannot possibly agree. As Protestant Reformed Chur-
      mentally Reformed when he believes in the Heynsian              ches we must be peculiar. If therein we fail we have
      conception of the covenant and the promise? Is a lost al! right of -existence. For the sake of the truth
      person fundamentally Reformed when he believes that             of God's unconditional, sovereignly particular grace
      God loves all the children who are baptized and wotild          and promise we exist today. .And ,only as long as we
      save them all?' Is a person fundamentally Reformed watch over !his truth shall we costinue to exist.
 when he declares that Christ died for all, or that Christ                                                      S. Reitsma
      -at least merited the chance of salvatiog  for all? Are                                               Hamilton, Ont.
      these people fundamentally Reformed and should there
      be room for them in our fellowship?               e
         And, in the second place, I quote the foilowing from                           I   T H A N K   T H E E
      the DecGmber  1 article, in the Standard Bearer, page
 .11'7, second column, second  pslragraph:  "Yet, after                      For all Thy blessings;- Loid, to me ;
      hearing our preaching, they recognized what they                         For all I am and still may be ;
      wanted. And even though all'their questions may not                      For all the promise in God's Word ;
      have been immediately answered, they expressed their                     For His message I have heard,
      willingness to receive that preachilig and their desire                       I am  thtinkful.


                                      T H E         STANDA.RD  BEAR.ER                                                 161

                                                                I urge its. adoption. ,Certainly,  the brother must know
  The Rest <Of Broth& T&n El&of's that the picture of us that he hangs before men is a
                         &%icle                                 horrible misrepresentation.
                                                                   The brother of course is not one of those who spew
                                                                out'their disgust w&n they find that the ILoyd's field
     I, have not yet done with the article of George Ten        is in.the need of a bit of cultivation for the removal of
Elshof (The Standard Bearer for December  1). In                what appear  to be weeds growing among the corn. He
  my previous writing 1 dealt with. the brother's state-        loves the field and desires that it be weeded. But why
  .ment that reads: "I ask in all seriousness and sobriety      then does he urge the rejection of the "New- Declara-
  surely if we need a declaration we have needed one            tioli"? That `6Declaration" is the hoe for, weeding the
  for years which according to form and content refute          field. Can we weed without a hoe? Can we weed
  the `error of common ,grace and related deviatiol&"           without the preaching of the Word, the pure Gospel?
     Let us now examine the rest of the brother's article.      .Or is the doctrine .of the "New Declaration" not the
  Referring to the immigrants in Canada, he writes that         pure `Gospel of God ? Is it not the Gospel of our Con-
 -"now we find ourselves placed before the beautiful and        fessions? If so, why then does not some one in our
  to us almost unusually delightful privilege of bringing. midst try to make this plain?
  our truth, not, tom those by whom we are  constalitly            The-point that the brother means to drive home by
  rejected, but rather to those who ape ready and who           his illustration of the cannibals iS that a declaration
 have been prepared and placed exaetljr at that place           would not.,cause such savages to stop devouring strang-
  and in those circumstances  to listen to us with an at-       ers, and .tliat therefore it should be plain: to all that,
  tentive ear."                       D                         to quote his own wo?ds,  "the multiplicity of situatiions
     And. what is  our reaction supposed to be? This,           and circumstances (of life) can never be covered .by
 according to. Ten Elshqf : "We spew out our disgust            a inass production factory"?
  when we find that the Lord's field is in need of a.bit           But the brother is sorely mistaken. If the declara-
  of cultivation in order tQ remove what appears to be          tion were the true gospel, it would have precisely that
  weeds growing amofig the rows df sturdy corn." He             effect on as many such heathen as it pleased the Lord
  continues,: "`It is hot for nothing that the figure of the    to save by it. As converted cannibals they surely
  husbandman is used in Scripture. Does the tenant-             wduld not stew and consume their fellow humans any-
farmer turn to the  landl&d and say, `I cannot work             more.                       I
  your field for I find weeds there,.yea,  even thorns and         The brother also thinks  &at, quoting again his
  thistles. Ivy back is sore, my hands are blistered from       own words, "it is a sign of weakness in the church
  years of hoeing and weeding in that other field to            when she finds it.necessary  to add to the Confessions."
  which you assigned me'."                                      But the sign of  `weaknesh is not adding to or inter-
     By this imagery we, v@o urge the adoption of th%           preting the Confessions, but corrupting: them as did
  "New Declaration",, are pictured as being furiously           the. Christian Reformed Churches in `24. Adding to
  angry with God (we spew out our disgust) because He           the confessions or interpreting'them, when necessary,
  sends us to pr,oclZm  the Gospel to the Canadian immi- is 3ndicative of great spiritual strength, of sustained
  grants. We rebel at the' sight of the weeds of error. in      ability and courage on the part of the church to vindi-
  the thinking of these people. It calls for some hoeing.       c$e sound doctrine against heresies and erroys.
  And we are sick and tired of hoeing. We have had                 The brother also asks:. "Has not the legislation
  enough of' that sort of thing. Such, according to the         coricerning worldly amusements, union membership,
  brother, is our attitude. But he is mistaken. We are          censored books, etc. etc. been a miserable failure?"
  only too eager to instruct these people in  the true          We may reply that if the "legislation" is of Christ, the
  doctrin'e  that their minds may be freed from' the weed; sole legislator of. the churbh;---if,  `accordingly, its squrce
  of error by which the growth-of their spiritual life          is God's Scriptures, it is hot a'failure. For the Scrip-
  is being stunted,-eager that they join us in confess- tures cannot be a failure ever. Hardening or. softening
  ing before men the pure Gospel. But barring excep-            as God wills, they are a success always. we are the
  tions, these pebplk will not be instructed and they in-       miserable failures-%e, who in dyr carnality refuse to
  sist on corrupting oil? churches by propagating their be bound by Christ's legislation  doncerning  worldly
  err~ors in our communion. Certainly, we must labor            amusements, etc.  etc.
  with thein. But we may not take them under our-e%-               We agree with the brother that, to quote his own
  clesiastical roof so long as they will not `allow them-       words, ."the a$herence  to sound doctrine and the ob-
  selves to be bound by what we believe to be the truth         servance of proper deportment must spring forth from
  of the Confessions. To exclude these people until they. a sanctified heart`wliich humbly bows before the Word               ,
  are able to change their mind and attitude, we as             and is subservient to it; and that it'cannot be accom-
  churches must have the "Declaration". And therefore           plished by a suBePimpositian  of declarations." This is


 162                                                                                                            ~I
                                    '  T H E   S T A - N D A R D   B E A R E R .

 indeed true. It is just another way of saying that if          sion. Thus rejecting t&e "Declaration" we reject what
 there be not -grace in t&e ,heart,  the declaration, if it     we believe to be the .truth of G.od!s very Word. But
 sets forth the true Gospel, is a sasioi of death unto          the truth will abide, though as churches we repudiate'
 death in &very such case. But must for'this reason the_ it-abide even in our hearts and consciousnesses only
 declaration be rejec_ted? If so, then for this very and        now to condemn us for denying it. Let us take heed
 same reason we are obliged to repudiate all our Chris-         to ourselves what we do with the "New Declaration".
 tian creeds and with them the Scriptures.           :                                                  G. M. Ophoff.        .
    In the lines last quoted occurs the expression? "by
 a superimposition of -declarations".U In our commuliion                                 --.
                                                                                             a.-
 declarations  ark not  of course superimposed. Our
 synods are not hierarchs.
    In closing the brother bids us to gaze at the church           Rev. Petter's Fifth Instalment
 of Rome "for thk classic example of declarations.`:
 He exclaims : "Count, if you can, her papal bulls and             In the  "Concordia!' for  Decembei-  7 Rev. Petter
* &diets  and behold also a v&t multitude who no_w bow          makes a beginning of trea$ing.the  "New Declaration"..
 before their declarations rather than before the Word  !" That as such is gratifying. It is a thing to which we
 -- It is true what the brother says. Rome's bulls are have been looking forward for some time now. Rev.
 numerous. But w&e th&r content derivkd from the                Petter criticizes the "Declaration"; he raises objec-
.Scriptures,  I and we all would have to gubscribe them tions to it. That of course is his right. But the right
 `even to the last bull. And the  niultitude of course          may not be abused. The criticism must be true and
 shodld bow only before the &riptures and not before            just and the objections real. Let us get before us the
 declarations  -ia conflict with the Scriptures. And  %i.:      criticism that Reti. Petter brings to bear on tine "De-
 bxings us finally to the real issue in dispute a-mong us.      claration". He writes :
 It is this': Is the subject matter of the "New Declara-           "And now when I finally be&n to disc&, or criticize
 tion" the Very doctrine of the Scriptures and the Con-         the Declaration. I will state that I have objections
 fessions. If so, we as churches are in duty bound be-          to it from exactly the above, viewpoint, namely, of
fore God to subscribe' and adopt. it. `Would that the           speaking the trllth in love. I have objections both
 brother had concentrated on the real issue.                    to its origination and its contents ; and I hold that it
    Some concluding remarks.                                    does not advance the truth %nd the unity of the church,
    `The brother is strongly  bpposed to "declarations".        neither as regards our relation to the Liberated, nor
 Can he explain the  `e.%entiaZ difference between a            as regards our relation among ourselves as `members
 "declaration" and a "sermon" on the text of the Sdrip-         of one church. I maintain that it is confusing, ob-
 tures? He cannot  explain"the difference, for there            structive, devisive."
 is none. Both set forth what their authors believe*to          c- The charges are these:
 be the truth of God's WoFd. Yet, though the brother
 listens to two sermons every Sabbath and as a khristign        1) The "New Declaration" does not speak the truth
 man must arid does allow liimself  to be bound by them,'          in love.
 if his heart tells him that what he hears is the Word          2) -Its origination causeb brow-raising. (in the sequel
 of God; he repudiates the  `LDeclaration" -and urges              of his' article).
the churches to do likewise, though his heart must be           3) It do& not advance the truth.         .
 telling him that it too is the word, of' God. I don't 4) It does not advance the unity of the church.
 understand.                                                    5) It' is confusing, -obstructive, devisive.
    Frequently I- hear also this reasoning : If the "New           Rev. Petter has much fault to find with the "De-
 Declaration" is as to its subject matter the Confes- Zlaration". But it is clear that he is not facing the
 sions, we continue to hold the truth even as rejecters         real issue regarding it, which is : Is the "Declaration"
 of the "Declaration". For we have and retain the as to its subject matter the true (Gospel  of the Confes-
 truth, in our -Confessions. So, what need have sire of sions. If so, Rev. Petter's most serious criticism ofQ it
 the "Declaration". No need whatever.                           autotiatic&lly falls by the board. For. certainly, if the
    But this reasonitig won't do either. This ought to          "Declaration" as to its subject matter is the true gospel
 be clear. If John and Henry are one and the saine              of the "Confessions" it necessarily advances, as preach-
 human, it is not possible to make away with John while         ed by Christ.and,proclaimed  by His servants, the truth
 savirig alive Henry. No more `is it possible to hold to the    and the true church. For this is `always the effect of
 Confessions, while reptidiating  the "Declaration". For the Gospel preaching. And if the "Declaration" is the
 as to their subject matter, they are one and th,e same.        true Gospel of the ,Confessions,  `it also obstructs and
 (No one as yet has proved the colztrary)  . Hence, re- divides. For the true Gospel does so. . As tireached  by
 jecting the "New Declarat,ion" we reject ouf Confes-           Christ, it excludes the children of darkness and causes


                                      T H E -   S T A N D A R D   B E A R E R .                                       163

  divisions` between believers and  unbielievers.   Rev;.       ject a!1 ,er?ors that mili.tate against this doctrine and          -
  Petter should con@ntrate on the issue.                        particularly those that were condemned by the above-
     But -it is also conceivable of course that the "De-        mentioned synod (of Dort) , but that w& are disposed
  claration" obstructs and divides because, due to its          to refbte and contradict these, and to exert ourselves
 faulty compositio&  it equivocates, emits an uncertain         in, keeping the church free from such errors." (See
- sound. Rev. Petter better tell us what he means. '            For&ula of Subscription)..
     Rev. Petter, of course, is obliged to prove all-his            2) If the "Declaration" as to its' subject matter
  charges.    I say this with emphasis because he by-           is the Confessions it may not be rejected on  -the
  passes the first. Not proving also this charge will           grounds that it is obstructive and devisive. For this
  reveal that his sole purpose in treating the "Declara-        `would be eqL!ivalent  to rejecting the Confessions on the
  tjon" is not to speak the truth about it but to bring it      grounds that they are obstructive and devisive, which,
  under a cloud, to discredit it in the eyes of the readers     of course they are, as has just been explained.
  of the "Coneordia".        -                                      3) If the "D&zlaration" as to its. subject matter is
     As God only knows the heart it `follows that to            the Confessions it may.not be rejected -on the grounds
  prove this charge  Rev. Petter must show th&t as to           that it does not advance&he truth and the church. For         '
  the form of its words the `"Declaration" is loveless,         this would be equivalent to rejecting the Confessions
  bitter, hateful, and thus bespeaks hatred in. the hearts      on the ground that they do not advance the truth and
  of its a&hors.                                                the  chuych. And certainly, being as to  their  subject
     And to prove his second charge Rey. Petter must matter .the Scriptures they do advance the truth and
  show by producing all the evidence that the "Declara-         t h e   c h u r c h .
  tion" was brought. into being by acts of deceit both              Thus it is plain ,what constitutes the issue in o&
  on the part of the committ& of pre-advice  and on the         d i s p u t e .
  part of synod by whom. the 6`Declaration" was tenta-             `1) The issue is not, whether the "Declaration" is
tively adopted and who advised the `churches to make            offensive to and excludes Canadian immigrants who
  a study of it with a view to its permanent adoption           will not be instructed in ,its doctrine. This can have
  (or rejection) on the coming synod.                           nothing.to do with the issue.
   - `To prove that the "Declaration" does not advance              2) The issue is not whether Rev. Petter is Reform-
  the truth and the unity of the church,. is obstructive        ed. No one has said that `he isn't. But this can have
  aid devisive Rev. Petter must show either that as to          nothing to do with the issue.
  its composition it:is-hopelessli  confusing or that as to         3) The issue is not whether Rev. J. D. de Jong  '
  its subje'ct  matter it is not the Confessions butsan ad-     had a pleasant trip. We believe he did. But this is
  dition to it and then, should he succeed in this, that as     ndt the -issue.
  taken by itself it is heretical. ,Of course; if the "De-          4) The issue is not whether there was a time when
  claration" is heretical it iS not as to its subject matter    we imagined that the Lib&ated churches and the Pro-
  the Confessions. Bo Rev. Petter should begin trying testant Reformed churches could be sister churches.
  to show that the "Declar&ion' `is heretical.                      5) The' issue is not whether Prof. Schilder is a
     Finally, to prove  that the "Declaratioq" is confus-       very learned man. I believe he is. But this is not
 ing Rev. Petter must show that, because of its faulty          the issue.
  composition, `it is ambiguous and equivocating.                   6) The issue is not whether Rev. Petter is so pro-
     The grounds on which the "Declaration" may not             found in his writings that we mortals of  ordinary~
  be rejected.                                                  mold do not grasp the man.
     1) If the "Declaration" is as to its subject matter            7. The issue is not whether 90 percent of our people
  the Conftissions,  it may not be-rejected on the grounds      hold with Rev. Petter.                         Y
  that it is 0ffensiv.e to some people or that i;t excludes         8) The issue iS not whether 22 years ago I a few
  Christian immigrants who -will not allow them&elves           times `employed the kind of terminology the use of
  to be instructed in its doctrine or that as ad6p-ted  it      tihich I now condemn. I admitted that I did. Eut
  would be binding. For this would be equivalent to             this can have nothing to do with the issue.
  rejecting the Confessions on the grounds that they are            9) The issue is not whether the Protestant Re-
  offensive to some people br exclude Canadian ipmi-            formed and the !Liberated  mean the same thing but
  gfants, or that they are binding. Of course the Con- that the trouble is that each group expresses itself dif-                        j
  fessions are binding. We as office-bearers subscribe          ferently:  This can have nothing to do with the issue.        -
  them, don't we ; and thereby we promised "diligently              The issue in this present controversy is this: Is
 $0 teach ana faithfully to defend the aforesaid- doc-          the "Declaration" as to its ..subject matter the Con-
trine, without either. directly or indirectly contradict-. fessions.
  ing the same, by bur public preaching or writing.                 Let us by ,a11 means concentrate on the issue. Let
  Moreover we declared by pur subscript&n  that we re-          us first settle this issue. Having settled the issue, we


 164 ,                              `, '    T H E   S T A N D A R D   B E A R E R   i
                                                                    -_ ,
 may'take  up for discussion  ai many of these other
 matters as we think it worth our while.
 ,Finally, the ground  tin which the "Declaration"                          I N   H I S   FtiAR'  "
 may be `rejected is that as to ,its subject matter it is
 not the Confessions.
    There is also the question whether the adoption                         A  &s&thy'  Attittide
 of the "Declaration" may be postponed say for a year.
 It  ,may not be done. Allow we to state the reason.               As we pointed out in our last article, it is our in-
&et us once more get before us the doctrine of the              tention in these present articles to underscore the fact
 "Declaration". It is this: The promise of God is an            that the present controversy, as it has now rather
 unconditional and unfailing oath bequeathing salvation         centered about the Declaration. of Pkciples, must be
 only upon the elect  `and assuring it to them alone. It        viewed and treated, in the fear of the Lord. In `that
 was as moved by the conviction that this doctrine is           connection we called attention in the last issue to cer-
 the Gospel of the Confession and the Scriptures that           tain "pieudo-arguments" which are.used  and. of which
 we chose being .expelled  from the fellowship of. the          as people of God we must beware as we take a stand
 Christian Reformed Churches rather than sign the and maintain the posjtion that we take. In the present
 Three Points. By iigning these points we would have            article we will call attention to some dangerous atti-
 denied this doctrine. As moved by this same con- tudes which are assumed or could be assumed in re-
 viction we have been preaching this doctrine from our          gard to the controversy, in the hope that also `in this
 pulpits through all the years of our ex.istence as chur-       respect "fdrewarned is fore-armed."
-c&s. Think what it would m&n should we on -the                    We would emphasize, however, once again before
 coming synod declare the doctrine of the "`Declaration" we proceed, that it is not hour intention to.. enter into
 not to be the doctrine of the "Confession and the Scrip- the contents of the controversy as such in these article&
 tures" and on that grouhd deny it. We would thereby            We say this not b&cause we personally are.in a "`neutral
 pronounce our conviction false, and accordingly our            corner". We are not. We take our stand.without  any
 refusal to subscribe the Three Points a mistake, and           question cn the side of the truth as it is maifitained in
 our separate existence as `churches pointless.                 the Declaration on the basis of our Reformed `Con-
    But certainly our firm belief still is tha$ the doc-        Pessions and also ,maintain that the declaration of that
 trine of the "Declaration" is the ,Gospel  of the Confes-      truth, far from' being obstrucfive or schismatic, is ai;
sions and the Scriptures. Such being our conviction, this stage 6f ourhititory highly necessary  and salutary
 hoti `can we postpone. adopting the "Declaration". in          for our ~ch~rches in view of recent deGelopm&nts  both
 order to give the Liberated time to -make *up their' at home and on the mission field. But the arguments
 minds about it? It may not.be  done. - For to postpone         2s such, pro and-con, do not belong in this rubric, but
 adopting the "Declaration"' -for that purpose, we as           to the editorial  departtient.  And we leave them to
 churches on our synod put a question mark not only             our editor gladly. -X's m.erely here recognize the fact
 behind the "Declaration" but behind the `Confess%n             that the proposed Deklaration as ,well as the truth con-
 and the very Scriptures as well. For our conviction is         tained in it have been and are being opposed: theye is
 that the doctrine of the "DeCiaratioh9' is the Gospel of       a controversy. Arguments are being made bacE and
 the Confession and  the Scriptures.                            forth. And our churches, all our people, are faced
    This  is as plain as can be. As churches we may             by that controversy. They must weigh the arguments,
 not certainly on our next synod decide to postpone             and they must needs assume certain definite attitudes.
 adopting the "Declaration" and then in the same And we urge that this must be done in the fear of the
 breath declare that as to its subject matter it is the         Lord. And hence we here call attention to some wrong
 confession. Doing the latter we are morrally obliged           attitudes with which one comes into'contact.
 to adoit the "Declaration" at onc`e without delay. The
 only way in which we can free  ,ourselves  from this           I Don't Care.
 responsibility before the. eyes bf the world is officially        Surprising as it may seem, this attitude is taken
 to refrain from declaring the "Declaration" to be the by some. It isn't expressed in so many words. Who
 Confession as to its subject matter. But doing the would do that? But the attitude is there nevertheless.-
 latter we officially put a question mark behind it. This       It is ieally the attitude of those who don't know in the
 can't be helped.                                               least what is going on these days. .They .never  talk
    But our conviction being what it is, how can it be          about. the matters at hand. They wouldn't know where
 right fey us to put a question mark behind the "De-            to begin talking about them. They don't-know what
 claration". How, in other words, can it be right for matters are the subject of discussion. They don't say,
 us  to postpone its adoption even, our conviction being        "I don't care," but  they act it. They probably don't
 what it is. It cannot be right.             G. IYI. Ophoff.    read either the Standard Bearer or Concord&. If the


                                       T H E   S T A N D A R D   B E A R E R                                         165

subject is broached `in, the pulpit, they can't grasp it       verbial ostrich, who blithely sticks his-head in the
because  they.hav&n't  kept themselves informed, haven't       sand and says he can't see any danger.        -  -    .,
*lived along. They really take the attitude expressed              ?) That the cause of fhat controversy is not the
in the words; "I don't care."                                  truth, but the appearance of the lie, the Heynsian
    Dangerous  ? That goes ivithout saying.                    error. And let us never forget that throughout the
    If everyone.  took that attitude, the church would         history' of the church the truth.and  the maintenance of
be so dead that there could no longer be any contro-           the truth has not been -the. cause of schism and dis-
versy. In fact, throughout church history it has been          sension.      That charge must be laid at the door  of'
because there were those dead, inactive, uninformed,           heresy: The truth is not a departure, and those who
uninterested I-don't-care-ists that heresy has ever been       maintain the truth are not schismatic. But the lie is
able to raise its ugly head, in the midst of the church.       the departure, and. those who insist on it over against
As long as the church is ,on its" guard .and alert and         the truth are the schismatics. If you forget that, jrou
mindful of what is being said and written and actively         take away your. own right of existence as sons of the
concerned about it, false doctrine never stands a              Reformation., Or, to bring the matter closer home,
chance.                                                        .you take allay' your right of existence as Protestant
Watch, therefore !               1`                            Reformed Churches.
                                                                  3) That controversy should be public.  " The present
Anti-~ontroversinlists:                                        contrdversy  is public, of  couise.  And it was brought
                                                     h         into public by the public  oppositioti  of some to the
    The twin brother of I-don't-care-ism is a&i-contro-        Protestant Reformed truth. But that it is public is
versialism. Those who. take this attitude insist that -proper. I would not at all be in favor 6f limiting the
all controversy is distasi;eful,  that we' should not sully    present discussions, for example, to a private ministers'
.the pages of our periodicals with these `"petty" differ- -conference. Not because I want to see our churches
ences, that no one is edified thereby. They want to            t&n by trouble, nor `because I like to display  oui-
leave these doctrinal differences to the private discus-       troubles for all to see, but because the matt&s invdlved
sion ,of the clergy. And, with a view to thope outside         concern the churches, And the churches are not the
our `circles, they don't want to hang our dirty wash           clergy, but all our congregations and the members
on the line for ali to see.~ Rather, do they emphasize,        thereof.
we should be positive, not call'attention to the false-           4) That when and since this_controtiersy  is public,
hood of the lie. They sometimes  even go so  fa,r as           everyone must take it as his duty to investigate it not
to maintain that it has always been the trouble of the         only, but to determine where he stands. You can't be
Protestant Ref  oTmed  Churches that they. have been           neutral. Nor can you view the whole n?&tter  as a sort
controversial, troublesome, meddlesome, intolerant.  We        of- philosophical dis.cussion. But because the- truth as
should seek unity, and should cooperate on what com-           it is in Christ Jesus is involved, every member of the
mon ground we c&n find, f&get the differences, 60th            church must be vitally and intensely concerned. You
among ourselves and between us and other groups.               can't sit by yawning, while the battle of the truth is
    Now there is a certain twisted element of truth' being fought.
in this attitude which is very deceptive. In.fact,  usu-
aliy these anti-controversialists make their position          Appeasers.
sound so dkceptively pious and true that one is easily            It stands to reasofi that these appeasers are really
impressed by them as high-minded Christians. The               of the same party as the anti-controversialists. They
element of truth is this, that controversy is distasteful      are those who insist that we must seek peace, that we
to most of us, distasteful to our flesh. I refer, of           must pray for the peace of Jerusalem, and that lament
course, to controversy not as fighting for the sake of         the present controversy because it is a'breach of the
a fight, but as striving for the maintenance of the            peace.
truth of God's Word over against the philosophy. of               In regard to this attitude, let it be said that we
men. That tKue controversy is distasteful to our flesh.        musti beware that our. peace-seeking ,is not paci$ism.
We don't want to fight that fight. That is why Bcrip-          There must be no appeasement  through compromise.
ture. so frequently must warn us of-the certainty that         The churches must beware of a Munich. In our seek-
false doctrine shall arise in the church'and must ad-          ing of peace;  tie must very consciously seek peace;
monish us to be on our guard against heresy and to, and in our prayer for the peace of Jerusalem, w.e must
oppose the lie. In that connection, with a view to the         very consciously pray  I  for the peace of  Jerusalerri.
ljresent situation in our churches let us note: .              Peace is after all the sweet consciousness that all is"
    1) That the controversy is there; it is a fact. To         w&l1 with us before God. And it is only when we have
say that we must avoid `it is to denycareality. And let        that peace `with God that we can have peace with one
US not try to take the ispiritual attitude of the pro-         another and peace with all things. And remember:

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

 God  iq a God of truth. There can be no peace with           ring. Has it not been exact@ the opposition in all the
 God as long as we hold a lie in our hand, 1~0 peace for      history of our churches that tried to dull the sharp
 us as churches `and no peace for us as members of the        sword of the truth by calling the differences between
 church.                                                      us and our mother-church a matter .of terms, or of a
    And. so : by all means, seek peace. Pray for the          dfiference of gmphasis ?' ' Have they not often pointed
 peace of Jerusalem. But do. it with the confession:          to the fact that we were a minority? Have they not
 "If `I forget thee, 0 Jerusalem, let my right hand for-' often boasted in authorities? Have they  not often
 get her cunning. If I do not remember thee, let my           clamored, "me too", in regard to being  Refdrmed?
 tongue.cleave to the roof of my mouth; if I prefer not       Has not the breach of the peace often been lamented,
Jerusalem above my chief joy."                                with the sword of deposition in the hand? Has .not
 Lack of Love?                                                the ostrich frequently put its head in the sand ecclesi-
                                                              astically? Has not the general and sentimental charge
    There  is also the danger that we simply in a gene&l      of a lack of love @ten been `made?
`and hazy way attribute all trouble to a lack of l&e,            History's page carries the clear warning to all who
 often to a lack of love on the part of those who sharply would walk in  thhe  fear of the Lord:  Be careful!  Be.
 and `clearly define and maintain the truth? sometities       not deceived !           .
 to a lack of love on the part of both sides, and some-          We must not be turned aside from the path of
 times without any specification.                             truth. We must be straight-forward, honest, " clear,
    No no one will deny that we must be motivate@ by          and'concise in our arguments, and in our evaluation of
 the love of Christ in all that we do and say. But wz         them. tie must above all else seek the truth, and.must
 must not make a general charge of this kind and tllell       be guided by nothing else ihan a desire for the truth.
 disgustedly turn away from this  .controversy.   Xo:         We must stand concretely upon the basis of the Con-
 should we sling that term love `of Chvist around loosely.    fessions and continue to maintain them without hesita'-
 Love is concrete. It is, in the-first place, love of God     tion over against any and all who slip, from that basis
 in Christ to us. And therefore it is manifest in this        and cannot clearly point to any confessional ground in
 that- we love the God of our salyation in #Christ. And       their views.
 ihe God qf our salvation is the God of the truth as it          The fear of the Lord is concrete,
 is in Christ Jesus. Hence, the activity of love is also        It is the way of-truth.
 this, that we seek and maintain the truth, also among                                           H. C., Hoeksema.
 one another. And the activity of love is this, that we
 condemn all that is not in harmony with th& truth,
 and that we do not hesitate to do that. That. is the
 very necessary activity of love. Love is nGt a euper-
 ficial sentiment that will tolerate any-and every devia-
 tion from the path of truth. In respect t6 the truth                .  FROM  HQI.,Y  W&T
 love is very severe. It cannot function where there is
 the lie. It ferrets out the lie, condemns it, warns
 against it, points out the way of the truth. If then           Exposition Of Hebrews 10:19-25
 the accusation of a lack of the love-of Christ is made,
 it must be specific, it must poifit out where and how                                 VIII.
 that love is lacking, and it must do so on the basis            In this article we will continue our exposition of
 .of the Word of God. And let hit be remembered that          Hebrews 10 :23 . This verse reads as follows,:. "Let us
 no deviation from the truth of the Word of God has hold fast the confession of the, unwavering hope, for
 ever yet had its root in the love of Christ.                 he that hath promised is faithful."
                                                                 We wish to recall here to the reader, that in our
                                                              former article, we called attention to two elements in
    Bnd. now I would like to spund a warning fr`om            the text. The first element, that `we underscored in
 the pages of church, history. The pseudo-arguments           the above-name1 article is: the proper understanding
 of which I wrote last time, and the various attitudes ' of the term "the unwavering hope". We emphasized
 to whibh. I call attention in this articlk are nothing that this is not the hope in.the  subjective sense of th,e
 new in the history of the church. There has never term'merely,  but that this is rather the objective hope
 been a time in all the ages of church history when in' heaven, the realities in Christ as they shall be real-
' they have not' arisen. In fact, if we are mindful of ized in the future and are the object of our joyful aiid
 o.ur own history of 25 short years' duration, we cannot ardent  longink.
 fail, surely, to note that ,a11 these arguments and dif-        `The second eJement  to which we called attention is,
 ferent expressions, of attitude have ominously familiar      that the confession here referred to, is not primarily


              t
                                      T H E   S'iANDARD  B E A R E R                                                 167

  to be understood in the sense of the act of confess&,         by the light `of.nature,  nor by the Law of God, in both
  but that it refers to'the cdntent of the confession of        of which:we only see our great misery and the knowl-
  the truth of the Gospel as it pertains to the final realiz- edge of.which can only cause our sin to multiply, but
  ation, and as this content is believed with the heart         it is wrought in LB through the preaching (per ser;
  unto righteousness and  -is confessed with the mouth monem) which the Holy :Spirit employs to .work  such
  unto salvation. This, of course, does not mean that           faith in us.
  the actual confession is not `important, nor does it             `Thirdly, to "hold fast" must not be idedified with
  mean that this element of actually confessing is not          the act of God, (both in the beginning of the working
  taught here in this ,beautiful Scripture passage.             of the new life in us and its continuance) whereby He
     The very contrary is true.                                 works true conversion in the elect, and powerfully
     For the text `teaches that we must "`hold fast" to         illumines `their minds through the Holy Spirit, so that-
  the confession of the hope. And such "holding fast" they may rightly understand and discern the things of
  is undoubtedly an activity of faith and hope that works       God. Nor must this "holding fast" be identijiscl  with
  by love. There are some expositors; who feel that the         that "supernatural, most powerfui and, at the same
  more proper rendering .of the verb in the Greek is :          time, most delightful, astonishing, mysterious and in-
  "keep on holding fast". Never let go until the final          effable work" of God, a work which is "not inferior
  victory is won.                                               in efficacy to creation, or the resurrection from the
     But, according to the text, "hold fast" we must.           dead" as the~inspired Scriptures declare, "so that all
     What does this imply? This holding fast surely             in whose heart God works in this marvelous manner
  implies the. here following elements, all of which we         are certainly infallibly and effectually. regenerated,
  should keep in mind when presently we come to the             and do actually believe." The act of ,God in regene.ra-
I question of the encouraging word "for He that has             tion, calling. and preservation may never be identilied
  promised is faithful".                                        with the -act .of faith of the believers as they actually
     To "hold fast" implies, first of all; that there" is a     walk in good works by faith and do "hold fast" to the
  subject, a personal, moral-rational being that is ad-         confession of the hope unwavering. For God is the.                '
  dressed. It implies a  subject, a  person, who'very really    subject, the Divine, infnite, all-wise, incomprehensible,
  is the subject, the doer of the act and activity of the       mlcreated  Subject; Who works true conversion in the
  holding on. The subject here says:  I must hold on,           elect, giving us the energy of love to our will by the
  I do hold on. This we would remark against all sinful         Holy Spirit and illumining the eyes of `our hearts ; but
  passivism, which is always tantamount to a refusal            we, by virtue of this inworking, very really are the
  to walk in the ways of the elect, a trifling with the `subject, be it then created, finite, yet we are very really         .
  grace of election.           - .                              the  subject that believes. To deny this difference in
     Secondly, .we would notice, that "holding fast" is         subject is the error of all mystic-pantheism, and, as I
not at a8 an act of the natural, fallen man. He never           see it, of ail "Existential-Theology". And, therefore,
  can will to "hold fast" to the confession of the hope,        the exhortation to us that we "hold fast" the confes-
  but he "holds .down" the truth in` unrighteousness.           sion of our hope means what the fathers confess so
  Compare Canons of Dort, III, IV, Art. 4, and Romans           succinctly, "Whereupon the will thus renewed, is not
  1:18-20.  Nor is this ever an act that the elect per-         only actuated and influenced by God, but in conse-
forms as he is "by nature"; it never rises from the             quence of this influence, becomes itself active. Where-
  sinful nature, from the flesh; In our flesh there dwells      fore also, man is himself rightly, said to believe and
 no more good than in the natural man. The "holding repent by virtue of tlLat grace r:eceivecl".  Canons III,
 fast" here spoken of in this text, even as in all similar      IV, Art. 12.                                           s
 passages, is only and solely an act of faith-in the faith         For this reason we repeat what we said at the close                 .
 `that has its energizing power in thelove of God, which        of our former article : "Must we hold fast to this great
  is shed abroad in the hearts of the elect-believer            preached confession of the hope?" and we answered
 through the Holy Spirit. It is the one believing, `who,        and do still answer with an emphatic: yes !- That -is
 while believing, holds fast to the confession of the un-       the very real intent of the exhortation "hold fast", such
 wavering hope. And this faith resides in the spiritual         is the stand of the Fathers of Dort and such as always,
center of% the elect, that is, in their hearts whence are       to the best of my knowledge, has been the stand of the
 all the issues of life. And this faith that thus resides       Protestant Reformed Churches in and off the pulpit.
 in the heart as` a concrete, actual -cheerful confidence       At least, thus I have preached during the sixteen years
and a certain knowledge is the instrument, the spirit-          of my ministry. And, let me add, I believe, that I have
 wrought $n&rurnent, that keeps us in communion with            promised thus to preach and so have all of our minis-
 Christ and all of His benefits, both present and future.       ters, when we signed the Formula of Subscription.
 Compare: Belgic` Confession, Art. 22. Such a hearty               Then must man do something? Must he do some:
 confidence and certain knowledge is not wrought in us          thing to be saved?  '


                                                                                                                                      \
                                                                                                                          .     -          _
                 if38                                   T H E   STANDAR,J   B E A R E R                    -
                  . I would remind ourselves that the believer.must  do          before they had done good or evil, surely to these also
                 something to taste and see that the Lord is good. He the admonitions and warnings are directed . They are'
                 must "walk in the faith", he must not trifle with the           seriously called unto faith and repentance : But these
                 grace of election, nor. refuse to walk in the ways of the       are'not promised peace of mind and eternal life. This
                 iled (Canons of Dort, I, Art. 13).                              promise is very particular. It is for thcce who are the
                     And `he does this by virtue of the grace of election 1      elect, who cry unto ,God day and night, as they con-.
                    `The question is : do the elect need this exhortation?       eretely and very actually .stand in the battle, battling
                 Is it not so that it is impossible for the elect to perish?     in the full armor of God, and as they constantly ne.cd
                 And then is it not true that no one is able to pluck            the courage of the battling warrior in their heart.
                 them (the elect) out of the hand of the Father? To              (Een. hart under den riem) . They must hold what
          .      ask this question is to answer it.                              they have, lest anyone take their crown.
                     The (question is not whether the dogmatic statement            The `elect receive this assurance in the battle. And
                 is true, that the elect never shall perish. That is truce.      this assurance is part of the. sealing that they very
                 There is no falling away of- saints! However we must really receive through the preaching of the gospel by
                 say more than this mere sententia : the elect Can..never the, working of the Holy Spirit. The "144,000" are
                 p'erish.  We must also say,:  why and how the  &&ii             indeed sealed, sealed also for`their own consciousness,
               keeps them from perishing. It is because the Lord our but this sealing takes place through the preaching of
                 God keeps His own elect not only in the battle, but he          the gospel, while they obey it. They thus make their
                 keeps them battling, fighting the good. fight, in the           calling. sure and. by making this calling sure ; walking,.
                 battle of life and faith. He keeps His own elect on             by virtue of God's grace, in the ways of the elect, they
                 their qui vive (on the alert) standing at their battle-         are very really sealed in time, making their election
                 post in life. And He does this by means of the preach-          certain.           (to. be oqntinued)
                 in,g of the Gospel, so that through the hearing, reading,                                            Geo. C. Lubbers.
                 and meditating on this Word, we are preserved in the
                 faith and walk of all the elect, even as we are also
                 kept in the power of God through faith "by the exhort-
                 ations, threatenings and promises of the Word". (Can-                              TI-IANKSGIVING
                 ons of Dort, V, $4).     .Y
                    And so the elect kept by this word and actuated                Thanks be to God for His wonderful love!
     -           by God to keep this Word by the grace of election, the            Praise ye His name for the gifts from above !
                 elect shall never perish. And being thus actuated the             Anthems of gladness peal forth on the breeze,
                 elect very really enter the kingdom as by. their net,             Echo His .greatness o'er `land and o'er sea.
                 their .d,eed of faith. The doer  in the believing is re-          Praise Him, ye sons of the blessed and good!
                                                                                   Praise Him, ye mountains, and valleys, and flood !
/                deemed man ; the Actu.ator, ,O  glory of God, is God
          a l o n e   !          - -                                              Praise Him, ye' daughters and children of-men !
                    And thus he keeps us supplied and well-fed from                Praise Him from hilltop and forest and glen!
                 the fountain of all saving-good, e-l-e-c-t-i-o-n ! From
                 this election "proceed faith, holiness, and other gifts           Thanks for the gift of His only dear Son !
                 of salvation, and finally eternal life itself, as its fruits     Thanks for His goodness life's journey to run!
                . and effects, ace&ding to the word of the Apostle,:. "He          Thanks for the summers and winters between !
                 hath chosen                                                       Thanks for the autumn and spring ever green !
                                  us  (not because we were) but that we
                 should be holy, and without blame, before him in love".           ,Thanks for the aid, and for winds, and .for &hT~! '
                 (Eph.  1:4).                                                      Thanks for the sun, and for the stars upon high!
                    And so there is indeed a place, in the:grace,of  elec-         Thanks for the moon, for the day and for night.
                 tion, also for the aclmon$tion to the elect. For admoni-        Thank Him for dew, and for rain, and for light !
                 tions and warnings are a part of the heavenly Father's
                 "nurture and admonition" to keep us, by grace, walk-              Praise His great name ! Let the nations adore ;
                 ing in the ways of the elect.                                     Redeemer and Saviour, God evermore ;                         =  .'
                    And to those who thus walk in the ways of the                  Enthroned with the angels, blessed above ! a -
                 elect God. also gives the blessecl a.s.swrawce of His prom-       Praise Him, 0 earth, for H.is wonderful love!
                 ised faithfulness. Surely those, who do not walk in               Praise Him, ye smallest and greatest of all!
                 the ways of the elect as yet (though they are elect).             Praise Him, ye kindred. that rise from the fall ! -~
                 as well as those who shall never walk in the ways of'             Praise Him, ye children of weakness and death !.
                the elect, since by the sovereign and inscrutable and              Praise Him, 0 praise Him{ all ye that have breath \
               unsearchably  wise will of God they were hated even                                Geo. D. Emerson-LMoo,cly Monthly.


